Weighing in on the AUT strike
(Brief background for non-Warwickers. The AUT are striking over pay deal dispute. I say 'strike', I mean 'action short of a strike', ie. refusing to set and mark exams. Our student's union is supporting them in this, against what would appear to be majority opinion)
I've commented on lots of other people's blogs about the AUT strike so figured I may as well put down my thoughts here in a separate entry. What I'm not going to be addressing here is the actual issue of who is in the right. Do the lecturers deserve such a rise? Are the university being reasonable or just tight bastards? It's a debate that could go on forever and has elsewhere. I'm not even going to comment on it – my problem lies not in the AUTs demands, but in their methods.
Y'see folks, the actions the AUT are taking is screwing students. This is a fact, there's no debate here: by refusing to set or mark exams the AUT are putting student's futures in jeopardy. You might think this is reasonable, you might think this is totally out of order (especially if you're a finalist with a classification condition job offer…) but you have to accept that this statement is true. The action hurts students. That's the whole point.
But the AUT have no battle with us. We're being used as a pawn. The AUT a picking us up like some big stick and hitting the university around the head with it, not caring if bits of the stick fall off or parts of it start to break. We're being used folks. There's no two ways about this either: the AUT are hurting us in the hope that we'll get riled enough to lash out at the university. It's an understandable tactic. A vaild one even. Sure, it sucks to be a student in this circumstance, but I can see the logic behind it. It's inherently flawed, but I'll come to that later. Let's assume for a minute in a little thought experiment that it's actually a good, workable tactic.
Fair play to you AUT–folks, I hate you for this but if it's the best method you can come up with to hurt the university and get what you want then, well played. This is a selfish world we live in and you have to do what you can to look after number one. It sucks but hey, life isn’t fair. What’s that Mr. AUT? How about we come and help you out and side with you against the University? Haha, that’s a funny one… What? You're serious? Are you out of your tiny fucking minds?
You see, this is what I have a problem with, that the AUT will take actions that hurt us, then act all shocked and offended when it turns out the response of the majority of students is “Fuck you then”. Here's an idea AUT – if you want our help writing and complaining to the university about your pay, why not try asking nicely first? The AUT are the equivalent of the bully that kicks the shit out you in the school playground, then when the teacher finds out points at another kid and shouts “It's not my fault Miss, he made me do it”. The sheer audacity of the AUT to expect that we’ll support their cause after they screw us is astounding, it shocks me to the core that supposedly the brightest minds in the country could be so fucking naïve. It's pretty simple guys: you don’t sleep with Bruce Banner’s girlfriend, and when he goes all Hulk on you say “hey, now I’ve got you angry, go beat up this guy for me”. You'd get splotted. Likewise the AUT can't endanger student’s futures then turn and around and go “Great, you're annoyed – now take it out on the University” without expecting at least some, if not most of, our ire to land back on them.
And that's what I hate about this strike. Not that they're doing it – that's just sadly the nature of the world these days – but that they think they're still entitled to our support, and that our Union are so out of touch that they're giving it to them.
Fortunatly in the latter case you can change this – there's an EGM on Monday June 5th in the Ramphal building at 7pm. You can vote to make the union's policy make more sense for you. Remember this isn't about whether lecturers deserve a raise or not. This is about drawing a line in the sand and telling the AUT "If you want our continued support, this is the line you will not cross". It's about not happilly rolling over and letting us be used by someone for thier own gain at our expense. It's about telling the AUT and the University to act like grown–ups and sort this out themselves, without getting us caught in the crossfire. And it's about standing up for student rights when the other two parties couldn't give a damn.
Dean Love
26 May 2006 20:31
| 
Tags: Union
| 
Comments (83)
| 
Report a problem
Loading…
83 comments by 9 or more people
[Skip to the latest comment]Benjamin Keates
Very, very well said sir. Absolutely spot on.
26 May 2006, 20:48
John
nicely put.
26 May 2006, 21:02
Of course, if the AUT tried to take any action that didn't affect students it would a) fail and b) gather no student interest whatsoever. But who cares, lets have a big cry about how unfair the lecturers are.
26 May 2006, 21:36
David Wood
If the lecturers are better paid you will get to keep the better lecturers and better lectures rather than the American system getting them by paying more. Doesn't that deserve at least some student support?
Personally I'm not in the AUT and am in two minds about the action, but you can surely see that a positive outcome is in your benefit too.
26 May 2006, 21:40
Dean Love
"Of course, if the AUT tried to take any action that didn't affect students it would a) fail and b) gather no student interest whatsoever."
Unlike this one that has been a resounding success, with the AUT getting the deal they wanted. No wait. The other one.
Student interest? I'd wager that less than 20 students have written to the university to complain. Why? Student apathy, too busy with exams, and too pissed off with the AUT.
"But you can surely see that a positive outcome is in your benefit too."
Absolutely, I can see the benefits of giving lecturers a raise. But this isn't the way to do it.
26 May 2006, 21:48
The EGM is going to be packed with final year students. I don't want to tar all of them with the same brush, but I am pretty sure a great deal of them have little or no interest in the future of university education, and are concerned solely with getting their degrees.
26 May 2006, 21:50
Dean Love
Yes Joe, stop the press! :
"Final year students selfishly vote against supporting AUT selfish action to get more money."
The AUT are clearly out for themselves and not giving two tugs of a dead dog's about the students, you can hardly blame the finalists from following in thier teachers footsteps and taking the selfish action that's best for them.
And again – I'm not saying the AUT arn't in the right here on the principle of the matter, just that this could have major repercussions for finalists and there's no way we should be supporting it. The AUT are just looking out for themselves, we students need to start acting in kind.
26 May 2006, 22:09
I don't think anyone wants academics to be taking industrial action, but if they are then it really isn't possible for them to take action which is both effective doesn't have any detrimental effect on students. If academics stoped doing research most people would never notice the effect, but that isn't to say there wouldn't be an effect; the point of university research is that it's origional – if it doesn't happen you can't say what would have happened. Universities would notice as contracts weren't fulfilled and their international standing dropped, but it could be months before they could tell if that impact was serious and if they had to respond. In those months, not only would some abstract search for human knowledge be damaged (which does have value in itself), but so would universities and the wider economy; as students benefit from expertise paid for by research and are members of wider society that would end up hurting students too. The hurt might be less scary and wouldn't impact so hard on small groups, but it would still be there.
As it is, the AUT and NATFHE have been pleading for pay increases to match those of other comparible professionals for years and they haven't got anywhere by taking occasional action that doesn't hurt anyone; there's a part of me that's amazed nothing has happened sooner (there was similar action a few years ago, but the unions settled fairly early). This year they asked for serious negotiations around the start of the academic year, but the universities didn't make a serious resonse and asked the unions to wait to negotiate until it would be too late to take action that effected teaching (and, as I've said, it would take months for action on research to produce sufficient noticable affects). Given the number of times the universities have done something similar in the past and then offered a below average pay increase, it isn't particuarly surprising that the unions weren't willing to wait; so, when serious talks weren't forthcoming after several months of asking, they took industrial action. They then got the talks and a pay offer which, whilst unacceptably low from the unions' point of view, was way better than what they'd been offered before. There have been more talks this week, these will continue next week and both sides seem fairly hopeful (so one can hope the EGM will prove unnecessary). With a situation where no serious talks before industial action turned into serious talks and an improved pay offer after industrial action, I'd say that action hadn't been a complete failure.
