[Closed] Uni staff striking over pensions

You are correct. Not enough in for what will need to come out. Try explaining that to Mr and Mrs tripple pension lock and you will find out they deserve it but everyone else younger is work shy and it's their own fault.

>but their scheme is in deficit

Only because the Universities choose not to fund it properly.....

Pension is just deferred salary, they accepted a job based on certain financial terms, now the Universities are trying to retrospectively renegotiate a pay cut....

Yep had a long lecture from my mother as to how she had earned her final salary pension from all the tax she had paid but objected to paying for anything else.... Current pension arrangements only work if people start dropping dead sooner.

Except the Fund isn't in deficit, the deficit is a projection based on what UCU's independent assessors are calling flawed analysis. Other independent projections give a very different outcome, but of course, the USS and Universities UK are doing the 'No we're right' and we won't budge/talk stance.

Will (unintentionally) be the trigger for much needed and fundamental review of tertiary education in the UK eso the funding and competition.

I am not sure the academic community have thought this through yet - but they should do. Not impressed by the pressure put on students to support people who remain remarkably unresponsive to the changing needs of students.

Poor show IMO but if it triggers reform then there is a silver lining.

Already happened in some parts of civil service with pensionable ages changed from 65 to the national retirement age....which is 68 plus increases in contributions.

Not impressed by the pressure put on students to support people who remain remarkably unresponsive to the changing needs of students.

I thiught that it was it was a shame in some ways that that Indian student didn’t win his case against oxford, despite them admitting there were inadequacies in the programme and support. That would have really put the cat amongst the pigeons

I am not sure the academic community have thought this through yet – but they should do. Not impressed by the pressure put on students to support people who remain remarkably unresponsive to the changing needs of students.

To put this frankly I don't think you have the slightest idea what you're talking about. The Majority of UK Universities are going through their biggest period of internal reforms ever.

"Pension is just deferred salary, they accepted a job based on certain financial terms, now the Universities are trying to retrospectively renegotiate a pay cut…."

Changing contracts midway through is not unusual, Universities are now in the "market" and charge for their services. Cant have it both ways.

the pressure put on students to support people who remain remarkably unresponsive to the changing needs of students.

what are the changing needs of students ? Compared to students of the 80's, for example.

Later starting hours? Free wifi throughout the campus ?

Good. It’s been a long time coming.

At least some students are getting some much needed extensions on essays - silver linings!!

The student population is much greater and with more diverse needs. Courses need to be much more flexible and offer better VFM for a start.

In the context of higher education what does this mean?

Courses need to be much more flexible and offer better VFM for a start.

>Changing contracts midway through is not unusual, Universities are now in the “market” and charge for their services. Cant have it both ways.

But the change shouldn't be retrospective, which is what changing pension rights does.

>I thought that it was it was a shame in some ways that that Indian student didn’t win his case against oxford, despite them admitting there were inadequacies in the programme and support.

A totally ridiculous case, which was rightly thrown out. You are buying an education course not a guaranteed qualification.

> In the context of higher education what does this mean?

That they're now charging three times as much for the same course?

>Courses need to be much more flexible and offer better VFM for a start.

Undergrads need to think twice before doing a degree. If you're just going to end up being a Barista in Costa, what is the point in taking on a £50k debt before you start, it's effectively a very expensive gap year(s).

That they’re now charging three times as much for the same course?

How do you know they're the same course? Course titles can sometimes remain static, content and technologies don't.

That they’re now charging three times as much for the same course?

The course costs the same it always did, it is just that the government stopped funding it themselves and said that the Universities would have to recoup the money from the students at a capped rate (less than the government paid overall).

So we now have the current situation where Universities have to do more with less while being blamed for raking it in and being at the mercy of student's who now feel that they are paying for a degree rather than an opportunity to learn.

Tuition fees, etc are not extra money that the Universities now receive!

Do you know how aggressively universities market in foreign countries and how little they focus on practicalities? It would make the average cryptocurrency scammer blush. For local students degrees are at worst a low cost loan which will eventually be written off. A lot of foreign students' parents are mortgaging their houses, or going all in on their life savings to give their kids an education. It's time they were more responsible with their promises.

Universities at a minimum should be made to publicise stats like class sizes, degree completion rates, degree classifications obtained, and how many students work in a related field within a year of completing their degrees. Maybe an average salary for a degree holder vs a non-degree holder in a related field would be good too.

I remember a professor at Kingston University saying he teaches students for jobs at McDonnel Douglas, not McDonalds. Meanwhile, they don't tell you that in reality applications for grad placements are oversubscribed at 22:1, or even some guidance through the job application process. McD got bought out over 20 years ago.

For the fees they charge students now they should offer a much better service.

I'm on strike today. The whole situation is ridiculous. No one wants to strike, and everybody knows that pensions need reform (hence I didn't strike when they shut my final salary pension scheme down), but this is way beyond that. It is purely to shift risk from institutions (many of whom are in debt as they seek to expand and attract more students since the caps on numbers have been lifted, and are terrified as Brexit and associated political shifts are likely to cripple our ability to attract foreign students) to individuals.

