Forum menu
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.
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
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.
And that is why the pay is lower. Most positions are pretty competitive as people want to do it. The pay may be lower than other jobs but its like comparing apples and pears.
The strike is for 5 days isnt it? I like that, go hard or go home I say!! Good luck to them.
Shackleton, thanks for replying in earnest.
I am surprised there isn't a web link that outlines the bare bones of the before and after proposal. I know I could search, but I thought someone on here would have it at their finger tips.
The £9000 a year comment was from the point of view of someone with a son at York uni and someone who has spoken to several heads of faculty in a few northern unis. The fact is that students are seen as meal tickets by many heads of depts. Now you can say that this is a system that was thrust upon them so they are making the best of an enforced marketisation of the system. But many of the heads of faculty I speak to seem to take to the numbers game with a little too much zeal for it to appear reluctant. As a direct example I know that students from overseas are preferred to UK students currently as they can charge more. I also appreciate that lecturers and support staff are piggy in the middle in this game.
My perception is that Universities have more cash than ever. If this is wrong (ie if the increase in fees does not offset the removal of government funds then I missed that....any data on it?). I am not sure that Universities have much alternative but to play this game. The removal of the numbers cap has created a system where Universities can expand expand expand. It's either go big or go home. For example my own faculty in Leeds had an annual intake of 25 when I studied there in the 1990's. It then expanded to about 40, then 70 and for next year I gather they are looking at 120+ students. This is a at a Russell Group university and the faculty is still the same physical size.
Anyhow, you are right that this is not to do with the pensions debate (as I said above it wasn't). But the context that universities operate in does impact on "perceptions" even if reality for the staff is different.
Details from USS of Government/UUK backed changes. The values in this are questioned by every financial expert outside USS and the government as the basis for the calculations are that all 64 Universities that are members would have to default simultaneously without warning......not exactly realistic.
EDIT. why don't links work?
The £9000 a year comment was from the point of view of someone with a son at York uni and someone who has spoken to several heads of faculty in a few northern unis. The fact is that students are seen as meal tickets by many heads of depts. Now you can say that this is a system that was thrust upon them so they are making the best of an enforced marketisation of the system. But many of the heads of faculty I speak to seem to take to the numbers game with a little too much zeal for it to appear reluctant. As a direct example I know that students from overseas are preferred to UK students currently as they can charge more. I also appreciate that lecturers and support staff are piggy in the middle in this game.
No question, students are a meal ticket. But not a big meal, kind of like gruel that is essential to keep you alive but not much more. Universities face rising costs to perform cutting edge research, wages, infrastructure, etc. to stay afloat and the money has to come from somewhere. When the government reduced core funding to the universites but opened up student fees the natural outcome is that it commodified students. There is no other choice but to play the numbers game with zeal. We are now like any other outfit competing in the free market, trying to sell our wares.
My perception is that Universities have more cash than ever. If this is wrong (ie if the increase in fees does not offset the removal of government funds then I missed that….any data on it?).
There were some very good pieces in the THE from around the time when fees were introduced and each time they were changed but I can't find them through google. Universities may have more assets (mostly on borrowed money though) than ever (new lecture theatres, research buildings, etc.) but not spare cash. There is less now than ever and most Universities struggle to break even in good years.
I'm not sure about the 'cash strapped'.
Edinburgh Uni earned £819m last year, cash in bank of just shy of £300m and investment assets of £400m,
I can't remember the figures, but ALL the Scottish universities are wealthy in cash, income and assets.
im still on the 'it's not fair to change contract' side - but I'm not convinced of the "we're skint" argument from universities.
Well, the scottish University I work at isn't. Last year was the only recent year where we weren't in deficit. And that was only because of a one off large research grant coming in.
The values in this are questioned by every financial expert outside USS and the government as the basis for the calculations are that all 64 Universities that are members would have to default simultaneously without warning……not exactly realistic.
Thems the rules for funded DB schemes. The actuarial valuation must be on the basis of all contributions stopping so it is a real doomsday scenario. That's why private sector schemes (including my own) have been closing and are "underfunded". The govt changed the rules some time ago so, in essence, DB pensions need to be overfunded in most practical scenarios so that they can cope with the required doomsday scenario. It reduces the potential burden on the PPF.
Thems the rules for funded DB schemes.
Aha, it would appear to be a government (civil service mandarins?) attempt to pack the newer state pension funds with new members. Make the existing schemes unattractive for employers and hive all the workforce off into stakeholder defined contribution schemes.
There may well be little money for lecturers but Vice Chancellors seem to have done very well out of the funding changes since Camerons government.
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
"I can’t remember the figures, but ALL the Scottish universities are wealthy in cash, income and assets."
</div>
This is definitely not the case. Assets, probably, but those assets are mostly tied up in operation unless you relocate out of a city centre. (Edinburgh University is an enormous landowner but day to day that's more of a liability than a resource, especially since so much of their real estate is ancient and listed)
Cash is complicated because there's a lot of funds tied up for specific purposes (philanthropy comes with ties, we have sacks of money that we literally can't spend and some we're not even allowed to make interest on, we have special arrangements with our bank to hold money on a zero-return basis) but free spending cash, some will be wealthy, others not.
We've recently done some restructuring (including redundancies) which supposedly put us on a good footing though frankly I have no faith in the financial management of the institution. Other institutions are much wobblier.
And that's part of the problem- there's a lot of sector wide planning and resourcing, for instance every year the pay settlement is a bunfight because some institutions go "jesus, let's just pay a decent rate and avoid all the industrial action and bad press and bad blood" and others say "Easy for you to say on your golden throne, we're working out of a portacabin in Paisley" There's no one size fits all. Ironically most of the scottish government stuff is much more pragmatic than the university's own. With pensions in particular it's easy to see how this is a problem.
If the whole of the university teaching lot went on a full all out strike none of us other workers would notice, they have no real or imaginary power, that they misguidedly believe in, lots of students may get upset, appear on tv and in the media looking for attention and thats it.
Where as if train drivers / bus drivers/refuse collectors etc,etc, all seen as menial jobs, but skilled in their own way, where to strike for more than a few days the country would find a way to pay them what they wanted, as has been proved in the past.
Whats needed is a cull of pointless un-educational courses a cut back on numbers attending uni, just to say theyve been and getting degrees with strange and made up titles, with little hope of a job at the end of them.