But that in itself doesn't explain why both our local and national students' unions took decisions to support in principal the actions of the AUT and NATFHE. I believe we supported the action for a number of reasons, not least of which is that having the best lecturers possible improves the educational experience provided by universities and is in the interests of the our members. Students' unions are also well aware that the universities' employers association could have avoided industrial action by undertaking serious negotiation earlier in the year, that they didn't is why the action happened and why putting pressure onto universities to undertake such negotiations is so important. The action was never going to end without negotiation and that couldn't happen until universities were prepared to talk.
Of course, whilst the examinations and assessment boycot is in effect the Students' Union has also been doing its best to minimise the effect on students in a lot of ways; however, the Students' Union could never have ended the boycot; that requires both sides to be willing to talk.
I've written a lot here, but there's a lot more I haven't said and a lot more that I don't know about. If you want to know more I suggest you read the papers put to the EGM (when produced) and, assuming things haven't been solved by then, come along to the meeting to properly hear both sides of the argument.
26 May 2006, 22:57
Nich, I certainly will come to the meeting, as I expect will many other people. I was intending to come to the Council meeting at which the university and AUT were invited to make statements; unfortunately I couldn't make it, but have since caught up with at least that much through the minutes of the meeting on the SU website. At the moment I have very little idea of how much of what I've been hearing is fact, how much is propaganda from one side or the other, and how much is rumour or speculation; for instance, one blogger said that the AUT had rejected the latest pay offer without consulting its members. Is this so? It might be that most lecturers would be happy with 12%, it might not, but they're not going to find out if they refuse to put it to the vote.
To a certain extent I actually sympathise with the SU, since in a way it's been caught between two fires: it's supposed to represent the interests of students in both the short and long term, and here what's best in the long term (retaining good lecturers) conflicts with what's best in the short term (making sure essays and exams are set and marked). I'd have thought it would have been best for the SU to remain neutral, especially since, as you say, its support for either side is little more than a token and is unlikely to affect either the outcome or the speed with which it is reached. As it is, with finals generally finishing earlier than first and second year exams, attendance at the EGM is likely to comprise mostly finalists, who will for obvious reasons tend to oppose the AUT action, while many first and second years – the ones who would be affected if the best lecturers left – will be otherwise occupied. My exams will still be in progress then, although I'm envisaging being sufficiently on top of things to be able to spare an hour or two to attend the meeting.
The points made by both Dean and Ben Keates remain valid, though: the AUT appears to be taking it for granted that students will support its action, and some of its suggestions, such as not turning up for an exam "on principle" because it's been set by someone who didn't teach the course, are nothing short of absurd. The SU and the university are both working to minimise the impact the action has on students (although the SU seemingly continues to insist that the situation is entirely the university's fault and refuses to countenance that the AUT might possibly have something to do with it), and the AUT are working to maximise it; how then can they expect our support?
Dave: I think that most students would acknowledge that the action has some justification, would prefer to keep the better lecturers, and might have supported the AUT if they'd accepted the 12% and agreed to return to work, but at the moment they're managing to give the impression, deserved or not, of deliberately dragging their heels in order to eke out another one or two percent (they're clearly never going to get 24%, and are just waving that figure around in the hope of upping the offer they do get), and that, along with the other reasons mentioned, is fast losing them any student friends they might once have had.
27 May 2006, 00:17
Dean Love
Michael, I agree with you that neutral position would be best for the SU – while I'm angry with AUT, spite is not a justifiable reason for it to support the university against them.
As you've pointed out, my anger is mostly directed towards the AUT rather than the university as the latter are doing what they can to help students at the moment, while the AUT are acting like mentalists with thier crazy 'don't attend the exam' stuff.
Nich – a very interesting point about the SU supporting the strike because of the long term benefits which I hadn't really considered, but unfortunatly it leads to a bit of a paradox:
Either the SU have no real power in forcing the Universities hand either way, in which case it makes no sense for them to hold anything other than a neutral position, or they do have such power, in which case they could have struck a deal with the AUT to support them only if they avoided actions with a major impact on students.
27 May 2006, 00:51
Nick Forrington
Without wanting to get too much into whether or not the action is justified, my initial reaction to the SU supporting was one of confusion. I don't understand why the SU would want to the support this – as Dean said, the AUT are damaging the students to get the university's attention – much like winning a war through inflicting massive civillian casualties.
With regards to the long term benefits of retaining the 'best' lecturers, I'd say that the best lecturers are probably the best in terms of research, as opposed to the best in terms of teaching. In general I'd have to say that I'm quite dissapointed with the effort made by lecturers in helping students to understand the material. Most of my modules involve the lecturer presenting difficult to understand slides (often not even their own), with the instruction that students should just read the course text book for material they don't understand, or material that wasn't even presented.
In conclusion then, the AUT definitely don't have my support
27 May 2006, 01:21
As these are national negotiations (and I think that whilst it's not in the interest of everyone for them to remain so it is in the interest of the majority of both universities and staff that they do) it's pretty clear that no individual students' union can have a dramatic influence on the outcome. However, given that our own Students' Union President has used her position to take actions which were widely reported in the national press, I think it's fairly clear that students' unions taking a stance can have some effect.
If you want to consider what stance to take from a pragmatic point of view consider the following: I think it's fairly clear that those who voted to take strike action will pretty much all have fully understood the negative effect of that action on students; if they felt it necessary to take that action anyway then student complaints were never going to change that. The universities on a national level want to make the smallest pay offer they can and one tactic to achieve that is to stall and hope support for industrial action within their staff dissipates – that tactic is very bad for student interests as it prolongs the action. As universities are dependant on public money and on student fees it becomes much harder for them to continue using stalling as a tactic if people blame them for doing so (and then start considering action against them). Because of that difference in suceptability to public pressure it makes sense from this pragmatic point of view to support the unions. The more pressure the universities are under, the sooner they would agree to negotiations (and the unions have always been willing to talk, although not to accept what the universities were saying); the sooner negotiations happened the sooner the dispute was likely to end.
Of course, that wasn't the only reason for taking the side of the unions, and most of us do feel they do have a very good case for better pay than was offered, but for those of you wanting students' unions to stay neutral, it's a good reason not to.
27 May 2006, 11:39
Nick Forrington
It's like a game of chicken, where both sides see who's willing to get the closest to screwing over all the finalists :–)
27 May 2006, 13:17
Andy
In my opinion one of the worst outcomes for students is an interim settlement package between the AUT and the Universities that will sort out the current crisis but do nothing to address underlying issues; if this is the case then we could be in this exact same situation next year.
The Students' Union's position is not in the best intrests of finalisists but I think it is for first and second years, resolving this crisis decisivly this year will ensure this kind of disruption dosen't occur for some time.
