[Politics] Strike!

[Baker lite]

And you're a moron. You got all pissy about students doing their best to get on in life with your retarded remark, so I responded in kind because I'm past caring what thickies like you think.

[emoji1787][emoji1787]

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I'll pick you up on this one if I may ? My problem is the number of people I interview that say "well I've got a degree". I agree with you that is somewhat depends upon the subject and the job being applied for but I've had some bizarre degrees quoted at me - probably the history of pottery being the most bizarre. I'm not 'dissing' degrees but just think candidates shouldn't rely on them.

Those candidates, certainly

The correct repost to "you have no experience, you didn't have a shower this morning by the smell of you, and you have failed to answer any of the interview questions correctly" isn't "well, I've got a degree"

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Differ on both your points:
-- yes, there was a change in source of revenue, but it was accompanied by a 50% increase in tuition fees from £6k to £9k
-- revenues have increased in many (especially pre92) universities as a result of more attending. There has been a demographic dip affecting recruitment over the past five years or so, but that's now over, and universities are looking at record entry levels for the new academic year.

Due, where I work, for not adjusting the entry requirement in anticipation of grade inflation. Still, I think ours is now an A* and two As, so not much wriggle room to be fair....

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

THis is rife in my world of engineering. most of my seniors as an apprentice served full apprenticeships themselves and those who were directors had largely worked from the shop floor up. None of them had forgotten, none of them went to university. None of them illiterate. I don't recall there being a moron in the entire company.

The world has changed immeasurably in the last 60 years. Unis have been blanket sold to the point we have a largely talentless workforce.

the balance is all wrong.

I don't agree with that.

The workforce has always been over-represented in many areas by jobsworth, lickspittles and do-rights.

 

[beorhthelm]

Differ on both your points:
-- yes, there was a change in source of revenue, but it was accompanied by a 50% increase in tuition fees from £6k to £9k
-- revenues have increased in many (especially pre92) universities as a result of more attending. There has been a demographic dip affecting recruitment over the past five years or so, but that's now over, and universities are looking at record entry levels for the new academic year.

missing the point that the rise in fees offset the direct funding from government, which was the point of the exercise. stand to be corrected if they actually gained financialy from this. if they attract more students there will be (i hope) an increase in number of lecturers pro-rata. i concede again they probably need a good look at their business models if they are growing and unable to pay more to attract and retain staff.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

missing the point that the rise in fees offset the direct funding from government, which was the point of the exercise. stand to be corrected if they actually gained financialy from this. if they attract more students there will be (i hope) an increase in number of lecturers pro-rata. i concede again they probably need a good look at their business models if they are growing and unable to pay more to attract and retain staff.

At the last minute we appointed a load of teaching fellows (recent post docs) on temporary contracts, last October. The HEFC funded academics have increased teaching loads but are measured (for promotion and job retention) almost entirely on research grant income in the high end unis (the big 3 in London, Oxford, Cambridge, Bristol and a few others). Further down the pecking order there is little in the way of research grant income and the business model is entirely based on bums on seats. It has as much connection with a genuine market economy as the Trabant market in the old soviet union.

Our 'business model' is based on TEF and REF, and the whims of the chancellor. Monetizing academic research and degree teaching is an artificial load of old bollocks.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Heartwarming photo of happy strikers enjoying a knees up today.

And look who has joined them for jollity and jubilation!

 

[amexer]

Heartwarming photo of happy strikers enjoying a knees up today.

And look who has joined them for jollity and jubilation!

View attachment 145240

Hope he asked what they were striking for

 

[Machiavelli]

missing the point that the rise in fees offset the direct funding from government, which was the point of the exercise. stand to be corrected if they actually gained financialy from this. if they attract more students there will be (i hope) an increase in number of lecturers pro-rata. i concede again they probably need a good look at their business models if they are growing and unable to pay more to attract and retain staff.

I'm not missing the point. We're both on the same point, but you're operating with incorrect information. Prior to the tuition fee hike, students paid £3k and government £3k, courtesy of legislation introduced under New Labour. Following on from the Browne Review's attempt to introduce variable fees, the Coalition government (including the Lib Dems, who had campaigned on the abolition of tuition fees; on this, Nick Clegg has just been promoted) set a cap of £9k which, to repeat for the second time, was a 50% hike in fees, all going to universities (Vice-Chancellors were fulsome with praise for this). It transpired that just about every course charged the full amount.

