More on strike

[lnr]

I went along to the rally yesterday, and also talked to my mum about it at the end of the day. She forwarded me a letter which the NUS have put together for students, explaining some of why they are backing the strike. I've turned it from word doc into rough HTML and you can find it here:

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~eleanorb/temp/nus-letter.html

I know some people still think that given the average salary of academics appears to be somewhere around 35K (not the > 40K claimed by the UCEA) we're being greedy in asking for more. Consider however that in many cases these academics could be earning more as doctors, lawyers and even in some cases as teachers. Perhaps that's not enough reason. I can't seem to manage to express any better why I think this pay claim *is* reasonable, and I admit I find it very frustrating to be so bad at arguing my point.

I'm kind of sad how small a proportion of the staff in Cambridge are members of AUT though, and how small a rally can be and still be an excellent turnout. I'm glad I showed my support though. And I'll be self-reporting as being on action short of a strike even if they do say they'll dock full days pay for it, despite the fact it make no difference to my work in practice.

My mum also forwarded me the letter which their vice-chancellor sent to all staff about the strike and the consequences with respect to pay. I have to say it's a complete eye-opener when you see how much more reasonable it is than the similar letter I received in Cambridge.

Comments

[compilerbitch.livejournal.com]

It is definitely a bad state of affairs. As you probably know, I'm currently finishing my PhD (home stretch -- writing the conclusions today!), and was faced recently with figuring out what to do next. I was prodded by my supervisor to trawl around for postdocs, fellowships and the like. Initially, I was considering staying at Cambridge, but a lukewarm response from the lab (basically it would be fine -- I'd find my own funding, then they would keep half of it and generously give me a desk in half an office), coupled with a near-zero chance of a JRF scuppered that. I had a postdoc offer from ENS in Paris, which would have required me to live in Paris on about 2000 euros per month. Not *at all* easy. I also asked around within contacts at NASA and the US Air Force. They both offered jobs, with NASA's being more concrete from the point of view of actually taking things further. To cut a long story short, I'm going to be a 'Staff Scientist' (not actually a postdoc -- this is a for-real permanent research scientist post), and I've been offered $117k. Given the lower taxes compared with the UK, I'd have to earn about 70k or more here to get close -- maybe our head of department might earn that, but I'd be surprised if my (full professor) supervisor does (unless you count his consultancy income, but I won't need to do any of that to make ends meet). As best I can tell, this would be on the high side for a lecturing post in the US, but it's not *that* far out of the range. It's probably 2 - 3 times what a junior-ish lecturer in the UK would typically earn, however.

Hmm.

[lnr]

writing conclusions> woo! And *nice* one on the job. Are you taking it?

[compilerbitch.livejournal.com]

Yes, definitely. My H1-B application is already in the pipeline -- I'm likely to be starting work there on June 1st.

:-)

[j4.livejournal.com]

in many cases these academics could be earning more as doctors, lawyers and even in some cases as teachers

Out of interest, what factors do you think should contribute to determining the salary that a person is paid to do a job?

[lnr]

It's a good question. Off the top of my head:

- how much people in jobs with similar amounts of training earn
- how much you can afford to pay
- how unpleasant/dangerous the job is
- cost of living? (eg London weightings)

I'm not sure what else at the moment. I don't really expect law lecturers to end up earning as much as lawyers to be fair, even if it does read a bit like that. I do think it's sad that someone at the rally yesterday said she was nearing retirement and earning 9K a year less in higher education than she would have done if she'd stayed in teaching.

Basically I feel like I don't know enough to argue about it though, and maybe that means I don't know enough to be justified in taking part in this action?

I note *I* don't feel underpaid, despite the fact I'm a fair way below that 35K. I could possibly get paid more out of academia in the IT industry, but that would probably feel overpaid to me.

[j4.livejournal.com]

I do think it's sad that someone at the rally yesterday said she was nearing retirement and earning 9K a year less in higher education than she would have done if she'd stayed in teaching.

It's certainly sad that people are leaving teaching to go to lower-paid jobs. :-/ But I suspect that's not what you meant.

maybe that means I don't know enough to be justified in taking part in this action?

I don't think there's an entrance exam. :-) You clearly know enough to feel incensed by what's happening; what is the strike supposed to show, if not that people are angry about the situation?

I note *I* don't feel underpaid

I don't feel underpaid either, at just over 20K -- it would be nice to have more money, sure, but I could easily have got a higher-paid job if I'd wanted to, and instead I chose to do jobs I enjoyed more (and believed to be slightly more 'worthwhile' in some kind of vague woolly way).

I can't imagine earning as much as 35K a year -- I'm unlikely to ever earn that much, even allowing for inflation! -- but it doesn't really bother me. Maybe it should? I don't see that getting bothered by it would do much other than make me unhappier, though.

[lnr]

I meant that university-teaching and school-teaching to me seem jobs which should have similar status and so on and ought to be paid about the same. I suspect that when she moved they *were* similarly paid, and it is in the intervening years that the gap has grown.

Of course just because the average pay is 35K doesn't mean most academics are necessarily earning that much. At the moment it looks like lecturers in Cambridge start on about 25K, and of course researching postdocs go down much lower - the academic pay scale starts at around 14.5K.

