next »

[tarokun]

I have just come across this news article from Japan:
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110430003055.htm
Was wondering if any list members had heard anything else about this issue?
Cheers
Taro

[taikibansei]

Uh...where in the article does it mention pay cuts to national university employees? It does mention pay cuts to national public servants/civil servants.  However, national university employees haven't been considered civil servants in Japan since the law change of 2004....

That said, I could well imagine that some national universities--particular ones located outside the disaster zone--might consider a symbolic pay cut for employees, with the resulting savings being donated to regional relief efforts. Are you currently working f/t at a national university? Are you in the union there? If the answer to both questions is "yes," then you have a say in this issue as well. Talk to your colleagues, particular the ones in the faculty union.

[11113567]

I admit it's been a while since I heard anything about this but the ending of civil servant status for professors was mostly to allow science faculty to set up companies to commercialize their research. Otherwise they all continued their civil servant housing, insurance, pay grades etc. I don't know that much has changed, but maybe someone in the union over there can report the details and what it really means. From the article it sounds like they will get their salaries cut, but in turn get collective bargaining rights. Certainly not Wisconsin! I wonder if they will also get the right to strike. Right now I don't think they have it, but I'm not sure that anyone would notice if they did walk out.

[taikibansei]

I was dean of a Japanese university for a number of years and currently work at a national university. I also am a union officer at said university. Finally, I research/write about this stuff--indeed, I have an article on a related issue coming out this fall in Big Journal In My Field.

Not that any of this means that I know what I'm talking about!

I admit it's been a while since I heard anything about this but the ending of civil servant status for professors was mostly to allow science faculty to set up companies to commercialize their research.

Direct links (all Japanese language) to the law and the Education Ministry's reasoning behind instituting it are here:
http://www.mext.go.jp/component/b_menu/shingi/giji/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2010/01/28/1289460_01_1_1_1.pdf

here:
http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/kokuritu/gijiroku/03110501/004.pdf

here:
http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/kokuritu/003/gijiroku/03111801/003.htm

and here:
http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shougai/kaikaku/pdf/p160.pdf

As delineated repeatedly and quite clearly in each of these links, the Ministry's public position was that privatization would stimulate universities towards a renewed commitment to world-class research (seikaiteki suijun no kyouiku kenkyuu wo tenkai suru), with the periodic checks--to be conducted by third party accreditors--that it also instituted used to prod these universities into becoming more cost-effective and results-orientated (kouritsu teki katsu kekka teki ni okonawaseru koto) in their efforts. In reality, the desire to be more "cost effective"--i.e., to institute deep budget cuts--was the major impetus behind the reforms. And as a matter of fact, since 2006, MEXT has cut its subsidies to the national universities by over 86 billion yen. These cuts continue, sadly.

Science faculty setting up companies to commercialize their research is a completely different issue.

From the article it sounds like they will get their salaries cut, but in turn get collective bargaining rights. Certainly not Wisconsin! I wonder if they will also get the right to strike. Right now I don't think they have it, but I'm not sure that anyone would notice if they did walk out.

As we are not civil servants, no national university faculty are getting their salaries cut as a result of the National Personnel Authority's recommendation--just like they (i.e., the civil servants) did not have their salaries/bonuses cut last year when many national university presidents (including ours) unilaterally decided to implement cuts. Accordingly, I personally am very much FOR the present recommendation, as it appears that especially senior government officials will have their salaries reduced. Of course, national university faculty and staff may have their salaries cut, yet again, this year too, but this would be in a decision separate from the one referenced in the above article. Oh, and not only can we strike/enter collective bargaining, we've been in collective bargaining for a number of years with the administration here. (We also just beat them in court this past January on a separate labor issue as well--yeah!)

Finally, while you're right that striking used to be banned, in practice said ban never really stopped Japanese university faculty before. Indeed, back in the late 90s, I seem to remember one national university where faculty members went on a one-day strike to protest the proposed implementation of the very privatization bill we're discussing now. The resulting protest included the singular scene of several very elderly gentlemen forming a human chain to prevent prospective students (it was Open Campus day) from entering the school grounds. Rumor has it that I even have (some pretty funny) photos!

My two yen, at any rate!

[taikibansei]

Admittedly, this is one of those topics in which nobody--well, at least nobody sane--has much interest. Still, it fascinates me...and in that spirit, a correction. I wrote:

the Ministry's public position was that
privatization would stimulate universities towards a
renewed commitment to world-class research (seikaiteki
suijun no kyouiku kenkyuu wo tenkai suru)

That should read "world-class research in education"--i.e., the desired outcome most often articulated by the Ministry has always been that privatization would lead to improved teaching, as well as an increase in the amount of research dedicated to improving that teaching. Of course, improving both the quality and quantity of "research" in the broader sense was an additional goal--along with a strong desire to cut yearly subsidy amounts.