 

[beorhthelm]

I'm not missing the point. We're both on the same point, but you're operating with incorrect information. Prior to the tuition fee hike, students paid £3k and government £3k, courtesy of legislation introduced under New Labour. Following on from the Browne Review's attempt to introduce variable fees, the Coalition government (including the Lib Dems, who had campaigned on the abolition of tuition fees; on this, Nick Clegg has just been promoted) set a cap of £9k which, to repeat for the second time, was a 50% hike in fees, all going to universities (Vice-Chancellors were fulsome with praise for this). It transpired that just about every course charged the full amount.

forgive me if i misunderstood, when you wrote they don't need to increase revenue as they got a 50% increase in revenue per student, i took that as a claim they got net increase of 50% and billions more to spend on salaries. i've lost track of the arguement. so lets give the lecturers whatever they ask, sure Uni's can find it somewhere.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

forgive me if i misunderstood, when you wrote they don't need to increase revenue as they got a 50% increase in revenue per student, i took that as a claim they got net increase of 50% and billions more to spend on salaries. i've lost track of the arguement. so lets give the lecturers whatever they ask, sure Uni's can find it somewhere.

I'm not sure what the UCU is are actually asking for.

If you look at the photo from yesterday that I posted you will see the UCU are mainly obsessed with the gender pay gap, the (newly emphasized) ethnic pay gap, and the erosion of pensions (which has little to do with the employer since the pension scheme was outsouced to someone like the Pru 25+ years ago) and a rather peevish demand for a step increase in pay for reasons that are common to every man and woman in the UK (inflation).

Below is from an email I received today (I still get them despite my resignation):

On Monday and Tuesday, all of you in the USS dispute will also be joined by everyone in Four Fights, and in total 68 universities will be on strike. We are battling against unmanageable workloads, pay inequality, and casualisation, and we are demanding a £2,500 pay increase for all staff. As inflation hits a 30-year high and energy bills soar (RPI has now reached 7.8%, CPI is at 5.5%), the pay 'offer' of 1.5% from Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) has become a sick joke. Last week, UCU became aware that UCEA issued a 'direct recommendation' to employers to implement up to 100% deductions for UCU members taking part in action short of a strike (ASOS). I know members will collectively stand up against this kind of bullying and intimidatory behaviour.

Sadly this is all easily disregarded. The strength of an argument is always inversely proportional to the sum of its compenent parts and, boy, our dispute has many many component parts. Rowland Emett himself would be proud of such.

 

[Randy McNob]

Ah yes.

My heart bleeds for the overworked lecturers on taxpayer subsidised final salary schemes which are running at a massive deficit. Discount rates are so wildly out of kilter with reality that it makes this dispute fatuous. And as for "real terms pay", I think you'll find nurses have suffered a bit there too. Difference is, they can't go on strike.

A real first world problem mired in 70s rhetoric

Good old race to the bottom.....didn't take long.....

 

[El Presidente]

It's been moving in the 'other' direction for decades. There are two distinct disputes here. The first is the USS pension one, which affects pre-92 universities. The other involves the 'Four Fights', with the most important fight in my view being the erosion in pay. Up until this year, real terms pay has declined by nearly 20%, and this year's offer will result in a further 4% fall.
It's a sign of where we are that [MENTION=1200]Harry Wilson's tackle[/MENTION] and all the other comrades piling in behind him regard the action to be such a terrible inconvenience. It's also interesting that everyone's piling in on the UCU, despite the fact that it's not the union that has trotted out derisory pay offers for the past decade but, instead, the employers organisation, the UCEA, who so many on here are keen to mobilise behind.
By the time many new staff reach retirement age, if this pay erosion continues at the trajectory over the past decade, they'll be on close to the Living Wage.

I was a member of UCU but left (as have 80%+ of my colleagues) because of the ‘strike first, negotiate later’ approach taken by UCU leadership, who seem to think dogma & rhetoric are the way to deal with issues on behalf of their members.

 

[Machiavelli]

I was a member of UCU but left (as have 80%+ of my colleagues) because of the ‘strike first, negotiate later’ approach taken by UCU leadership, who seem to think dogma & rhetoric are the way to deal with issues on behalf of their members.

I'm much more in favour of Action Short of Strike rather than strike activity and things are shrouded in the union's arcane structures as to why recent activity has been oriented towards the latter (although the former might be returning).
I broadly disagree that that is an approach that the leadership do -- or, more accurately, can -- take. In order to engage in a strike (or action short of), it is required that there is a ballot, which is a lengthy process, that over 50% of membership participate, and that there is considerable backing for activity. Note also that the UCEA have also put the UCU leadership in a position where they have to consider such activity on a regular basis, through their consistent real term pay decreases. My position is I don't think that's acceptable, but will only engage in action when there is significant enough backing for it from within the union.