The valuation is crazy and does not reflect the sector and the shared risk within it (if BHS, for example, goes bust their fund has to cover the pensions of those in the scheme. If my university goes bust the scheme is supported by other universities that still survive. The modelling is based on the fund having to support the pensions should every university in USS go bust simultaneously. Hardly likely).

I'm not going to go into anymore detail, but I trained for 8 years on no money to take a low paid job. The bonus was a decent pension, and the opportunity to do a job that I really liked. The job has changed a great deal with changes in tuition fees/the sector in general, and I no longer have a decent pension. If I worked in a 'new' university rather than a russell group institution, my pension would be at least 3 times higher as they're in the teachers pension scheme.

This guy has some really interesting articles on the current dispute if anyone is interested.

https://medium.com/@mikeotsuka

>For the fees they charge students now they should offer a much better service.

Cuts both ways (<span class="st">Caveat emptor</span>), if students are completely undiscerning and do no research, then should they really be surprised that they don't all end up on six figure salaries after graduating?

I agree with lots of the points above re: value of a degree to students given the cost, and also agree that the attempts of Unis to attracting foreign students often prioritise cash flow over student experience. But Shackleton is right - we're being asked to deliver considerably more with the same or less resources.

But I can assure you that for the rank and file members of teaching and admin staff (who are the ones striking, not the people making these higher level decisions) NOTHING has got better in higher education since the introduction of tuition fees. Increased student numbers, understandably higher demands and expectations from undergrads, job insecurity for early career researchers, and increased pressure on research funding all make life increasingly miserable. I've never seen morale so low, and this pensions kick in the teeth is the last straw for many of us.

Universities at a minimum should be made to publicise stats like class sizes, degree completion rates, degree classifications obtained, and how many students work in a related field within a year of completing their degrees. Maybe an average salary for a degree holder vs a non-degree holder in a related field would be good too.

They do, this information and more is all in the public domain, collated annually and published in various free to access forms.

Meanwhile, they don’t tell you that in reality applications for grad placements are oversubscribed at 22:1, or even some guidance through the job application process.

Again, this is all available. They can have all the information shown to them but they have to give enough of a toss to read it, pay attention or look into things in advance. They are adults, generally at the higher end of the national intellect measures, why not treat them as such?

But I can assure you that for the rank and file members of teaching and admin staff (who are the ones striking, not the people making these higher level decisions) NOTHING has got better in higher education since the introduction of tuition fees. Increased student numbers, understandably higher demands and expectations from undergrads, job insecurity for early career researchers, and increased pressure on research funding all make life increasingly miserable. I’ve never seen morale so low, and this pensions kick in the teeth is the last straw for many of us.

As someone in the same boat I can wholeheartedly agree.

Sure, if they're posing as someone selling a miracle weight loss cure, then that's fine.

But these are professors shilling their universities. People used to respect teachers at these institutions. It's hard to hold a 19 year old student responsible. The number of first year undergrads I know who pick a degree having deeply researched their chosen institution, intended career and the correlation to earning potential are very few and far between.

Maybe you can blame it on their parents. But a lot of times these are people sending the first person from their family to university. They've not got the education, the capability or a reason to suspect they're being sold a pup. In my opinion it's not far off mis-selling a financial product.

But the change shouldn’t be retrospective, which is what changing pension rights does.

Quite. This is a pay cut, and in response, lecturers are exercising their right to withdraw their labour.

I have little time for the reasons of striking and those who strike, it solves nothing and agrivates everyone.

It is about time universities sorted out the products they sell, and the quality thereof, and deliver high expectations to those paying for the service. I have no doubt there are plenty of skilled, intelligent and caring lecturers who do far more than asked, similarly there are those who teach by rote and add nothing.

But this is about Pensions and the ridiculous situation the Funds and University manage such, which is endemic within Fund Management. Promise too much, deliver less than promised.

It is a situation that will not be fixed by striking, that’s a given.

It is about time universities sorted out the products they sell, and the quality thereof, and deliver high expectations to those paying for the service.

Did you read the posts upthread? There are no new resources for lecturers to deliver the improved service you'd like to see.

It is a situation that will not be fixed by striking, that’s a given.

I have been on strike over pensions, the result was that the employer came back to the negotiating table, and a compromise was agreed.

It’s hard to hold a 19 year old student responsible.

Why? They can marry, breed, vote, drive, drink or serve as front line soldiers, all activities that can impact others, as well as themselves, to a much greater degree (hah!) than choice of University course.

The number of first year undergrads I know who pick a degree having deeply researched their chosen institution, intended career and the correlation to earning potential are very few and far between.

I didn't pick mine (Botany) on the basis of earning potential, I chose it on the basis of what I was interested in as I thought that is what would lead to me remaining engaged for 3 years. So far I've remained engaged for 19 years.....

