APPENDIX 43
Memorandum submitted by David Lee on behalf
of Scientists for Labour (Sfl)
1.1 Background:
We are delighted to have the opportunity to
respond to the House of Commons Science and Technology Select
Committee Inquiry into Short-Term Contracts in Science and Engineering.
The committee has not defined a "short-term contract"
and in this response we have taken it to mean a fixed-term contract,
of three-years or less in duration. While the committee did not
specifically restrict their inquiry to researchers working within
Universities, Colleges and Research Institutes, the issues of
short-term contracts are most significant within this sector.
Indeed, recent data suggests that 94 per cent of research staff,
some 39,000 people, are employed on fixed-term contract, which
will typically be three years or less. This value equates to 5
per cent of all UK fixed term employees. The traditional view
was that contract research staff obtain permanent academic positions
after one or two contracts lasting three to six years in total.
This appears no longer to be the norm. Further studies have suggested
that 45 per cent of contract research staff have spent between
three and 10 years on successive contracts, while 12 per cent
had spent more than 10 years. Alarmingly the average number of
successive contracts was four. Significantly, an increasing number
of academic positions are now awarded on a fixed term basis. The
proportion has increased from 39 per cent to 42 per cent over
the past five years and in 1999-2000, fully 75 per cent of new
academic appointments were made on a fixed-term basis.
Scientists for Labour accepts that the culture
of short-term contracts is a consequence of the predominant research
funding mechanisms within the UK, which are based on two to three
year project grants. This mechanism has been relatively successful
in delivering high quantity and quality research, which is value
for money. We feel it reasonable to draw a distinction between
postdoctoral research staff who aspire to become independent scientists,
or University Lecturers and staff in research assistant, technician,
or research support roles. For the former fixed-term post-doctoral
positions are a central element of their training before moving
on to a junior group leader, or a lecturership job. It is very
purpose of such positions that they are not permanent, and people
enter them in the full anticipation of moving on. This is, of
course, distinct from those who are in research assistant, technician,
or research support roles who take jobs post PhD (or post-degree)
and are not necessarily planning to move, but would like a more
permanent and secure career structure. Future developments should
be carefully structured to protect the latter group without inadvertently
restricting the flexibility for training in the former.
Scientists for Labour's own soundings have revealed
that among young scientists the perceived lack of a career structure
is seen as the major impediment to progression in research and
positively discourages very many good students from taking up
a career in science and technology. Indeed we concur fully with
the views of the Science and Technology Committee who opined that:
"[particularly damaging] is the fact that
many scientists are perpetually on short-term contracts. This
insecurity is bad for morale, and it creates mortgage and may
affect pension entitlement1 . . . .4 The Government can no longer
afford to ignore the problem of 1 . . . 4 poor job security for
postdoctoral researchers and support staff. A shortage of skilled
personnel threatens to undermine its commitment to strengthen
the science base. We have set out our response according to the
basic format outlined by the committee in their call for evidence."
(House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee: Sixth
Report, Realising our Potential)
There is substantial evidence, both anecdotal
and objective to indicate that job insecurity, related to fixed-term
contracts causes good researchers to alter their career path to
the detriment of science and engineering research in the UK. For
example, staff may feel compelled to leave the sector to obtain
a permanent job in a different field. While movement between professions
is not necessarily a negative development, it should be made on
the basis of choice rather than necessity. It is often associated
more experienced staff who are particularly disadvantaged by job
insecurities as they increasingly difficult to obtain a new contract
due to the increased cost of employment. Many enter other related
fields such as science teaching or management. The nature of fixed-term
contracts increases the likelihood of staff moving to other countries,
such as the USA, where pay and conditions for researchers are
substantially better than in the UK. Moreover, staff who are committed
to a career in research may find themselves obliged to take an
academic post, in order to ensure job security which affects their
abilities to concentrate specifically on research due to teaching
and administrative duties. Other staff may take a position within
industry, where conditions and job security are greater. Furthermore
many gifted graduates will chose not to enter the profession at
all. As a consequence it is becoming increasingly difficult to
recruit high quality staff to research positions.
1.2 Pay and career progression
In terms of pay, research staff on fixed term
contracts are disadvantaged compared to their counterparts on
permanent contracts, as outlined in Table 1 below. The pay differential
may be explained as follows. First, many researchers do not maintain
their incremental date when they move from one contract to the
next. Accordingly they may remain on the same increment for periods
up to two years or longer while their permanent colleague obtain
an incremental rise every 12 months. In addition many staff are
compelled to take a pay cut in order to maintain their employment
as funding organisations are often unwilling to fund the personnel
costs associated with more experienced or older researchers. Scientists
for Labour recommend that provision be implemented to ensure that
incremental dates are maintained. In addition, funding bodies,
in partnership with employers, should work to ensure that, where
appropriate, funding for projects is sufficient to cover the salaries
of experienced scientists and not simply newly qualified post-doctoral
researchers. These issues have been the subject of a number of
proposals made by Scientists for Labour and summarised in an article
in Chemistry and Industry (vol 21, p703, Dec 2000). Among other
ideas we suggested the formation of a Research Career Fund which
could provide resources for age related increments so that costs
to funding bodies would be age independent, removing inhibitions
on employing older, more experienced staff.