 

[Lower West Stander]

Good old race to the bottom.....didn't take long.....

Why?

Or do you think a DB pension is the right of all?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I'm much more in favour of Action Short of Strike rather than strike activity and things are shrouded in the union's arcane structures as to why recent activity has been oriented towards the latter (although the former might be returning).
I broadly disagree that that is an approach that the leadership do -- or, more accurately, can -- take. In order to engage in a strike (or action short of), it is required that there is a ballot, which is a lengthy process, that over 50% of membership participate, and that there is considerable backing for activity. Note also that the UCEA have also put the UCU leadership in a position where they have to consider such activity on a regular basis, through their consistent real term pay decreases. My position is I don't think that's acceptable, but will only engage in action when there is significant enough backing for it from within the union.

It isn't just the union. There is a real problem of disengagement from the rest of the workforce. Only 10-15% of academic staff where I work are in the union. I was in it for 36 years and its presence on my campus was pitiful. We still have posters up on the union pinboard calling us to action 5 years ago, and the local rep is an SWP member. If you can't even curate you display board with up to date content, then what?

And there is a sense the UCU is not interested in the membership, just political campaigning.

They have totally destroyed themselves over the 'gender pay gap'. I have pointed out repeatedly that it is illegal to pay men and women the same for the same job, so what's the problem? If you average the pay of women and average the pay of men there is a difference, maybe up to 15%. The reason is there are more professors (on higher pay, which is not part of a pay sacle but is negotiated individually) who are male. This is partly due to a range of factors: (i) the historical drop out of women after having kids (ii) the resultant preponderance* of younger female lecturerers on lower pay by virtue of age and experience only (iii) the alleged more pushy attitude of male professors when negotiating personal salary increases albeit this is entirely speculative and based on a sexist view that women can't stick up for themselves.

The gender pay gap is not an issue employers can resolve - because it is not a real phenomenon. Indeed *all our new staff recruitments over the last 10 years have been women - because it is women, now, predominantly who are applying for lectureships.

However, instead, the UCU gives the impression that the gender pay gap is entirely due to discrimination against women. This is palpable nonsese in our sector - laughable in fact.

It isn't the tomfoolery, celebrating the union banner at the 'stop the war' marches (which I got removed when I got the jubilant email - with an apology - that's before the leader at the time was bounced out for being insufficiently Corbiny or antisemitic), it is the failure to create a calm narrative that sticks with one issue at time, the failure to avoid falling into ludicrous traps, unsustainable positions thay they then can't bring themselves to set down. The union is not working for its members and academic staff have long since voted with their feet.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I was a member of UCU but left (as have 80%+ of my colleagues) because of the ‘strike first, negotiate later’ approach taken by UCU leadership, who seem to think dogma & rhetoric are the way to deal with issues on behalf of their members.

The succinct version of my perspective.

 

[Baker lite]

Good old race to the bottom.....didn't take long.....

Is that what you said when you (sorry, your friend)was caught cuffing one out?

 

[beorhthelm]

They have totally destroyed themselves over the 'gender pay gap'. I have pointed out repeatedly that it is illegal to pay men and women the same for the same job, so what's the problem? If you average the pay of women and average the pay of men there is a difference, maybe up to 15%. The reason is there are more professors (on higher pay, which is not part of a pay sacle but is negotiated individually) who are male. This is partly due to a range of factors: (i) the historical drop out of women after having kids (ii) the resultant preponderance* of younger female lecturerers on lower pay by virtue of age and experience only (iii) the alleged more pushy attitude of male professors when negotiating personal salary increases albeit this is entirely speculative and based on a sexist view that women can't stick up for themselves.

isnt just lecturers, that frames the debate for any industry. on last point what's found is women will tend to negotiate non-salary conditions, i.e. shorter day instead. all pretty well known and studied by CIPD, but unions and Labour continue to use is a stick to beat business and organisations with.

 

[zefarelly]

The workforce has always been over-represented in many areas by jobsworth, lickspittles and do-rights.

I'd agree with that

I was referring specifically to middle ground or every day engineering, a generation or two of practical talented/experienced engineers have retired and or given up, no one left knows how to make and repair things properly. perhaps practically skill-less rather than talentless would have been a better phrase. . . . although there are a lot of ****nuckles out there.

At least outside niche specialized markets. Mechanisation and automation has overtaken a lot of it and the disintegration of manufacturing in this country has nailed the rest.