A first University degree isn't a direct route (with some exceptions) to a profession. In reality, for the majority, it teaches you a number of transferrable skills, using the degree topic as a framework, that should allow you to perform in a variety of jobs that are not necessarily related to the topic of your degree.

I know plenty of MEng grads who are accountants, BSc (biology) patent lawyers, BSc (history) journalists, etc.

A University degree is an opportunity to learn, not be taught, and shouldn't be seen as a direct route to a profession. University degrees (again with some exceptions) are not vocational training.

Well done ransos, but I disagree.

Strikes prove nothing.

As for the Services Universities supply, yes it’s tough but they are having to go through what every other business has been doing for millennia.

Provide quality products to those willing to pay for them.

Universities are learning that the old funding model is not fit for purpose, and having to adapt to a new funding model. As is they also have to provide Pensions based on an old provision model that too is no longer fit for purpose. So call in those that decided to provide and non sustainable funding model to explain why it was given, and what the options are to plug the gaps.

Stiking won’t provide that, you need the originators who cut the deals to get together to sort it out. You striking means the services you provide.. aren’t being provided. So, a refund for lack of service or perhaps a discount on next term to those students who are paying for a service .. not .. provided.

Having my Final Salary, Defined Benefit, retire at 60 pension frozen in 2008  and followed on with a Career Average, Defined Benefit, retire at the State Pension Age was an unfortunate and annoying change in employment terms.

I saw why the unions were striking but decided it was nowhere near as bad as it could have been and reasonably sensible...

What's happening to the univeristies pension which appears to be going from a scheme similar to the NHS Scotland 1995 scheme to a defined contribution one with no safeguarding and is basically an epic gamble is ridiculous and well beyond acceptable change in terms.

>I have little time for the reasons of striking and those who strike, it solves nothing and agrivates everyone.

Just because you're happy for someone else to be given a retrospective pay cut, doesn't mean they have to be. They are exercising their right to withdraw labour as a result of a one sided and downward change to employment terms.

Personally, I fully support their action.

You striking means the services you provide.. aren’t being provided. So, a refund for lack of service or perhaps a discount on next term to those students who are paying for a service .. not .. provided.

The service is ultimately still being provided, just with a narrowed content - you do realize that students won't be examined on any content they were't actually taught? If the lectures etc. can't be rescheduled (unlikely given the time constraints) the exams can't contain any of the "missing" coursework, which adds up more points spread across less content. If the Universities suddenly decided to increase the course content by 20% with the same points spread across more content there would be an outcry from student bodies. This makes it a bit easier. Students should be using their heads & telling the student bodies to push the point that there's no time to reschedule for the "lost" content & use the time off to study the bollocks out of the "reduced" content. More for less, innit.

You're welcome 😉

Thanks, I am welcome.

The service has been taken away, correct ?

You are just adjusting to common business practice, and you don’t like it. Fine.

Striking and removing the service to paying customers achieves nothing.

Supporting those that strike means you align yourselves to thier cause, fine that’s your prerogative.. But if by supporting them you do nothing more than say you are supporting them, then that achieves nothing. I don’t know your situation work wise, but if by supporting them you are not at work, then fine. If you are supporting them with mere words then that too achieves nothing.

The Pensions Fund Managers should be brought into this equation, not just Universities back office admin, so too the Boards who agreed the deals and the representatives thereof. Until the underlying reasons and achievable outcomes can be thrashed out striking achieves nothing other than remove a service from a paying customer.

You will really have to get your heads around that concept, because it isn’t going to go away.

Paying customers expect a service, if they don’t receive that they go elsewhere. Surely there are some Economists teaching this in lecture halls all over the U.K.

This strike has nothing to do with universities needing to be more customer-friendly or responsive. They are already overwhelmed with customers desperate to throw money at them and could easily raise prices if the govt allowed it.

Well done ransos, but I disagree.

Strikes prove nothing.

Disagree about what? My direct personal experience?

striking achieves nothing other than remove a service from a paying customer.

Then why do you think people do it?

Seems strange that the people tasked with educating the plebs , should fail to understand basic maths, if you havent enough cash in the tin under the desk you have to cut back and look for savings, some savings may be harder to achieve than others but savings must be made.

University of hard knocks in life

But there is enough cash in the tin, it is just the obscure and odd way that it is currently assessed that artificially puts  it in the underfunded category. See earlier comments and independant actuarial assessments.....

The main reason why "they" want the scheme to change is political (big, well funded scheme with good pay out and returns vs most other pension schemes out there), but they have to dress it up in artfully constructed finance and claim it is unsuccessful.

Firstly, the scheme is not "£6bn in deficit". This is an accounting dodge cooked up by USS to cover their tracks, and is based on protecting against an "apocalyptic" scenario in which all universities signed up to USS essentially default. This is completely unrealistic, and goes way beyond "prudent forecasting".