On the non–setting of exams, the NUS have always condemed this and I was under the impression that this wasn't officially sanctioned by the national AUT action, it certainly wasn't part of the package of messures I was oringinally informed of. It is obviously bloody stupid and is harming the AUTs cause.
27 May 2006, 14:31
Martin
Joe Sheperd, great moraliser and student representative of the AUT taking himself far too seriously: The goal, indeed purpose of most students is to leave University with a degree, not, as you may erroneously think, to support the causes of activist lecturers (or lecturing activists?), even if they are right/just/fair (which they are not, see Pro Vice–Chancellor letter – I think she is in a far better position than you to weigh the issue), nor even to assist in improving the long–term prospects of higher education in Britain.. This is no selfish goal, as you have previously stated. Rather, your concern about fair pay and self–centred students "whining about unfair lecturers" carries the malodorous smell of self–rightousness and irrational idealism.
27 May 2006, 15:05
John
haha yes indeed that seems to sum up the majority of his responses. Nice one.
27 May 2006, 16:40
Good to know we're resorting to personal attacks now :*)
So we agree that they couldn't give a toss about any future impact this might have on the education of other students? Good good.
27 May 2006, 19:42
Benjamin Keates
I'd like you to point out the sentence in comment 15 which suggests that. I can't see one, and the one you randomly quoted from it certainly didn't.
27 May 2006, 20:08
It was a petty jibe, as a response to a petty jibe, in an increasingly boring and repetitive debate.
Nothing I've seen yet from the anti–AUT brigade, however, has convinced me that they have any concerns about the state of higher education, beyond their own degree. The best I've seen has been along the lines of "yeah maybe they deserve a pay rise, but they should only take completely ineffective action, because I want my degree".
27 May 2006, 20:16
Benjamin Keates
Not ineffective action… just action which actually hurts the people intended, rather than not actually hurting them all that much (as we're seeing) and instead using – and having damaging effects on – a whole bunch of people who are nothing to do with it. I'd be a lot more sympathetic if we weren't being forced to be pawns in this debate.
27 May 2006, 20:21
Naomi Howell
It's a matter of priorities Joe. Yes we do care about the future impact, but right at this very moment when I am busy revising for exams and worried about getting a job in the future, getting a degree is more important to me. Why is OK for lecturers to be self–interested when we're deemed greedy and selfish for our own interests being important to us? It smacks of hypocracy.
27 May 2006, 20:22
Naomi Howell
*hypocrisy – apologies for bad typing there
27 May 2006, 20:25
Martin
Please distinguish between personal attack and criticism. I will try to be more sensitive this time.
Whether or not lecturers get paid a bit more or not will have a negligible impact on the future of education. In fact it is much easier to argue (please read Prof Bassnett's letter again – by the way, you have not presented any rational argument to counter her arguments) that the salary increases will put Universities into a financial squeeze, with a range of associated problems.
I do not think about deforestation every time I use toilet paper, my priority on those particulair occasions being to clean myself adequately. Likewise, whether or not lecturers get paid 3% or 9.3% more is irrelevant to me, but their strike actions are not. Obviously I have an undeveloped moral conscience.
(The implicit comparison between lecturers and toilet paper was completely unintentional.)
27 May 2006, 20:42
Sums it all up really
And vice versa? For the 100th time I'll make reference to the AUT's support of the movement against top–up fees as a sign that perhaps they do actually care about students. I can't see any instance where students have reciprocated this in any way (and no, I don't think that was why the AUT gave its support – after all, the current strike action would likely not be taking place if the AUT had accepted the deal presented to them at the time, in exchange for supporting the introduction of new fees.
bless
Eh? People have been making counterpoints to it all over the place, in the several topics that have sprung up discussing it.
27 May 2006, 20:54
I guess it's just some kind of amazing coincidence that many academics are leaving for other professions (taking the charming advice given by some students on here), as well as going abroad to lecture. People whinge enough about how bad their lecturers are already, without having yet more competent ones leave.
27 May 2006, 20:56
Jamie
Where? David Wood has been the only one to present a valid point of Universities competing for the best academic staff. But your point seems to be ideological more than anything else.
27 May 2006, 20:59
Benjamin Keates
Lecturers have jobs. They are being paid a living wage to do their job, and part of that job includes teaching students, setting exams and marking work. They are not doing that, and in not doing that they are potentially putting people's careers at risk. And they expect our support for it. They are being paid for something they're not doing (i.e. work.) We are PAYING for something we are not getting, and are being told to support it. Many of us don't wish to support something which is detrimental to us. We are, at times, being given advice to miss exams and get 0 for pieces of work and get a worse degree than we have paid for, just to make a point for the AUT. Are you still unable to work out why people are getting a tad upset, Joe?
Yes, of course the future of higher education concerns me. I'd like to think one day I'll have kids that'll be going through the same system. But at the moment, in the short term, I care about getting my degree. All this crap can be sorted out properly over the summer when I've got it. I don't give a stuff about anything else at the moment. That's not selfish, that's just common sense.
Sums all what up exactly?
27 May 2006, 21:07
Comment 8 here mentions the rise in the average age of academics, and the fact that some are leaving for better paying jobs. Funnily enough several anti–AUT types have used the "people don't go into academia for the wages" line. As with "if you don't like it, go find another job", I guess people are taking their advice.
27 May 2006, 21:09
Sorry?
27 May 2006, 21:10
Benjamin Keates
Joe, you're absolutely hilarious. If I didn't know from all your other comments that you were being serious, I'd think you were taking the piss.
I don't run a charity. I have paid (or rather, my parents have) good money for me to get this degree. I have, and want, nothing to do with this industrial action, I want my degree. If you go into a shop and buy something and then the checkout girl says "sorry, you can't have that now, we're taking industrial action which means we can scan things through and take your money but you can't take them home", what would you do? Shrug your shoulders and walk off out of pocket? Organise a protest outside the front of the shop on behalf of all those poor workers against the nasty employers, despite you having nothing to do with both?
It's correct that, having been through the higher education system, we should be concerned about its future. I've already said that. I am not some sort of social worker or politician. It is not my responsibility to get involved in this dispute for a group of people taking action which could have potentially hurt my prospects, and start trying to put the world of HE to rights. At the end of the day I am a paying customer, and I am not getting what I have paid for – and I sure as hell am not going to turn round and wave flags for the people causing it. No, it's not selfish. As I said, it's common sense.
27 May 2006, 21:22
Naomi Howell
Yes I would love to live in an ideal world where I could sacrifice my degree in an effort to support the lecturers e.g. as some lecturers suggested by not turning up to exams, but we don't live in such a world. I have to be able to get a good degree, get a good job, support my family and be able to pay back the 14 grand I've spent on coming here – hence why my degree is more important to me. This does not make me excessively selfish, just realistic. I can understand the lecturers wanting to look after their future – just as I want to make my job prospects as good as possible to better my future, they also want to make their futures more comfortable. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have better pay. However I do object to them expecting me to support them in this particular action when like many other people have said, we are being used as pawns. We're supposed to roll over happily and say 'Yes go on, hurt us' are we? Yes I know it's the most effective action but that doesn't mean I have to like it and give it my whole–hearted support.