Privatizing the national universities was/is supposed to lead to a "healthy" struggle for survival, including an increasing percentage of yearly funding allocated only through competitive grants--with everything complicated by the deteriorating student recruitment situation (e.g., the decreasing birth rate--and, from 1991--a corresponding decrease in overall student numbers). The result so far has been some interesting times, to say the least.

Well, I do believe I've reached my quota for Chronicle Forum posts for the year. As we say locally, "De ha, mata rainen!"

Taiki

[angelicus]

Well I for one can't imagine that any university president in Japan or any board of directors won't take the golden opportunity to cut salaries once again.  In the past they've cut them when times are bad, when the private sector is suffering, when enrollments are not going up, you name it.  Now the earthquake supposedly requires everyone to tighten belts.  Next it will be that the summer was hot, or that the rice crop was bad, or that Toyota sold too few cars.  Funny how salaries or conditions never go up when times are better or the private sector is making money on the most recent bubble.  Anyhow, the highest level of administration, under the thumb of the govt., will do whatever it takes to get the public to vote for the anti-education, anti-public service agenda of whichever of the two right-wing parties happens to be in power.   

From what I can see, the very weak Monkasho is losing out in the same old neo-liberal battle to privatize everything in sight, and by a variant of the same scheme used in the USA.  In the US the govt runs up bills by funding business (cleaning up oil spills etc.), wars (Iraq, Afghanistan), and lining the pockets of your own cronies in business (Blackwater, Halliburton, etc), and then uses the excuse of the deficit to get rid of pensions, welfare, health care, education, and the like.   In Japan, it is mostly by handing out funds to big corporations, banks, and the like.   Then, by making the national university system as emaciated and unattractive as possible, turning it into something of a free R-and-D unit for the private sector and a teacher-training facility to keep everyone toeing the dominant ideological line, the private universities are made to benefit, albeit not much compared to big business. 

If only parents who don't want to pay sky-high tuition fees for their kids would vote, the national universities might have a chance.  But everyone seems to be taking it sitting down, thinking, I assume, the usual "shikata nai," and that if otoosan's company doesn't get propped up by the regime, we won't have even the money to pay for public university education for junior.

[taikibansei]

While I very much agree with the overall sentiments expressed, the following two statements don't seem quite right to me.

In the past they've cut them when times are bad, when the private sector is suffering, when enrollments are not going up, you name it.

[/quote]

Since national university presidents only gained the ability to make cuts to salaries/bonuses/research budgets/etc. after privatization (i.e., after 2004), we're certainly not talking about a long history of such actions. Indeed, at least at my university, we've had a total of two such reductions over our 120-year history--last year and the year before. Both times faculty and staff lost about 1% of our summer and winter bonuses...which still left me with a salary nearly twice what I was earning as an associate professor at Regional State University in the US. Of course, individual faculty research stipends have also been cut over the last nine years--by over 200,000 yen (about $2,000 US). However, we're still each left with over 400,000 yen yearly to spend as we'd like. Add to that the more than ample grant opportunities available, and, well, I don't think it can be argued that any of us are suffering too much here right now. Still, I think your pessimism about the future is very justified...unfortunately.

From what I can see, the very weak Monkasho is losing out in the same old neo-liberal battle to privatize everything in sight, and by a variant of the same scheme used in the USA.

Monkasho (Japan's Ministry of Education) has actually become far stronger since the 2004 "privatization"--at least partly because of the new university accreditation process (instituted that same year), and partly because of how privatization allows Monkasho a lot more flexibility with regards to who it funds, and why. I.e., Monkasho is not "losing out" to the generally conservative and often anti-academic/anti-education overall political trend here: They're leading the anti-education charge!

Which, at least for me, makes it worse....

[angelicus]

True that the Monkasho has increased in clout, but still, compared to Zaimusho and most of the others, are relatively weak.  Also  the Monkasho cannot truly be "anti-education" in general, for that would pull out the rug under their own power base. 

You are right that the history of pay cuts is not long, but look at the rate that they have been coming since 2004!  Some departments or sections of national universities, from what I hear, have had their research funding almost annihilated (though there is always money for hare-brained top-down schemes (usually in March) to pave a grassy area, paint a building that doesn't need it, or do some extra PR for this or that. 

And isn't saying that "things are even worse in the USA" just a justification of what I think you agree is a bad situation?  And one that is just getting worse.... 

[taikibansei]

Also the Monkasho cannot truly be "anti-education" in general, for that would pull out the rug under their own power base. 