Under realistic assumptions, and indeed under the USS's previous modeling, the scheme is actually £3bn in surplus. 3 years ago, my employing university wrote to USS saying that they believed the assumptions underlying the deficit modeling to be incorrect. They have now (this time around) changed their tune - and this is believed to be due to issues relating to the bond market. Essentially, even having this very slim possibility of all the universities going bankrupt increases the cost of raising funds. To slightly lower the cost of capital, academics are being shafted.

And it is a pretty thorough shafting. I used the model to calculate the change in my own pension after the new rules. The retirement income I get for work between now and retirement drops to 43% - I repeat 43% - of the value it would have been with the current model. (The new number is really not enough to survive/retire on, despite me being a Professor on what many would consider a pretty good salary). This is really not about defined contribution vs defined benefit - I don't care to be honest - it is about the fact that they are using the switch to massively reduce the pension payed to individual academics. Academic salaries in this country are already much lower here than in competing countries such as Australia - I know several people who have just left as a result.

People who think this is a simple matter of "the scheme is in deficit, there need to be some savings" are being quite naive. The deficit is dependent on the model, which will tell you what you want it to, if you do the modelling.

"They are already overwhelmed with customers"

Well they have certainly lowered standards in order to get paying customers in. My undergraduate son received several unconditional offers before receiving his grades.

The mere threat of strike/industrial action has bought my employer back to the negotiating table on more than one occasion.  Pay, T&C’s etc.   So striking does work.

The pensions fund issue has its roots back in the 80’s with politicians burying their heads in the sand about future problems, Gordon Brown raiding pension funds a bit later on and then ruling that they couldn’t have a surplus (because boom and bust was gone).  My pension fund was in surplus so we had a holiday from payments for a good few years.  Now it’s running slightly in deficit so there have been some alterations.  I said at the time that we should still be contributing in case of financial disaster but as a small cog wasn’t listened too.

The mere threat of strike/industrial action has bought my employer back to the negotiating table on more than one occasion. Pay, T&C’s etc. So striking does work.

Yep, we secured union recognition, followed by improved pay and working conditions and some really valuable concessions during redundancy negotiations.

A lot of the staff were sceptical but really changed their minds when they saw what the union could do for them. I suspect a lot of anti-union types think about it in terms of politics when the collective bargaining is the key thing. If they really think about it at all.

Lot of talk of what universities should or should not be doing, but that is irrelevant to this issue, which is that lecturers crap pay was compensated somewhat by a less crap pension (still crap at 1/80 of final salary per service year IIRC) and now this is being taken away. They're right to strike, for themselves and for future students who will not benefit if good people are driven away from the profession by the need to feed a family.

To put this frankly I don’t think you have the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

This would be far from the first time THM has shown  that. To go to uni and expect a degree and a career carries the same logic as joining the gym and expecting to be fit and attractive. You might get the degree/fit if you work hard, the tools are there for you to achieve this. The career/attractive bit takes a bit more luck, but isn’t entirely unrelated to the former.

As for those saying strikes don’t work, might I kindly suggest you look at why generally we generally work 40h 5d weeks (most academics work much longer than this actually), have paid sick and holiday leave, etc. Of course strikes piss people off. That’s the ****ing point. Would you be aware of the issues if this strike wasn’t happening?

And has been said by others, pay at UK universities was always crap. Working conditions (teaching and research) have become much worse. About the only bonus was an adequate (not good) pension. I’m far from the only one using my heavily UK taxpayer-subsidised education to benefit Australia’s innovation sector as a result.

THM - WTF?

'the student body is much greater and with more diverse needs'.

In what way? Since the 14th century British universities have been educating firstly men and  then (a lamentably long time later, but that's a different thread) everyone else including women and LGBTQ+ from all over the world. We all went to university to gain a degree and experience. Yes, the student body is now greater thanks to New Labour, but how are the needs of today's students now so much more diverse than those that, for example, were female students during the 19th century, LGBT+ students before the recent enlightenment, BEM kids, those from secondary moderns, . .. ?

😀 zokes

of course strikes work. They piss consumers off and accelerated change often to the detriment of the strikers. Unintended consequence as per....

like fees, strikes merely accelerate major upheaval and greater competition in tertiary education. Will be interesting to watch

wtf WTF???

greater numbers of students

more diverse range of needs and expectations

QED

you don’t need a degree to understand that?

For local students degrees are at worst a low cost loan

6% interest rate a low cost loan?

I don't effing think so.

Just because you’re happy for someone else to be given a retrospective pay cut,

Sorry. I don't know the detail of the change. But is it really a retrospective pay cut or just a pay cut?  I can't begin to believe it could be the former....

I don’t really care who supports strikes nor thier motives for or against.

The after effects of strikes are clear and it’s simply moved the supply (in this case education) from one place to another.

We could bring up ancient (but to some still poignant) memories of BL and the never ending demise of the U.K. and its ability/inability to make vehicles. Strikes for better pay and conditions simply channeled customers away from the product and into other products available.. and the circle of demise was written on the bog walls of factories in Birmingham.