Table 1
AVERAGE SALARIES FOR STAFF ON RESEARCH GRADES
BY GENDER AND EMPLOYMENT STATUS
| |
Male | Female
|
| Permanent | £23,766
| £20,960 |
| Fixed-term | £21,044
| £20,280 |
| Source: AUT analysis of HSEA staff record, 1998-99.
|
In many sectors the lack of job security associated with
fixed-term contracts is off-set by relatively high salaries, allowing
fixed-term employee to benefit from a welcome degree of flexibility.
Fundamentally, salaries within the research sector are alarmingly
low. As outlined by the Science and Technology committee a postdoctoral
researcher in London is likely to earn less than an office receptionist.
A significant increase in salary level may act to off-set the
disadvantages associated with job security.
Researchers on fixed-term contracts are further disadvantaged
in career progression. In many cases access to study leave and
training is not as favourable as for permanent employees. Moreover,
within research the ability to obtain a permanent academic position
is often dependent on the ability to obtain independent research
funding. Many funding bodies impose regulations, which make fixed-term
employees ineligible to apply for funding in their own right.
Accordingly, a vicious circle exists, whereby staff on fixed term
contracts are unable to demonstrate the ability to obtain funding,
required to obtain a permanent position, simply by virtue of their
employment status. Scientists for Labour recommends that opportunities
for training and study leave should not discriminate against staff
on fixed-term contracts. Moreover funding bodies must examine
their regulations, and amend where necessary, to ensure that funding
opportunities are not restrictive in relation to staff on fixed
term contracts.
1.3 Redundancy arrangements and maternity leave
Most contract research scientists are obliged to sign a redundancy
waiver as part of their contract, effectively removing their rights
to redundancy pay and consultation. This situation relates to
contract research staff with many years of continuous employment,
who would otherwise benefit from significant protection against
unreasonable redundancy and would be eligible to reasonable levels
of redundancy pay. The implementation within the UK of the European
Directive on Fixed-term Work is a welcome development. However,
certain safeguards are required to ensure the protection of research
staff. The proposed regulations indicate that after four years
of fixed term contracts any subsequent contract would be open
ended and subject to redundancy claims. There is therefore a real
risk that in this situation employers/funding bodies would be
reluctant to re-employ the same person to avoid such payments.
Scientists for Labour strongly urges the government to provide
"ring-fenced" extra resources to the Research Councils
to meet this additional cost. We also believe that in the longer
term, all short-term contracts should be subject to the same redundancy
terms as fixed term staff. Accordingly, the redundancy waiver
should be abolished.
A significantly higher proportion of female academic staff
are on fixed-term contracts than male staff. Accordingly the provision
of maternity leave and rights is a major issue. While staff on
fixed-term contracts are entitled to extended maternity provision,
these rights do not extend beyond the end of a contract which
ends during the period of maternity leave. Moreover, many funding
bodies are unwilling to allow a new contract to start during the
period of maternity leave, leading to an unwarranted break in
contract with associated loss of extended maternity benefit. Scientists
for Labour believes that staff should not lose extended maternity
rights on the basis of being on a short-term contract where it
is reasonable to expect that the contract would be renewed.
1.4 Concordat and Research Careers Initiative
Scientists for Labour supports the Concordat and Research
Careers Initiative, which set out standards for career management
and conditions of employment for researchers on fixed-term contracts.
The initiatives do not, however, address the fundamental issues
associated with fixed-term contract work, which are related to
pay and job security. Moreover, we are concerned at the speed
at which implementation of the recommendations is acting to benefit
staff on fixed-term contracts. Indeed in the second report of
the Research Careers Initiative it is stated that: "[t]he
available data suggest little change in the extent to which good
practice is benefiting research staff." Scientists for Labour
believes that the Concordat and Research Careers Initiative should
act as one strand in a co-ordinated approach involving Government,
funding bodies and employers. Without a fundamental shift in policy
at Government level related to the pay and conditions of researchers
on fixed-term contracts, and a willingness on the part of funding
bodies to embrace best practice, the Concordat and Research Careers
Initiative will be merely "window dressing".
June 2002
|
