next »

[grupt]

I'm not sure why we shold conclude from the paltry increase that the employers are at the edge of affordability.  It seems just as easy to conclude that they are just as interested as previously in using funds for other purposes.  The government increased its allocation to universities in 2004, and some of that money was supposed to go into the increases associated with the new "framework agreement."  At my institution - and I understand this is common elsewhere - that agreement has not been implemented; it might be implemented in August, but with no retroactivity.  So the VCs seem to be sitting on that money.  Then there are the increased fees.  Where the h*ll is all the money going?  Well, where I work, there is a building plan that proposes to spend vast sums on new buildings in the next 10 years.  My conclusion is simply that the employers continue to believe that they can succeed in giving us paltry increases - as a reflection of the balance of power in these negotiations.  I too will vote against this new "best and final" offer.  

I did my own spreadsheet and came up with a different figure.  For someone at the top of the lecturer B scale, the difference between the previous and present offer amounts to a total three-year difference of 350 pounds, or a monthly sum of 10 pounds.  Surely we haven't put our students through the boycott for 10 pounds a month.

[science expat]

"AUT’s executive committee today rejected the latest ‘final’ pay offer from the University and Colleges Employers’ Association (UCEA) and called for a full independent review to determine what money is really available for staff pay.

At yesterday’s pay talks the employers tabled a reworking of the original 12.6% offer as 13.1% on salary points over three years. AUT is disappointed that the latest final offer does not properly take into account the extra money coming into the sector in 2008/2009, when undergraduate students in years one, two and three will be paying top-up fees and there will be additional grants.

In order to clear up any misunderstanding about what money will be available in the third year, AUT has today called on the employers to explore a two-year deal for now and to commit to a full independent review to determine exactly what will be affordable in 2008/2009. The current offer would commit the trade unions to accepting just a 2.5% increase in year three before it is known how much money is available...."

www.aut.org.uk

[to ExPat in UK]

ExPat in UK wrote:

> I'm just really confused by this. I see the info on the AUT
> site. There's nothing on the other union (NATFHE) and there is
> nothing in the Guardian.
>
> perhaps my confusion is rooted in the fact that the cats have
> just dragged dead bird all over my new carpet. Anyone know how
> to get blood stains out? I don't want CSI over here... the
> feathers I can vacuum up.


Buy a nice oriental rug in a dark color and put it on top. They are beautiful, can be quite cheap and take accidents so much better than anything else. Think a nice dark red Afghan for example....  :-)

[case insensitive]

ExPat in UK,

Try cold tonic water.

c i

[Lucy]

According to tomorrow's THES, they had pretty much reached an agreement for a two year deal in the discussions at ACAS, and then UCEA pulled it at the last minute.

[ExPat in UK]

Lucy wrote:

> According to tomorrow's THES, they had pretty much reached an
> agreement for a two year deal in the discussions at ACAS, and
> then UCEA pulled it at the last minute.

I'm shocked .....

OK... I'm lying, I'm not shocked.

[grupt]

I imagine the two-year deal was rejected because of the unions' demand that there be a transparent inquiry into funding, as the basis for subsequent negotiations.  If UCEA can keep us in the dark regarding budgets, then it's easier to maintain the pretense that measly offers are at the "limits of affordability."  Their goal so far seems to be to get a third year increase just above inflation, and I think the AUT response is the right one.

[UKsystem]

What continues to amaze me is the ineptness of the AUT, their reliance on old-school socialist (worker vs boss) arguments and tactics. Their political naivety beggars belief. They continue to let themselves be seen as the "bad guys" disrupting student education, despite being provided with plenty of ammunition by UCEA and the VCs.

What is with this continued "23% or nothing attitude"? Why doesn't the AUT accept that employers will not pay 23% over three years (at least not without making cuts elsewhere from the Staff Salary budget line)?

Such bull-headed nonsense is typically of union behaviour from the 1970s, and look what happened there (and end to the labour government, the thatcherite revolution and significant damage to union power). And this from a union that claims to represent some of the most educated, most intelligent people in the country.

Seems to me the AUT (or UCU as it is now) should be pushing - publicly - for a 2 year (or even 1 year) deal, plus a transparent (ie public) review of funding allocation. The tipping point for the ASOS strategy is almost upon us, and unless the Union starts being inventive with their approach, they'll find themselves with students having graduated, exams marked by whoever the universities can draft in to do the work and a bunch of lecturers no longer being paid salaries for breach of contract. The threat posed by the union action will be gone, and they'll have nothing left.