It took massive Governmental persuasion and financial aid to encourage foreign manufacturers to return to the U.K. to build cars, yes the skills were here to some extent, but the future of the car industry in the U.K. is foreign owned.. and will continue until it becomes non profitable then it will move to a location with less overheads.

I do appreciate your views on your industry, you feel aggrieved at a promise made years ago that is forecast not to be as sweet as is on offer. But someone/some people somewhere, probably in your own industry provided the projections and forecasts that both the Universities and the Government signed up to. It may have been some years ago now, but the vote lain at your wrist, you ticked a box and like every other industry in the U.K. you are suffering decisions made at times when you thought the future would be rosy.

As this turns out it isn’t, however you massage the intricacies/details of the figures outlined in various releases Funds and Pensions are not immune to U.K. and world market volatility nor accounting standards.

It bothers me less that you talk of “professor salaries aren’t that great” because I’d wager your lab assistants and library assistants and lower tier lecturers are on far far less, yet they are affected in just the same way. Yet you think by striking you’ll get what you think you are owed. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but no matter how much you stand together around an oil drum waving flags, you will have no effect on decisions all ready made invariably by your own professors and intellectual advisors to this (or any for that matter) Government.

All you effectively do is divert the income (from students, and no doubt large corporates who pay for research) to other Universities who are, and have, better operational models for both supply and demand and funding of higher education.

I applaud those that stand up for their rights, but striking isn’t the smart move. You really have to use that grey matter you hold so dear to influence the decisions that you now are affected by, and those who will be affected long after you are dead and left a nominal amount of funds in your will to your nearest and dearest. The future isn’t so bright, there is political upheaval looming and societies normality is no longer projectable. Models have been turned upside down and forecasters (your own professors no doubt) are being called upon to provide economical projections whilst you seek to ignore that requirement because your expectations aren’t what you were once told they may be.

Obviously your choice to partake, or not, in the current action is your own. I applaud you standing together to fight the unfightable. But remember the kid (and thier families) who is/are about to make life decisions based on your actions and paying good money for the services you claim to provide might be persuaded by your action to either not enter University or go somewhere else for thier education. Once that decision is made by one person, it’s made by others too.. and the consequences are well told.

Dont forget the Corporate Funds that flow into Universities too, for they must make up a large proportion of a University income stream. Fail to provide paid for/invoiced too for output and that will dry up far quicker than a bunch of kids deciding not to go to Uni.

I studied Economics at Uni for my sins, I’ll be the first to admit the many theories taught back then were just theories and yet the simple supply/demand has proven to be the most robust.

I wish you well, standing up for your “rights” is admirable.

THM

'you don't need a degree to understand that'

What? You repeating verbatim what I've just written and then not offering any justification for what you said in the first place or argument against that which I wrote in response?

My degree encouraged me to question, challenge, research and find answers. I can only surmise yours was in algorithms.

Yes Bex - you also note the increasingly diverse range of people in tertiary education. I agree with you. Thank you.

Origami honours

THM, can’t you just stick to demonstrating your lack of knowledge on the EU thread? It’s abundantly clear you’re out of your depth on this one, and your obnoxious attitude certainly isn’t welcome, or helpful.

As this turns out it isn’t, however you massage the intricacies/details of the figures outlined in various releases Funds and Pensions are not immune to U.K. and world market volatility nor accounting standards.

The point is that the valuation is bunk - if you read any of the links above you'd probably agree with this. If the fund was actually failing, I'd have a lot more sympathy for UUK. But it isn't, by independent accounts. It is a disingenuous  move to shift the risk from employers entirely to employees.

Good evening zokes. Your inclusive comments are very welcome. Feel free to tell me how/why there are are actually fewer students now with less diverse needs. As ever your insights will be welcome

@bikebouy, most likely I will at some point move to Australia, where academic salaries are higher and superannuation (equivalent of pension) deals are much better. Its an international market, one which Britain has played to its advantage over the last two decades. Conditions here have however in the last few years deteriorated drastically. One colleague has just left, and I know several others who are considering it. Things were already bad; this pensions thing is just the straw that breaks the camels back. If its "unfightable", then we won't fight, we'll just leave. That will be a loss to the country. They have really miscalculated this one.

Sadly, as long as Turnitin remains online, the deadline remains!

<div class="bbp-reply-author">"bikebouy
<div class="bbp-author-role"></div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">

It took massive Governmental persuasion and financial aid to encourage foreign manufacturers to return to the U.K. to build cars, yes the skills were here to some extent, but the future of the car industry in the U.K. is foreign owned.. and will continue until it becomes non profitable then it will move to a location with less overheads."

</div>
I'm sure you think this is relevant... But the universities sector does incredibly well at bringing in investment and custom from overseas despite the UK government's best efforts. Strike action is a trivial matter compared to the destructiveness of the UKVI and successive governments eager to blow the anti-immigrant dog whistle.