It's like Dean's original entry said, whatever the rights or wrongs of the lecturers taking action are, they can't expect to have all our support if we're caught in the crossfire.
27 May 2006, 21:24
Sorry Ben, I was confused. I was having a lot of trouble translating "All this crap can be sorted out properly over the summer when I've got it. I don't give a stuff about anything else at the moment" into "That's not selfish", particularly as you've had a few nice rants about how selfish the AUT are for putting their own interests first. I still don't really understand how that works, but ah well.
27 May 2006, 21:28
Benjamin Keates
The difference is I am paying. The striking staff are being paid. I lose out, they will eventually gain.
Who's being selfish again?
27 May 2006, 21:31
Martin
No academics I know are leaving Britain because they are not being paid enough. Maybe it is a "humanities" problem. In fact many academics come to Britain for the opposite reason. Lecturers here are paid more than they would be in Germany for example!
Debating with people like Joe is pointless. His rebellious anti–reason, trotskyist tendencies and unshakable belief in his own logical constructs invites the following quotation (Karl Popper):
No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude.
This entire discussion has demonstrated how clear the majority view is. Joe: Go and celebrate your compromise pay rise victory with your AUT friends. Maybe you will become rational some day.
27 May 2006, 21:53
Dean Love
"Sorry Ben, I was confused. I was having a lot of trouble translating "All this crap can be sorted out properly over the summer when I've got it. I don't give a stuff about anything else at the moment" into "That's not selfish", particularly as you've had a few nice rants about how selfish the AUT are for putting their own interests first. I still don't really understand how that works, but ah well."
You fight selfishness with selfishness. The AUT clearly aren't concerned with our future and well–being. As such we simple can't afford to be concerned with thiers, else they'll walk all over us. Why is it okay for us to be selfish while criticising the AUT for the same thing? Because they started it. You wanted to know when the NUS supported the AUT like they did for us over top–up fees, well there's your answer – we supported them in previous industrial action such as 1–days strikes.
27 May 2006, 22:36
Not sure when I became a Trotskyist. I seem to remember voting Lib Dem last time around :/
Anyway, there isn't much point debating stuff with people like Martin, who spend most of the time chucking around allegations about other people's political beliefs.
Supported students in fight against top up fees, taught you for x amount of years so that you could get your degrees, lalala, yadayadayada. I give up.
But one last time, because it makes me titter:
28 May 2006, 01:25
Benjamin Keates
You say it as if they're doing us a favour. It's their job. Why should we owe the AUT anything?
I've already tried to re–iterate my reasons why I feel this way. No, it isn't selfish – it's a matter of principle. If you want to feel otherwise and go and kiss a few AUT arses because you feel like you owe them something, that's your problem – I don't really care what you do. You go and have a little celebratory drink with your AUT friends and feel like you've achieved something when the compromise settlement is eventually made; by then, I'll probably be half way to my ATPL, regardless of my degree classification. There's obviously little point trying to reason with you on this matter – I'm no psychologist and I am struggling to see how on earth you're coming up with some of the odd logic and assumptions (particularly about "selfishness") that you are, but I'm sure there must be some convoluted reasoning somewhere. Normally at this point I'd like to consider the matter closed and just agree to disagree, because obviously we're never going to agree. But do keep your replies coming – they are a wonderful source of amusement in the long dark tunnel that is the term 3 revision and exam period.
28 May 2006, 02:10
Adam
A quick question for Joe Shepherd: you seem to believe in what you say inspite of constant criticism and fair play to you for that. Being so strong of opinion, I take it you put your money where your mouth is and didn't take any of your exams this year? After all, it's selfish to put your degree ahead of other peoples' concerns right?
28 May 2006, 11:38
sam gleeb
joe shepherd shut your face, seeing as this is all about the money, let's just remind you that we're all paying a nice hefty little sum for our university education. Never mind all your wanabe smart comments.. 'sums it all up really'... there's nothing to sum up here. what kind of geek goes into university for any other reason other than to get a degree? my life isn't a charity. gimp. yeah, maybe people should be more open minded. you're so open minded, your brain's fallen out
28 May 2006, 20:52
David Wood
"let's just remind you that we're all paying a nice hefty little sum for our university education. "
Yes, and the WHOLE POINT is that none of this money you're paying is being put towards better pay for the people providing your education… as was promised… this is what the whole AUT action is about. In fact a large chunk of the money you're paying is going towards a hardhip fund for worse off students… that DOES sound like charity to me?
Open your mind?
28 May 2006, 21:13
Luke Parks
I don't understand all this melodrama about people's degrees being threatened: all the exams this year have been set and all the work will be marked at some point. At worst people's final degree classifications will be delayed unless, of course, this industrial action lasts another year (which I think is highly unlikely). My personal advice would be to do all your work and exams as though the strike weren't happening and you'll eventually get the degree you deserve. Beyond that, in my view, the AUT are using the only means open to them to make a point to their employers and they'll have my full support whatever the Union's position is. And for the record, I'm a finalist and could well graduate with an unclassified degree.
28 May 2006, 22:13
Benjamin Keates
Oh dear, oh dear. Despite the contempt I have for the AUT's action, I don't like to see debates being dragged downhill by people like this. Also, calling a lecturer "Cloth eyes" is probably not the brightest thing to do. Can we have this deleted, please?
28 May 2006, 22:40
John
I had an exam set where several questions were on topics not to do with our degree course. We were told 2 days before the exam that it was going to be set by some one other than our course lecturers, who had previously told us precisely the topics that would come up. So of course we revised 5 of those and guess what, for me anyway only a couple came up. This exam was worth 10% of my entire degree mark and 1/5 of this year's mark so I could well end up with a degree I don't deserve!
29 May 2006, 00:37
Precisely. Although exams being set by people outside the university is better than them not being set at all, it is far from being the ideal solution for these reasons. Although the university hasn't ground to a complete halt due to the action, the current situation for many students is far from satisfactory.
Dave – the University claims (link) that it will put substantially more than the originally promised third of the extra income into staff pay. That article was published less than three weeks ago; are they saying one thing on Insite and something completely different to the AUT representatives?
Sam gleeb – I'd imagine (and hope) that not many people share your attitude; surely if you're paying such a "nice hefty little sum", you should be a bit more concerned about where it's going? It's a shame, given that most of the people who've been debating this subject on blogs have, regardless of their opinions on the matter, managed to express them and respond to other people's in a rational and sensible manner, that we have to have one person whose idea of a meaningful contribution to the discussion is to ignore the reasonable arguments previously expressed, and jump in with a few pointless and baseless insults.
29 May 2006, 01:48
Dean Love
Ben – I'm leaving the comment as I think given the high standard of discussion from most of the people here, Mr Gleeb's comment makes clear his own idiocy.
29 May 2006, 02:00
David Wood
"the University claims (link) that it will put substantially more than the originally promised third of the extra income into staff pay. That article was published less than three weeks ago; are they saying one thing on Insite and something completely different to the AUT representatives?"
I am sure that both sides are fiddling the figures to their advantage, and the truth is somewhere in between.. but in any case the current AUT dispute is a national one, and so what Warwick is doing locally is not a factor in the strike action (in fact recent negotiations with the local AUT on an unrelated pay and grading issue seemed to pass off with very little conflict).