The thing that makes me angry is that there's all this extra money coming in, some of which was apparently promised to go into pay, and the employers association isn't willing to even talk about it until the end of nextthe month. Especially when low pay was one of the reasons the universities gave for needing top-up fees in the first place. And I still can't believe they put out a press release which was so far wrong in its claims on average salary either!

[vyvyan.livejournal.com]

Of course just because the average pay is 35K doesn't mean most academics are necessarily earning that much. At the moment it looks like lecturers in Cambridge start on about 25K, and of course researching postdocs go down much lower - the academic pay scale starts at around 14.5K.

OU associate lecturers who tutor on the maximum allowed number of courses (180 points, with no other employment) might get around 9.5K. Although the OU claim this would amount to just 18 hours work per week, pretty much all the ALs I know (including myself) spend at least double that amount of time on tutoring, in order to do the job properly. Personally, I had more spare income as a PhD student on a grant :-)

[jvvw.livejournal.com]

I looked at the OU AL positions once but decided not to apply because the pay was so low. They seem to find good people though... Luckily permanent positions are a bit better paid :-)

[artela.livejournal.com]

Nearly every tutor I've had has been doing OU as an "additional" job... for example, this year's tutor is also a full time lecturer at Aber, and one of last year's was full time at Glamorgan.

[vyvyan.livejournal.com]

As I posted in the OU community, a recent survey suggests that 2/5 of ALs have the OU as their main employer in terms of income.

[artela.livejournal.com]

Which means that 60% (over half), don't.

[vyvyan.livejournal.com]

Yes; that still leaves about 3000 ALs around the country who basically live on their OU income - not an insignificant number of people. I suspect we weren't included in the average academic income calculations being given in the press at the moment, because it would be so hard to work out.

[artela.livejournal.com]

I suspect the same.

[oldbloke.livejournal.com]

If you live until you're 52, like me, you could be on 35k.
It really oughtn't to have taken me this long to get to that, though.

[jvvw.livejournal.com]

earning 9K a year less in higher education than she would have done if she'd stayed in teaching.

Is that really true? What's top of the standard scale for teachers these days? I tend to think that top of the standard lecturer salary is about 35-40K, though in practice lots of people will be senior lecturers/readers/professors.

[nja.livejournal.com]

http://www.teachers.org.uk/salary/pay_calc_2006_ew.php

(19-28k on the main pay scale, up to 42k if you have all the management and SEN points - I think most of the teachers in my two schools are up at that end of the range).

http://www.aut.org.uk/media/html/8/9/payassimilation.html

(24-37k on the lecturer A/B scale, up to 41k with discretionary points)

That looks roughly equivalent, until you consider that a teacher could well be earning at the top of their pay scale at the age of thirty (there's a rule of thumb that if you haven't become a deputy head by 35, you're not going to make it), while an academic has perhaps been in a permanent post for a couple of years and is near the bottom of that scale. I know what the teaching staff are paid at two small special schools, and the majority of them are paid perhaps 5-10k more than university lecturers of the same age.

[lnr]

I think the woman in question was one of the people from ARU, and for some reason pay scales in the new (post-92) universities are a little lower than those in the old ones.

[jvvw.livejournal.com]

It's worth pointing out that academics probably won't start at the bottom of their scale. The point of the researcher scale I was on as a post-doc for instance was above the bottom point of the lecturer scale, and the people I knew who got lectureships didn't start at the bottom.

[jvvw.livejournal.com]

Why do you think you're not underpaid but that lecturers not out of curiosity? I suppose it vaguely interests me because I have similar qualifications to an academic (PhD plus one postdoc), but do an IT job in a university instead. That extra experience probably has some value though nonetheless. Do you think I should be paid more than you are because I've 'trained' for longer?

[lnr]

It's a good question. The qualifications I have are not in the area I'm working in, and anyway aren't worth the paper they're printed on in a lot of ways, and to be honest I don't feel like I'm very *good* at my job. Plus it's a *lot* more than the office jobs which are the only other work I've done - admittedly only as summer work and to tide me over before getting a "real" job post university.

The amount you're paid in the job you're in probably has more to do with the amount of experience you have relevant to that job. So your PhD and postdoc skills would probably add more to your worth as an academic than they do to your worth in IT. Even in academia it seems easier to be paid lots for computing than for being an academic though :-)

[jvvw.livejournal.com]

I reckon I earn about the same at the moment as I would have done had I stayed in academia (but less than when I worked in the private sector!).

I suppose I don't feel that there is any particular reason why academics in general should be paid more than I am. (I'm not convinced that people should only be paid by the number of years experience they have in a field I guess).

There are an awful lot of perks and nice things associated with being an academic - not least an incredible amount of freedom to choose what you work on. I decided not to go down the academic route much more because of the whole short-term contract issue than because of the pay. I wanted a bit more career security. I think there are a whole number of issues that the AUT should be campaigning about but overall pay (as opposed to pay for particular subsections of the academic population) isn't one of the most important ones.

[nomme.livejournal.com]

According to a pdf of an article ranking all VCs pay 2004-5, your VC (A. Richard) was/is on 190,000 p.a. which represents 5.6% increase over the previous year and 41.8% increase over the previous 3 years.

If you would like a copy of the pdf I'll email it you.

[lnr]

I've seen the info - it comes from the Times Higher Education Supplement BTW. I note that on average VCs have had a 25% pay increase over the last 3 years.