<div class="bbp-reply-author">neurocyc

<div class="bbp-reply-content">

most likely I will at some point move to Australia, where academic salaries are higher and superannuation (equivalent of pension) deals are much better. Its an international market, one which Britain has played to its advantage over the last two decades. Conditions here have however in the last few years deteriorated drastically. One colleague has just left, and I know several others who are considering it. Things were already bad; this pensions thing is just the straw that breaks the camels back. If its “unfightable”, then we won’t fight, we’ll just leave. That will be a loss to the country. They have really miscalculated this one.

Intellectual Siberia with spiders? Doesn't sound that appealing tbh, think I'll stay and try to make my own pension arrangements.

</div>

THM - I hope you ride bikes* better than you write a supportive argument (that YOU started!). I ... actually can't be bothered

The way I look at it is this. If you were a builder and you agreed 50% up front and 50% on completion, then the customer said that they'd change the final payment to 13.25% you'd probably down tools. Especially if there was any likelihood that they'd drop their offer two or three more times before the job was complete (which the government has form for doing to other public sector workers).

Was going to post something considerate, rational etc but........I've sorted my finances including pension and didn't whinge when no-one sympathised or empathised so why should I care.

I checked my pensions several times each year; trustees reports, actuarial valuations, is scheme fully or under funded - if under, what arrangements are in place to cover the shortfall.

As for massive pay rise for chief exec of pension scheme - that stinks; his pension is fully protected, I'm sure.

You pays your money and takes your chance.

As project ^^^ school of hard knocks.

Your inclusive comments are very welcome.

I’m very inclusive of those who constructively add to the discussion. As you have taken to so disparagingly saying: QED.

@Northwind

Part of the reason it attracts so many overseas customers is because people see the UK as a place that's relatively stable. Part of the reason several students (even gifted ones who get scholarships in their own country) choose to pay for an education in countries like the UK is stability. It's very common for students and teachers in government universities to strike for various - and sometimes ludicrous - reasons. A degree that takes 3 years can take 4-5 years due to instability.

What do you think those students will do if there's a perception of instability?

"Striking proves nothing" well maybe it shows the strength of feeling from the people getting shafted. If you look at the union that has negotiated the best conditions for its members, I guess the RMT and Bob Crow would be hard to look past. They weren't exactly shy of going out the door! I've been involved in striking to try and protect my pension in the last few years. We have failed, but could be in a much worse situation than if we had just rolled over. Some of the rights of the older members were protected. The new pension scheme is so poor that the youngsters are all asking for calculations around the implications of leaving the scheme.... less contributions in, the scheme becomes weaker and a self fulfilling prophecy! Better just wind it up then.  So how does that help ensure people are making provision for their retirement? Best of luck to the Uni staff, I say.

"Curiousyellow

What do you think those students will do if there’s a perception of instability?"

Genuine LOL. The perception of the UK education regime overseas isn't one of stability- it's brexit, it's constantly changing hostile visa regs and governments treating kids like criminals. Stability isn't what sells UK education.

Source: I sell UK education. When I'm not posting on STW.

THM - putting the BS into BSc.

Was there any news on a "block user" function for this lovely new forum?

I think it is crap that the pension goals/things they were promised being changed is crap. However, striking is not a clever move IMO on this on.

If I were in a Uni I think I would  be more worried about the whole ponzi scheme falling down shortly, and half the uni staff being dropped from employment.

Of the richest charities in Scotland, the top 20 are dominated by Universities sat on hundreds of millions in the bank.

We have tried to work with some Scottish Uni's more closely this year. We have had various responses:

- thanks for the idea, we can run that, but we won't and can't due to lack of expertise, but we also won't accredit anyone else to run that, in case we want to run it, but we won't.

- thanks for that, does it bring in at least £3k per hour of lecturing?

- thanks for that idea, but it requires students to be doing learning other than sat in lecture hall / cannot be delivered by remote camera link? No, won't work financially for us.

- if you want to accredit it costs at least £10k upfront, you share all your knowledge and insight and planning with us, we then decide if we might like to accredit that somehow, then decide how much you need to pay to get us to accredit, and no as part of this we won't sign any non-disclosure or IP rights agreement.

- thanks for the offer of a free, government funded, session for our student, but it wouldn't look great for you to be here teaching them this, when we can't/don't, so we cannot accept free and additional training for our students.

EDIT: my reading of all the above is a) they are dead rich and don't need the work, b) they use a position of power to protect themselves and c) they hide their  shortcomings

So the mass of staff have my sympathy, the leaders and decision makers in them much less so....