29 May 2006, 09:50
There's been a great deal of ill–informed talk in these discussions, but Luke – congratulations, you take the biscuit for me with your short–sighted, uncaring and ultimately ignorant comment:
1. We've paid to be here. We've paid to be here to get education and get a degree. We're paying to get a degree within a certain timeframe, which now looks certain to be blown into the water. We're not getting a degree within that timeframe (don't give me all the crap about unclassified honours, it won't be worth the paper it's written on). Thus we're being short–changed.
2. Consider two people applying for a job; one has a degree, one has an unclassified honours and can't prove when they'll be provided with their full degree. Surely the person with the degree is at a substantial advantage? Nobody dare come back with "but you'll be able to prove you've got a 3rd/2.ii/2.i/1st, and that the university won't drop that grade at a later date' – whoop dee doo if you've got 70% of your marks. I don't have 70% of my marks, so all a prospective employer knows is that I've been to university and done some kind of work. Even if I did have those marks, what if I flunked the 2nd year but stormed the 3rd? All I have is a (pseudo) 2.2 which I can argue will later be upgraded – but the employer doesn't have to believe me.
3. The assumption also seems to be that graduate employers will readily accept all the troubles we've been through and hug us close to their warm bosoms.
My potential employer, on hearing the fact I'm not actually going to graduate:
That was 2 weeks ago. Wow, how secure do I feel? Go AUT/NATFHE, I'm with you all the way.
4. Exams are a stressful time – like it or not, for a lot of students the stress of not knowing whether their work is going to be marked or not will affect their performance. I don't feel it's affected me in any way, I'm sure a lot of people here don't either. But I know some people who are genuinely distressed by what's going on, making the outcome even more unfair for them.
5. The union rhetoric is gradually emerging in more strident tones, but markedly in tones far less sympathetic to student feeling. I draw your attention to link
Allow me to quote:
I'm certainly going to learn from this if I ever get a job (note the if in there) - I'll go in, sit down, demand a 20% pay rise and (when my completely realistic demands are surprisingly turned down) I'll go on action-short-of-a-strike (TM); this needn't be taxing, no need to man the picket lines or lose salary. I'll simply refuse to do the boring mundane crap I've always hated anyway (exam marking, that's so secondary school teacher...I'm a lecturer damnit) and continue to get paid. What? They're docking my pay for refusing to meet contractual obligations? Wait a minute...I'm not on a full strike, they can't do that! Up the Angry rhetoric o'mometer to level 6! I shall not back down! The employer is in the wrong, et cetera, et cetera. Would have been nice for the kind union to mention the effect of their escalation on students in there somewhere
sigh6. Fortunately I've not been affected by this particular issue, but a number of people have already pointed out that their exams have been subject to last minute changes. Surely you can understand some of the 'melodrama', as you so flippantly call genuine concerns, in these cases?
29 May 2006, 10:00
How does point 2/3 square up with the Association of Graduate Employers' Guidance to Employers
How does point 5 square up with the 100% pay deduction that Northumbria University is threatening?
29 May 2006, 22:04
One university has already enforced that: link
29 May 2006, 22:24
Matthew
Funny that Scott should think that examining is associated with school teachers. In fact, since the Union–Govt workload agreement of 2003, school teachers are not required to either set, invigilate or mark examinations. Exams are set and marked by exam boards, and are invigilated by admin staff. In contrast, teachers in higher education are expected to do all three.
29 May 2006, 22:47
Benjamin Keates
"Funny that Scott should think that examining is associated with school teachers. In fact, since the Union–Govt workload agreement of 2003, school teachers are not required to either set, invigilate or mark examinations."
Try telling that to my mum, who every December and May has to mark Year 7, 8, 9 and 10 exam scripts, plus mock GCSEs and RSA exams. Schools set their own internal exams as well, it doesn't have to be just external ones. And it's bloody hard work.
29 May 2006, 22:52
Matthew
Well, internal exams are formative — they are used as part of the teaching process. Obviously you have to mark them if you're going to be able to use them to help you better focus your teaching. Summative assessment, on the other hand, plays no part in the teaching process. School teachers are no longer required to do it, higher education teachers are.
29 May 2006, 23:14
Colin Paterson
It's an interesting comparison, would a similar situation be happening if this was happening at secondary school level? I'd suggest not because the government would have got involved quickly as it would be one of the players rather than being able to sit on the sidelines in this case, I'd think that the secondary teaching unions actually care about students rather than having other aspects to concern themselves with like research and you wouldn't have representatives of student giving creadance to action that was detrimental to students.
I'm starting to love the fact that everyone at a local level seems to use the excuse that it's a "national dispute" but everyone nationally doesn't seem to be personally involved enough to give a damm at the present to seek a speedy resolution.
I love that attitude, I wish I could say "well all my revision has been done but is it ok if I can do the exam when it suits me?" or how about "your pay cheque has been written and you'll get it at some point…"
29 May 2006, 23:25
Luke Parks
Okay, I apologise for the indelicate phraseology, but my general point still stands; in the vast majority of cases, the only immediate affect this will have on Warwick students is that they might not get a degree classification immediately. Where there have been externally set exams which have included material which wasn't covered, I'd advise people to notify their department of the fact, and they may well find that the fact gets taken into account when arriving at the final classification. More generally, the best thing to do, if it's possible, is to put the industrial action to the back of your mind and approach exams and assessments as you normally would (I know that that's a terrible cliche and doubtless the product of my appalling leftydom, but ultimately probably the best approach to take). More generally, I don't think that steaming anger at either side in this dispute is going to resolve anything; it's a horrible situation to be in, but ultimately there's not very much we can do to influence the situation; however, in my view, what we as students can do is try to ensure a speedy resolution by not encouraging the university to dig in because they think that ultimately the unions will cave (which, incidentally, would probably result in a fairly poisonous atmosphere surrounding industrial relations for a number of years to come).
30 May 2006, 00:19
Benjamin Keates
So Luke, what's your opinion of lecturers who tell their students to consider not turning up to examinations? Do you think that's acceptable?
30 May 2006, 00:37
Responses, in no particular order:
Luke: lol @ the 'appalling leftyism' remark. A lot of what you say makes sense, and I'm sure that I've somehow ended up coming across as completely against the strikes; this is probably due to anger and general hangover clouding my first post. The lecturers have a good case and clearly neither side is whiter than white – I just found myself irritated by the 'melodrama' comment and went off on a bit of a rant.
George:
Points 2/3 square up quite simply: guidance is purely that, guidance; it cannot be enforced, and there will clearly be cases in which it will not be followed. This is particularly true in the case of SME's – large graduate employers (broadly speaking) can afford to take the 'gamble', if you will, of employing someone with dubious academic qualifications. Small companies will be less willing to do so, and I maintain that someone with a proven degree is in an advantageous position, particularly – as I've already said – in the case of someone depending upon final year marks to boost their degree classification. Yes, there's the potential for classifications to be upgraded at a later date, etc, etc, but I don't believe people should be put in a position where they're forced to defend a grade that is not reflective of what they will finally achieve. And this isn't personal angst clouding my better judgement (so I suppose I've no excuse if you disagree with me), I've got my middle of the road, unexceptional 2.i to sit back on – but I know people who really will be affected by the delay in the assessment of final year marks due to personal issues, etc they had to endure in their 2nd year. Is it not unfair that these problems will now continue to haunt them as they search for work?