Hearts and minds, not bashing heads against a brick wall.

[grupt]

UKsystem wrote:

> Seems to me the AUT (or UCU as it is now) should be pushing -
> publicly - for a 2 year (or even 1 year) deal, plus a
> transparent (ie public) review of funding allocation.

Um - my understanding is that this is exactly the line they are taking now.  See the link:

http://www.aut.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=1691

Though I certainly agree that there has been a lot of bone-headedness.

[UKsystem]

grupt wrote:

> UKsystem wrote:
>
> > Seems to me the AUT (or UCU as it is now) should be pushing -
> > publicly - for a 2 year (or even 1 year) deal, plus a
> > transparent (ie public) review of funding allocation.
>
> Um - my understanding is that this is exactly the line they are
> taking now.  See the link:
>
> http://www.aut.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=1691
>
> Though I certainly agree that there has been a lot of
> bone-headedness.

Sure,  this is the story now - but it's not that obvious from the media coverage. My point is that the AUT/UCU should be releasing press statements, briefing journalists, establising that they are taking a 'reasonable' position and making it abundantly clear that the employers are being difficult. Talking about 13% over three years still sounds like a big rise, when it's what, 4%(?), after inflation? If UCEA are blocking a transparent review, the implication is that they're lying about the amount of money they have to spend - this point needs to be hammered home. More effort into winning the PR battle and less being militant socialists is what seems to be needed.

[Exasperated]

If you think the AUT are "militant socialists" I doubt any amount of PR is going to realistically change your views

UKsystem wrote:


>
> Sure,  this is the story now - but it's not that obvious from
> the media coverage. My point is that the AUT/UCU should be
> releasing press statements, briefing journalists, establising
> that they are taking a 'reasonable' position and making it
> abundantly clear that the employers are being difficult.
> Talking about 13% over three years still sounds like a big
> rise, when it's what, 4%(?), after inflation? If UCEA are
> blocking a transparent review, the implication is that they're
> lying about the amount of money they have to spend - this point
> needs to be hammered home. More effort into winning the PR
> battle and less being militant socialists is what seems to be
> needed.

[UKsystem]

Exasperated wrote:

> If you think the AUT are "militant socialists" I doubt any
> amount of PR is going to realistically change your views
>

It's not my view that needs to be changed, but those of the general public and so the government. The amount of pressure the lecturer's strike is placing on the VCs is clearly not enough to get them to shift. Students and their parents, and recent comments from ministers, all place the blame for the situation at the door of the lecturers; that's not the way to reach an agreeable settlement...

[Union rep]

I'm currently in the US, not the UK, but having been on a negotiating team here I can tell you that members always say "why haven't you been telling our side in the press" and that the answer is: we can feed the press all the explanations, and releases, and interesting stories with comparisons, and even position statements written for general readers that we want (and we have journalism faculty to write them, as well as radio/TV faculty some of whom have been newscasters) -- and they still don't get published or used on the air except in mangled form by the  local suburban advertising daily that has space to fill.

[Anglo Angle]

I accept Union rep's view.

But... we could, and should have been doing more to campaign in local media, using local activisits to get on local radio, blogging etc. Where are the letters to local papers pointing out VC pay rises; any time a VC comments publicly why isn't their particular salary rise made an immediate issue - it wouldn't be too difficult to have Union reps carry a table with them to media appearances so they can put whoever they are up against on the spot.

Where too are the local campaigns to governors, trustees, and senates. Why is there no message going out, for example to those to whom VC's  (ok often nominally) report, telling them that the law on which they are withholding pay is less that clear, that so doing is committing institutions to lengthy and extensive court cases against their own staff, etc etc.


I support the Union and the action, but have to confess to being very disappointed at the absence of any meaningful campaign. I think part of the support for the campaign is people are really really pissed off generally. Conversely, part of the UCEA strategy is that they will be quite keen to see national bargaining smashed.

[%sig%]

[personne]

National bargaining should be smashed!

 the current national pay system makes no sense considering the vast difference in cost of living across the UK. And the 'london weighting' thing is just a token.