I don’t know your situation work wise, but if by supporting them you are not at work, then fine. If you are supporting them with mere words then that too achieves nothing.

well you got one thing right, you don't know my situation work-wise - for the record I'm not on strike, nor am I a member of the union that organised it, a lot of friends & colleagues are though and they're really not relishing the idea of losing 14 days salary or disrupting their work. It's not just lecturers (who are usually also heavily involved in their own research projects, which are also affected) holding students to ransom for maximum damage to make a quick buck, other associated staff are on strike alongside them.

to answer your question as to why lab assistants / library staff aren't involved in all this, that would be because they're not likely to be members of the UCU which primarily consists of academic staff (lecturers, professors, research assistants etc). The UCU probably have the most members affected by this, so naturally have taken the most proactive stance, however other unions' members are also affected to varying degrees depending on which pension scheme was available to them when they began working with their institution, so there could very well be further action involving the other unions who are monitoring the situation closely (they love that term)

Fight the power / solidarity / stick it to the man

I work in and around Higher Education. The strikers have a good case, but I think things could go wrong for them at a time when lots of voters (and that's all that matters in terms of the future of the sector) believe 1) lecturers have it easy - which is not the case and 2) HE is not good value for money in many cases (certainly the case).

Academics as a whole are not very good at acting politically. They can think and talk politically, but when they act politically, it is often too late or badly timed (I think both in this case).

I expect the strike to continue the full 14 days. Lines are drawn and the UCU is poorly led by Sally Hunt, who I think is a more radical figure than many strikers realise.

A minor point I'd add is that academics on the whole have had a good gig up until the last ten years or so. There were permanent contracts, with plenty of perks like the holidays (I know, that's when the research gets done), and the pay has never been that bad (academics say they studied for xx years and deserve more money but studying can be a pleasure).

My list of culprits:

- Bad government policy for the last 30 years (Major - turning Polys into Unis; Blair - sending too many people to uni; Cameron - the tripling of fees) and in particular the encroachment of KPI culture

- VCs (some of them are sharks through and through)

- Some (not all by any means) established academics, who were quite happy not to rock the boat as long as the changes didn't affect them, who turned a blind eye to the casualisation of the labour force yet still encouraged students to do postgrad to keep the pipeline going

BUT the biggest change is going to be technology, and that's the main reason I think this strike will mean little in the long run. Higher Education will be disrupted by technology just like every other sector and that will have dramatic consequences on academic employment.

Cobblers. Permanent academic jobs are like hen's teeth and the pay is poor by any standards. The holiday thing is also rubbish as you yourself point out its the time when research is done and lectures planned.

The pay is not poor by any standards.

A starting lectureship is around £35k. Professors £65k-75k. That is good money considering what average UK salaries are. The job also has a level of variety which is hard to match anywhere else. Please prove otherwise as shouting Cobblers isn't really an argument.

Yes, permanent positions are hard to come by, but there is no other sector where the concept of a permanent position / tenure still exists. And academics on the whole have colluded with the system and pretended to students that such roles will exist in the future in order to keep students and especially postgrads piling into the system.

<div class="bbp-reply-author">handybar
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Member</div>
</div>
</div>

<div class="bbp-reply-content">

I expect the strike to continue the full 14 days. Lines are drawn and the UCU is poorly led by Sally Hunt, who I think is a more radical figure than many strikers realise.

</div>
Sally Hunt might be radical according to the general landscape of UK unionism, but for UCU I believe she's quite moderate - her role is the adult in the room versus the hard left cabbages who would otherwise be in charge.

UCU is such a [s]disorganised rabble[/s] broad, heterologous church that it's hard to know what good leadership would look like tbh. Can't be too many unions where the bosses and workers both pay their subs.

Cobblers. Permanent academic jobs are like hen’s teeth and the pay is poor by any standards

It is not poor pay. I earn a lot less than the lecturers and professors whose lectures I'm leading over the next few weeks - and my pension contributions are up to me, and variable to whim of stock market and my fund choice. By a lot less earning, I mean 10k.

I also work in third sector where most funding cycles and therefore job security is annual. I'm currently due to lose my job in July, and depending on the Scottish government will only find out in June if I've an extension to September.

I also have have less holiday.

Please don't tell me you're hard done by as an industry.

My solidarity with you is on the fact you've been promised one thing, and that's being changed mid contract. That's not fair. You are right to object. But I think striking will backfire.

The pay is not poor by any standards.

A starting lectureship is around £35k. Professors £65k-75k. That is good money considering what average UK salaries are. The job also has a level of variety which is hard to match anywhere else. Please prove otherwise as shouting Cobblers isn’t really an argument.

As a junior pre-tenure Unversity lecturer I can agree that the pay isn't bad. However compared to friends I graduated with who work in industry with similar levels of responsibility in terms of budget, staff, etc. I earn  ~10k pa less and only started earning this wage 10 years after they got their first well paid jobs. As a PhD student my income was closer to 15k pa lower. I also typically work a 70 hour week, including weekends, while they consider it a long week if they get to 45 hours. But, I do enjoy my job and do enjoy the variety, but it is f'ing hard work and to be successful you are never "not at work".

From my perspective, as you point out, things may have been good in the past and those who benefited will continue to benefit as the changes will have little effect on them. Those like me who are at the start of their careers are being damned for the perceived actions and failings of our forebears. Please note perceived, the pension fund deficit is an artificial sham.