Point 5 is taken (broadly), 100% is excessive; on the other hand, the NATFHE stance does not seem to be a response to a few isolated cases, but rather to the general principle of docking pay for failure to mark work – surely you're not suggesting that any docking of pay is unacceptable or illogical? As I understand it Warwick is docking 10% – is this unreasonable? Someone else suggested somewhere that a lot of this is brinkmanship prior to a merger between the AUT and NATFHE, with both fighting for supremacy in order to dominate the institution that follows. IF this is the case then the actions of the union seem less about taking a moral stance and more about screaming angry rhetoric at the top of their lungs.
Matthew: You're quite correct, and perhaps my point was not as clear as I wished it to be. It was based on the policy of my Department, which is to hand formative work out to PhD students and the like for marking wherever possible (and this isn't a slight on the PhD students who've taught me, many of them have been great teachers) – in essence several of my lecturers will (and I'll qualify this with 'as far as I'm aware') mark just one piece of work from me this year, a 3 hour exam. Even in modules marked exclusively by the lecturer throughout the year, the module requirement is typically one formative essay of around 1,500–2,000 words and a summative exam at the end of the year. I don't wish to dimiss the burden this creates, but it can hardly be compared to the exam workload of your average secondary school teacher, irrespective of whether or not the work being marked is formative or summative. I very much doubt that my lecturers will be swamped with the intellectual depth of the work being marked…4 45–minute essays under exam conditions are never really going to be Nietzsche are they? :) But that could just be me.
30 May 2006, 11:37
As an aside, can anyone explain to me why lecturers are not boycotting research work? I appreciate that the impact would be less immediate, but surely it would ultimately be more far–reaching? The next RAE exercise will determine a massive chunk of the University's funding for a good few years (and as I understand it these funds will eclipse the revenues provided by top–up fees). I refuse to believe that the senior management would be ignorant to the threat such a boycott would pose. A few people seem to have mentioned it in passing, but there doesn't seem to have been a firm argument against the idea.
This isn't a "they shouldn't be refusing to mark work, they should be doing xxx" argument – I'm just genuinely interested as to why research has been ignored as a course of action.
30 May 2006, 11:41
MW at UEA
Trouble is, it's the only thing in the high street and we're really sodding hungry. We NEED that degree, even though it's soulless and soul–destroying, because without it we can't get a job that might be a bit more inspiring than the last three years have been. The Unis know that. So no, we can't stop paying, or we won't get our degree. We can't stop writing essays and sitting exams, or we don't get our degree. So we do the essays, and sit the exams, and bend over the desk for the Uni, and we don't get our deg…hey, hey HEY!!!!!!!!!!!!! What??? Oh yeah, that’s it, we're screwed.
Can't go to another Uni either, because I don't know about you guys but I couldn't afford to re–sit even one year more than my allotted three – especially now if I were to start again it would be on the lovely new payment scheme of THREE THOUSAND POUNDS A YEAR (oh god). Even if I could, no guarantee this won't happen again, because unis always have a turnover of staff and just because they don't have any AUT trouble this year doesn't mean they won't the next, because (although I'm not completely sure about this) I'm sure there's some kind of rule about discriminating on employment on the basis of someone's union affiliations.
So yeah, the AUT or some of their members MAY be losing SOME money for their action. But they've decided the principle is worth that loss, and all power to them; that's their right. The Universities may be suffering some serious embarrassment and sleepless nights about how this will all resolve itself, but they have decided that if they put up with it long enough, they will end up better off. Balls of steel, guys, gotta hand it to you. But the students? we're screwed. Can't act against the Uni, they have the keys to the kingdom. Can't act against the AUT, what can we possibly do to lean on them that the unis aren't already doing? Not go to the exams they aren't marking? Picket the offices they aren't in? Plus of course our own Union is in support of the strike against all common sense – the Union of students is not there to defend greater principles of Higher Education generally, it is there to defend the interests of STUDENTS. There is no logical way the current situation could be construed as 'in our interests'. Even if they were to pull their heads out of the sloganeering, overly–idealistic arses for five minutes and BE on our side, what are they capable of DOING? Organising 'action–short–of–strike', touted as 'the only effective means' of getting what you want? Except the whole thing is, we want to be working. We're PAYING to be working, 'student' being a description of occupation on most official forms I've seen. Striking does not serve our interests.
So basically we're powerless, helpless and furious. I don't blame students who genuinely think we can make a difference by backing the AUT, or backing the Union, or backing the Universities even (strangely few voices for that bandwagon, but I'm sure they're out there). It would be nice right now to be on anyone's side but our own, so I can understand the appeal. Just remember for the more unfortunately clear–sighted amongst us, there is no victory to be had. We can only wait and see what the powers that be decide we get when they've finished squabbling for the biggest piece of the pie.
Sucks, huh.
30 May 2006, 12:45
MW at UEA
Hello all, just procrastinated for a happy half–hour reading all these comments – God it's good to see debate going on at at least one Uni! I'm currently going through the same AUT strike–that–is–not–a–strike at my own uni, and am having a very hard time keeping my cool about it. Not on selfish grounds, incidentally – I am only in second year so my exams and coursework will (hopefully!) be marked in time for me to graduate (plus I don't think I did so fantastically this year, so the longer I can put it off the better :P). What ANNOYS me is the fact that the ONLY people losing out on this INVOLUNTARILY are the students, and moreover we are the ONLY people with no recourse.
I appreciate the arguments that the AUT make; they should get paid more. God knows the degrees are costing more and more each year, so why shouldn't some of that money make its way down from the top to the people on the ground? So they strike (or whatever they are calling it these days when they, ooh, stop working). But then the University should, surely, say 'oh shit, this means our students can't graduate as promised, better cough up quick or….errr…' and there it all falls down, you see.
Students have NO POWER OVER THEIR UNIVERSITY. Everyone who rants on about 'we've paid for our degree, it’s a product and we're not getting serviced' etc sound exactly like me in my more cynical moments, but there used to be a time when academia had a different purpose, and a different status. When (gasp) it was not necessarily essential to have a degree to get a job in ANYTHING other than a supermarket; when it was not necessarily an investment in your financial future but an investigative adventure. But over the last decade or so the government has been so obSESSED with the entire country going through Higher Education, whilst at the same time turning it into a product delivered at ever–increasing price to the consumer for ever–reduced nutritional substance (at my Uni, the arts departments have just been 'overhauled' to make them more 'efficient' – to whom, precisely? – meaning in my third year I will have two hours actual contact time per week and only four units for the whole term – I don't even want to do the maths to work out how much every lecture is costing me). Taking away grants was the first step, and then the plethora of mickey degrees and the general lowering of standards for acceptance onto courses have finished the job.
[TBC, haven't enjoyed a rant this much in ages – verboseness rules!]