Yes, one would normally assume this. However, as non educators make up much of the MEXT top brass, their ideas of "pro-education," uh, differ from many. E.g., the surreal situation last year of government officials from the ruling party clashing with MEXT over the extent of education-related budget cuts. (MEXT wanted steeper cuts.) Still, my favorite is the MEXT decision to add mandatory English language classes to elementary school curriculums WITHOUT providing money for the retraining of educators and/or the hiring of new teachers to teach the classes. This new policy came into effect this past April, with the result that people without foreign language ability (outside of a few phrases learned 20+ years ago in "English for non Majors" courses), EFL training or interest are now suddenly being required to "teach" English...along with the usual math, science, history, etc. Keep in mind that many of these people chose to become elementary school teachers in order to avoid the stricter (but still woefully inadequate) foreign language general requirements for junior/senior high school teachers.

Impossible, you say? Of course! Heck, even MEXT has grudgingly admitted such--though (and this still amazes me) they have consistently argued that volunteer teachers will suddenly appear and assist the beleaguered elementary school teachers. My wife and I have both been called and asked to "volunteer"--i.e., teach 4-5 classes of English (each with 30+ students) monthly, without payment of any sort, in our "free time." We laughed and said no...as have many, many others, apparently.

And isn't saying that "things are even worse in the USA" just a justification of what I think you agree is a bad situation?  And one that is just getting worse....

If you look at what I wrote, I wasn't really trying to argue that "things are even worse in the USA." Strangely enough, I actually agree that employees at most national university were overpaid for what they/we did. (Civil servant laws and Japanese ideas of fairness meant that salary scales at all national universities had to be the same--e.g., faculty and staff at 'Isolated And Not Very Ambitious Rural National University' had to get the same salary/benefits as those working at Tokyo University...which was great for us!)

Finally, to the OP: Our university president just sent us a note saying that he thinks it's a good idea for us also to accept the 10% cuts to salary in order to show solidarity to those in the disaster area. One of the many problems with this sentiment--our university is located smack dab in the middle of the darn disaster area! (Heck, I have the broken leg to prove it....) Looking forward to the "discussions" on this!

[angelicus]

faculty and staff at 'Isolated And Not Very Ambitious Rural National University' had to get the same salary/benefits as those working at Tokyo University...which was great for us!

Great for you, of course--but it seems to me you are assuming that those working at Tokyo University are really much better than you.  Which I dare to say is a bold (and in my experience not at all justifiable) leap of faith.

[11113567]

Just a request for clarification from those in the disaster area (in more ways than one it seems):

Is "privatization" really the right word for what happened to the national universities? Maybe they are not exactly run like the Japanese civil service any more, but I remember from back in the day some Japan Times editorials describing the process as Wincorporation of state universities", rather than real privatization, which would have put the former national universities in the same category and on an equal footing with private universities. http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20030721a1.html

Aren't the national universities still distinct from private universities, in which case "privatization" would be a misnomer? Don't the support staff still report to the ministry? Could someone explain for us exactly how private universities are now different from state universities in Japan, and whether the state universities really have more autonomy than they used to?

[taikibansei]

Is "privatization" really the right word for what happened to the national universities?

Great question. My answer would be "no," for complex reasons that demand an extended explanation I have no time for here. Still, very briefly, private universities also report to MEXT--always have. Private universities receive financial support from MEXT as well--again, always have.

The major difference? Private universities, at least in theory, had more freedom over curriculum/hiring/student admissions, receiving much less financial support from the government for the privilege. In practice, however, because national universities were government organizations (and their employees civil servants), they had huge amounts of power--permanent employment from hire, guaranteed pay raises for all employees, budgets practically immune to cuts (for doing so would have meant cutting the budgets of other government entities as well), etc. This power extended to hiring/curriculum control as well. Indeed, as Christensen (along with a number of other researchers) has documented, the labor resistance (including strikes) seen from the national universities facing privatization was because they feared "privatization" would mean LOSING their autonomy.

Unfortunately, the doubters were right! As I have explained in earlier posts, "privatization" has meant so far only the loss of civil servant status--along with most of the perks (including negotiating leverage) that went with that status. No additional autonomy was ever gained, and much lost.

It could also be argued that the private universities were never really that "private" at any point, with the "freedoms" they had mostly superficial in nature. Regardless, with the advent of ninshou houka, MEXT has gained much more control over them as well.

Finally, linking to articles from the Japan Times (!), particularly ones which appear to "borrow" from articles (academic and for various newspapers) that I wrote years prior, is never a good idea! (Most likely, the reason for the similarity is merely that the JT author is translating the same Japanese sources I used for my articles--specifics for the 2004 law changes were first published in Japanese back in the late 1990s. Still....)