Yes, permanent positions are hard to come by, but there is no other sector where the concept of a permanent position / tenure still exists.

There is no such thing as tenure at any University that I am aware of. If I am granted "tenure" it means that my contract goes from fixed-term to open ended. If I fail to win sufficient grant income, publish good papers, perform well in teaching as measured by colleagues AND students, perform my admin duties, etc. etc. I will be shown the door. Just like 4 colleagues in the last 12 months.

And academics on the whole have colluded with the system and pretended to students that such roles will exist in the future in order to keep students and especially postgrads piling into the system.

Lecturer roles will continue to exist as long as Universities do. No one that I am aware of who is doing a PhD is unaware of the chance of getting their own lab/position. Even in the dim past no one pretended that all PhD students would get lectureships. Most PhD students don't even want to continue to lectureships; the majority want to go into industry, want a higher degree to stand out from the crowd, enjoy research, etc.

Well this is a better quality debate than typical on STW.

Does anyone have a link that actually explains WHY the staff are striking (ie prior and proposed post-terms)?

Universities are in a mess. Too many students, too much cost and Vice Chancellors packing them in like the £9000 a year gravy train tickets that they are. Those of us 40+ have let down the generation(s) behind us.

This doesn't explain the gripe (genuine or otherwise) that the staff have. So I would like a link to the full data/story so I can be suitably sympathetic or otherwise.

The pay is not poor by any standards.

A starting lectureship is around £35k. Professors £65k-75k. That is good money considering what average UK salaries are.

Pay is poor when you consider the unique skillset possessed by any professor worth their salt. They are by definition supposed to be the international expert in their field. In fields that are commercialisable, they are underpaid relative to an equivalent position in the private sector, and are certainly underpaid relative to those overseas, especially Australia. Often if a senior academic leaves, the cost to the university can be very high, including loss of research grants, and limited ability to easily backfill the position either internally or externally.

Sure, those salaries are high relative to the national average worker, but then the national average worker doesn't have a PhD. Nor do they work the sorts of hours most academics do. The many perceived perks (variety of work, travel, etc.) have long since been degraded. Travel for conferences is usually accompanied by trying to cram two days' work into one (the work you would have been doing if you weren't at the conference, and trying to take stuff in at the conference). Ditto field work. Variety is mostly expunged by the turgid and never ending rat-race for grants, frequently including work that 10 years ago would have been well outside the fields of each individual researcher now applying. This leads to lower quality research as those who are good at grant writing often get the grant even if they're not best qualified to do the research. Reporting efforts are ever more strict, and despite the increase in online tools, admin and other tasks eat more time than ever before. And then there's this bizarre push that academics should be more entrepreneurial - if we were good at and enjoyed business then guess what we'd do...

So why do we still do it? Because we're very passionate about our fields and see it almost as a vocation as much as a career. But increasingly this bottomless well of good will appears to have a bottom after all. I no longer work in the UK for some of the reasons above, and the luck of finding a permanent position at the right time in Australia. If I was at a UK university I would certainly be striking, and I have done so to protect my conditions here in Australia. Speaking from that experience, I'd say the strike is at best symbolic - the work will still be done, just likely in the evenings and weekends that bookend the strike days. So in actual fact, the strikers are just working for free. Sounds stupid really, but on the other hand, it really demonstrates how desperate the situation has become.

Does anyone have a link that actually explains WHY the staff are striking (ie prior and proposed post-terms)?

I'll see what I can find, most of what I have is paper copies.

Universities are in a mess.

Yes, like so many things that are used as political footballs, micromanaged by the government as state apparatus but expected to perform like a private sector business (see also the NHS).

Too many students, too much cost and Vice Chancellors packing them in like the £9000 a year gravy train tickets that they are. Those of us 40+ have let down the generation(s) behind us.

Please stop repeating this lie. The £9000 per students is lower than the previous system and doesn't even cover costs let alone allow a gravy train. The £9000 is not in addition to previous funding, it is instead of. It was a stroke of evil political genius to simultaneously shift the cost of higher education from the government to students while making Universities take the fall and subsequent blame for the outcome. Basically UUK were offered a range of shitty options and chose the least worst. There was no way to negotiate and were told that if they kicked up a fuss it would get even worse. So the whole debacle is a government led thing, universities are responding by doing the only thing they can do to cover running costs having been dumped into the free market pool.

This doesn’t explain the gripe (genuine or otherwise) that the staff have. So I would like a link to the full data/story so I can be suitably sympathetic or otherwise.

It has nothing to do with it. It is just that some people opposed to HE/strikes/etc. earlier were saying that as Universites are gold plated and lecturers are carried about on diamond crusted swans we deserve no sympathy. If you believe that side of things then the government have succeeded in feeding you thier lies rather than allowing you to see reality. Universities and their employees are an easy target, particularly for the current government and the rightwing press as they can be painted as whinging, soft handed, lefty, elites detached from reality because of some tired old stereotypes