30 May 2006, 12:47
MW at UEA
Hee hee, put my two halves of over–wordy rant in the wrong way round – now I look sillier than ever!
30 May 2006, 12:48
Dean Love
"As an aside, can anyone explain to me why lecturers are not boycotting research work? I appreciate that the impact would be less immediate, but surely it would ultimately be more far–reaching?"
Because it's just as effective but on a longer term basis, but the difference is doing so could be extremely damaging to a lecturer's career. By taking the 'no marking exams' approach they won't hurt thier career at all, just the future careers of thier students. As much as I'd still hate them for it, I'd have a lot more respect for the AUT if they boycotted reasearch aswell as marking. It woukd say that they're taking this action over pay so seriously, that it is so important, that they're willing to risk thier career on it. That they're not willing to do that too shows that they're not that commited to the cause, and shows it up as the money grabbing exercise that it is. This whole 'action short of a strike' thing is a way of inflicting damage on the university (and collaterally, the students), without adversely effecting them. If it's that important to you, go on a proper strike already.
30 May 2006, 13:01
Luke Parks
They can say it if they like but they shouldn't be surprised if no one takes any notice. Even I, union–loving lefty that I am, would balk at that.
This wouldn't really have the desired affect. It would mean that the dispute would probably hang around for months if not years, it'd mean that we got increasingly inferior teaching as our lecturers got increasingly rusty on the practical aspects of their work, and it probably wouldn't affect the RAE very much because it's such an abominably complex exercise that the universities could very easily juggle things such that it didn't make any difference to it. The problem is that this action wouldn't affect the university itself in any meaningful way (at least not until it had already had a bad effect on students) and wouldn't put it under the kind of pressure that's needed in order to resolve disputes like this. The sad fact of the matter is that the only way for this dispute to be resolved is for one side or the other to buckle under pressure, and for that to happen a lot of pressure needs to be applied first, and we're caught in the crossfire either way.
It's poor tactics; the university is docking 20% of the pay of everyone boycotting assessments, and asking them to declare whether they're doing so. The entirely predictable result of this is that no one actually knows which academic staff will be taking part in the action.
In the short term that would be worse for students as it would mean the cancellation of whole swathes of teaching.
30 May 2006, 14:25
Luke,
The comments are appreciated (like Dean my automatic response was to assume that the course of action has been avoided due to the likely impact on career, so anything that explores new ideas is worthwhile) – but I can't believe that:
a) the University wouldn't suffer – I note that you call the RAE an "abominably complex exercise" yet in the same breath suggest that the University would find it easy to rejig their entire RAE strategy. The fact that the RAE is due in 2008 would, I accept, lead to a much more long–term 'simmering' pay dispute, rather than the kind of boil–in–a–bag approach we are witnessing at the moment, but it might also allow some much–needed breathing room. Of course, such a long–term approach tends to play into the hands of the employer rather than the employees, but it wouldn't preclude further strike action should the AUT/NATFHE find the deal offered completely unacceptable (and by strike I do mean strike).
b) there would be a discernable affect on undergraduate teaching, since lecturers could continue to do research, they just wouldn't publish (I accept that they could conceivably miss out on the benefits of peer reviewing, etc – but I'm sure that work could still be distributed to garner opinions). At least in refusing to publish research lecturers would be placing a more 'direct' argument against the University, rather than playing piggy–in–the–middle with finalists.
As to the docking of pay, presumably the University would severely reprimand (if not punish) staff who fail to declare that they are taking part in the 'action short of a strike'? In fact, if your employer has specifically set down pay instructions regarding pay wouldn't lying (which you are, in effect, doing if you do not return a form saying "I'm on action short of a strike") constitute an effort to defraud your employer of money? I'm not a law student, but it strikes me that there would be serious legal implications here.
In any case, the most obvious indicator of a lecturer's participation would surely be his/her refusal to provide examination marks to the various boards as and when requested? If this is the case it doesn't seem a Herculian task to deduce who is participating, and to check the paper trail to ensure that those staff have correctly declared their intentions?
But not being a member of academic staff I don't know – this could be a complete over–simplification of the process.
30 May 2006, 15:29
Luke Parks
Scott, the thing with the RAE is that it is only based on certain academic staff and the university can choose who is assessed; thus, if there's someone on a research boycott, they'll simply submit someone else. It would also involve a poisonous atmosphere hanging around the university for years which wouldn't be to anyone's benefit.
Re. the issue of pay deductions, I don't know whether the university would have a case for legal action, but even if they did it would be very foolish indeed to take such action. More generally, the thing with the university not knowing who is taking action is that they can't provide more accurate information to their students. Pretty much all the exams in the main part of the university were already set before the boycott started so the university doesn't actually know who will be marking exams and who won't.
30 May 2006, 18:06
Benjamin Keates
Why?
30 May 2006, 18:09
Luke Parks
The affect on industrial relations.
30 May 2006, 18:30
Benjamin Keates
So basically, staff have broken the rules by going on strike and not declaring they're taking industrial action and therefore are simply not doing the work they're being paid to do – is that not essentially fraud? Pretending you're doing something to obtain money when you're not? Why SHOULDN'T the University have some claim on this money they've wrongly had to pay out to these people? Never mind the effect on industrial relations. If members of the AUT are going to take this action in the first place, they should do it by the book and not in a dodgy, underhand way. If there is any knock–on effect on industrial relations between the two, it's entirely the fault of the AUT's members for not following protocol. The university, on the other hand, has not done anything wrong and is totally correct to dock the pay of people on strike and totally correct to sue those who have been pretending they've been working when they haven't really.
30 May 2006, 20:10
Luke Parks
Benjamin, you seem to be missing the point that whether the university would be correct or not, pursuing legal action in that way would not be conducive to positive industrial relations in future and would probably make it hard to attract good staff. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should, and action such as that you advocate would be reckless and foolhardy on the part of the university and would be a blight on the place for years to come. Anyway, as far as I know, there are certain protections in place for workers engaged in industrial action so I suspect that any action the university did take would be restricted and would possibly be limited to actions against each individual academic to recover the 20% of their salary the university is docking. I very much doubt it counts as fraud. The industrial action is certainly legal because the decision was duly taken by the proceedures laid down, and as such all talk of legal action is probably academic.
30 May 2006, 20:30
So taking legal action against staff who had falsely claimed to have been working, or at least done their best to avoid revealing the fact that they were not, is not conducive to positive relations – but the staff doing so in the first place is? I can't see that trying to swindle your employer is going to stand you in a very good light when you next ask for a pay rise.
Has everyone seen the AUT posters? It's quite a laugh really, they can't even punctuate properly.
30 May 2006, 21:56
Luke Parks
To be honest, anyone using words like 'swindle' and 'fraud' is probably a good target for a defamation action if we're talking court here. There is a difference between 'pretending to be working' and 'refusing to submit to a 20% garnish on your wages.' But beyond that, whatever people think of the dispute, it won't be solved by the bluster and brinksmanship involved in bringing legal action against staff members engaging in lawful industrial action. And if, as I presume, what we all want is a resolution to the dispute, legal action won't work at all.
