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

[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.