30 May 2006, 23:21
In what way does claiming pay for work you haven't done not constitute swindling? It's trying to make sure the employer keeps their half of the contract without the staff keeping theirs. The employer may choose not to take action against the staff, but the staff still haven't much cause for complaint against anyone suggesting that their actions are deceitful.
31 May 2006, 07:34
I'm reasonably sure that the bulk of this legislation applies to workers who are on strike. You can't take action short of a strike and then experience the full power of protective legislation.
I accept, however, that legal action would probably be counter–productive, and since we don't even know if any rules have been broken (logically it seems to me they have, but as I said, I'm not a law student) it's a bit of a mute point. At any rate my question about the legal implications was precisely that – a question. I hardly see that anyone here is involved in defamation in any way. With that said the very last way I want to end this thus–far forgettable term is with a legal suit, so I'll leave it there :)
I find this slightly unbelievable – without wishing to open myself to further claims of libel (or is it slander in print?) I'm sure that not all academics are created equal. All you need are a couple of departments with big–name researchers who are on (action short of a) strike and the University might have trouble finding work of equal quality. Remember that the University must do more than merely 'succeed' in the RAE, it must actively excel to receive the funding it requires. If the staff on (asofa) strike are so easily dispensed with in such a large funding exercise, why is it that they're so deserving of such a large pay rise*?
I've dragged this discussion horribly off–topic…apologies.
(*) This is a rhetorical (and somewhat facetious) question – I'm fully aware of why they deserve more, etc, etc so please nobody jump on the statistics bandwagon – I'm just pointing out the inherent tension in your comment
31 May 2006, 10:08
Christopher Doidge
You might be interested to know how many people are actually having their wages deducted…
"between 6 and 8" I'm reliably informed.
31 May 2006, 12:11
Luke Parks
Whether you think they'd be justified or not, the complaints would be made, and the university's industrial relations would be severely strained.
It would be an appropriate way to round it off though. ;)
If they're big name researchers, they'll probably have sufficient work already published. Anyway, it's likely only to be the difference between a 5 and a 5* (or equivalent in the new RAE which will use different methods of reporting). The action short of strike would have to run for a number of years in order to have any effect on the RAE and it's probably already too late as I suspect that most papers for the rest of this calendar year have already been submitted for publication.
31 May 2006, 12:18
Hamid Sirhan
Let's clear things up a bit.
The Lecturers' moves are selfish. I don't see how it can be debated. But I believe that it is justifiably selfish.
Those students who are crying "Well I didn't come here to cry over underpaid lecturers, I came here for a degree" are being selfish. It's understandable, but also somewhat unjustifiably selfish.
If you want to pay the best for a school education – you'll be paying anywhere from 7,000–17,000 pounds a year. Yet we get to what's really important and people don't want to pay up to 3,000 for the best, per year. This is understandable – we want the best for the lowest prices. But don't be surprised when teachers and lecturers who also want better for themselves and don't want to stagnate, be outpaid by their spouses, put in a large number of working hours for low pay and be forced into a restrictive pastoral and fiduciary relationship with students who more often than not don't appreciate their educational privileges, might actually force the issue of a pay–rise.
If you're here to get a degree and nothing else, then why should it be wrong for lecturers to be here for a reasonable salary and nothing else? At the end of the day, as long as you pass, you'll get your degree. The lecturers are not yet paid a reasonable salary and if they interrupt your life – oops. Live with it.
03 Jun 2006, 15:36
Christopher Doidge
It's not a matter of 'live with it'. It's very easy for someone who's not graduating this year to say such a thing.
It's about trying to balance long–term and short–term priorities. In the long term, lecturers should be paid more. In the short term, they shouldn't do that by harming students. There's a middle–ground which the left–wing rhetoric of both the AUT and the Students Union is happy to ignore.
05 Jun 2006, 11:06
The SU and AUT apparently expect the universities to wave a magic wand and conjure up a few million that wasn't there before in order to meet their demands. The EGM policy, which effectively says that only one side in this dispute is capable of bringing an end to it, and that that side is deliberately avoiding doing so, is a piece of propaganda Goebbels would have been proud of.
05 Jun 2006, 12:01
Hamid Sirhan
"t's not a matter of 'live with it'. It's very easy for someone who's not graduating this year to say such a thing."
I've graduated, this is true. But someone's going to have to mark my MA exams…
"In the short term, they shouldn't do that by harming students. There's a middle–ground which the left–wing rhetoric of both the AUT and the Students Union is happy to ignore."
The 'middle ground' seems to be that the Lecturers should firmly grasp their ankles and beg for more. The point is the lecturers have been trying the middle ground. It clearly hasn't work. Therefore more extreme measures are necessary. Don't want to live with it? Read the documents you might have signed before coming into Uni, check with the Union Execs about your legal position and consider further options against the University.
05 Jun 2006, 14:17
Dean Love
Have posted a bit of a follow up article here: link
Hamid, the Lecturers alse signed documents before starting work here agreeing to certain levels of pay
05 Jun 2006, 15:53
Michael Jones said,
The current demand from UCU (merged from AUT and NATFHE) asks for a double figure increase over two years, UCEA (the universities negotiating body) have offered over 10% after two years; they've offered the money. The only real sticking block now is that UCU want an independant investigation into how much the universities can really afford to spend. That kind of investigation could remove the chance of strikes at the end of those two years – something very much in the interests of first years here.
05 Jun 2006, 16:21
Sounds like some progress anyway, if the unions have climbed down from the 23% they were demanding. I'd imagine that the universities would be more willing to agree to such an investigation than to an increased offer – if, as they claim, they can't afford more than 12–13%, then they've got nothing to worry about from an investigation, but the more they try to avoid agreeing to it the more likely they'll be to arouse suspicion that they're hiding something. How likely are they to find a body to conduct an investigation, which both sides agree is independent?
05 Jun 2006, 17:25
Kevin
Hi I'm a researcher so not involved in setting exams but I am an AUT member and supportive of ASOS. I stumbled across these posts looking to see how the Warwick SU EGM went yesterday. My reason for posting was to offer some information about the way research and the RAE works since it came up as a potential alternative avenue for action.
The decision to 'return' someone for the RAE (i.e. submit them to have their research assessed) is taken by the University not by individual staff. Since all the information required is in the public domain (it has to be since it has to have been published) there is no way of boycotting it – short of resigning – and so it's not a means of taking action.
A wider issue is that the lead time on research is very long. It can take anything up to 6 years between the research actually being carried out and its being published. For instance, I have 2 papers coming out in 2007 from my PhD (finished in 2002).
Even if I submitted an academic paper to a journal today, it could easily take two years before it came out in print (after referee comments, revisions, finding space in the journal etc.). This makes it difficult to see how stopping carrying out research would get employers to negotiate.
06 Jun 2006, 12:15
fg
Whatever, AUT does not provide what its offering and il never support them.. AND my opinion is that education is a scam nowadays, trying to get money out of students. I finished management and it didnt give me anything exept what i already new and studied on my own.. But hey, this was a year ago. And it was such a scam, all the lecturers not turning up to classes.. Auckland uni was involved in this mess too!
20 Apr 2007, 08:26
Add a comment