Memorandum submitted by AUT/NATFHE
THE CURRENT
PAY DISPUTE
IN HIGHER
EDUCATION
All three unions in higher education, AUT EIS
and NATFHE representing academic and related staff have rejected
the pay offer from UCEA of 12.6% and are continuing with industrial
action in support of the campaign for a decent pay rise.
What is the background to this dispute?
University staff did not make the decision to
take action lightly. For 20 years university employers and vice-chancellors
have failed to address the problem of academics' pay.
— This action is the culmination of
decades of decline in pay—in the last 20 years salaries
have fallen in value by around 40% relative to equivalent professions.
— 30 years ago there were nine students
to every university teacher—now there are 21.
— On average academics spend four years
training in postgraduate studies sacrificing key earning years.
They are rewarded by starting on low salaries, short term contracts
and earnings at their peak are lower than any other profession
including teachers, doctors, lawyers and other key professionals.
What is different in this pay negotiation?
After 20 years of vice-chancellors pleading
poverty, universities are to receive the biggest injection of
new funding for a generation—£2.8 billion over the
next three years—the money is there in the sector.
An element of this new cash is levied from top-up
fees. When vice-chancellors lobbied for these fees they told the
then Minister for Higher Education that they wanted to spend "at
least a third" of the new money on staff pay and conditions.
With this in mind, the unions' joint pay claim
to vice-chancellors called on the employers to honour the promise
given to government and commit to a pay increase of 23% over three
years. It was also in the context of vice-chancellors having awarded
themselves an average of 25% over the last three years. This claim
is also in line with the recommendations from the Bett enquiry
in 1999.
What has happened over the last few months?
We tried everything to persuade the vice-chancellors
to honour their promise without success and there was no sign
of a serious offer on the table. In February AUT and NATFHE members
voted overwhelmingly to take strike action and to begin a continuous
boycott of assessment. In March the employers held talks with
the non-academic staff unions and excluded NATFHE and AUT. The
offer they made then was a derisory 6% increase over two years.
This offer was rejected not only by NATFHE and the AUT, but also
by the non academic staff unions.
The unions continued to explore the possibility
of serious negotiations based on a serious offer. NATFHE and AUT
met with the employers several times in April for "talks
about talks" where no progress was made. A series of meetings
then took place with the involvement of ACAS, again to "talk
about talks."
Finally, the first set of negotiations took
place last Monday (8 May) under the auspices of ACAS where the
3.5% a year or 12.6% offer over three years was made. This offer
was rejected by AUT and NATFHE. EIS who until then had not been
in dispute also rejected the offer and are now balloting their
members to take industrial action.
What happens next?
The boycott will continue with thousands of
students being affected. Universities have reacted with some imposing
pay docking and others attempting to impose local pay deals. In
at least one university all 700 unionised lecturers face imminent
complete suspension.
Since the talks broke down the unions have been
doing everything they can to get the talks back on and to end
the dispute. The employers' representatives, the Universities
and Colleges Employers' Association (UCEA), have not yet agreed
to further talks or once mentioned how the dispute may be brought
to an end.
The unions have always made clear their commitment
to ending this dispute as soon as possible and their intention
of attending negotiations at any time.
SUMMARY
Background
1. The long standing problem of pay decline
in high education is well documented and acknowledged by all interested
parties.
The funding backlog for university infrastructure,
estimated at £8 billion, is damaging facilities for students
and researchers. The shortfall of teaching funding has badly hit
the salaries of academic staff, which have shown practically no
increase in real terms over two decades. This at a time when professionals
in virtually every other sector, including school teaching and
the health professions, have improved their positions significantly;
and when competition among graduate employers at home and abroad
for the most talented potential university researchers and teachers
is greater than ever.
Prime Minister, Tony Blair, speech on the HE
Bill at IPPR, 14 January 2004
In questioning the Minister for Higher Education,
then Alan Johnson on 3 December 2003, Barry Sheerman the Chairman
of the committee said:
I personally believe that investment must come
because one of those aspects that we found was the low pay of
university teachers over a long period of time.
Q80 Chairman: [Barry Sheerman]
In his evidence Alan Johnson said:
They need more for salaries, they are scandalously
poorly paid in terms of statistics, a 20% increase over the last
18 years compared to 60% in general, they need it for that, they
need it for bursaries and access schemes and they need it for
the estate. That is a very important part of the additional funding
that is going in. That money is not going to go to a tax haven
in the Cayman Islands, it is going to be reinvested back into
universities and into the staff, which is why I find it strange,
I have to say, as a former leader of a trade union that the trade
union representing such poorly paid staff do not take the opportunity
for extra funding coming in, indeed they say there should be no
graduate contribution whatsoever. I would have thought post Dearing,
post Cubie and post Reece and, yes, you can have your arguments
about variability but your position and the position of AUT is
that graduates should not make any contribution at all. I fail
to see how we will solve these problems without an additional
stream of funding.
2. The Dearing report (1997) noted the problem
but did not address it and simply recommended a further enquiry.
The Bett Committee of enquiry in 1999 was not supported by the
Government and no funding was forthcoming to implement its recommendations,
which were estimated to cost in the order of £570 million
per annum.
3. In England, additional funding was made available
to the higher education sector following the Secretary of State's
letter of November 2000 to meet sector needs on pay:
"Within the overall additions to funding
for higher education for the next three years, I have allocated
"£50 million in 2001-02, £110 million in 2002-03
and £170 million in 2003-04 for both academic and support
staff pay. As I have already announced, I will expect this to
be used in part to recruit and retain high quality academic staff
in strategically important disciplines or areas and to help modernise
the management processes in the sector."
David Blunkett grant letter to HEFCE 29.11.2000
However, when distributed to institutions under
the HEFCE's Rewarding and Developing Staff Initiative, it
did little to address overall pay levels. The funding has now
been consolidated into teaching grants at a rate of £330
million per annum in 2006-07. Some institutions have used significant
amounts of this income to fund the 2004 Framework Agreement for
the Modernisation of Pay Structures but much of that funding has
been used on the introduction of systems, employment of consultants
and additional HR staff and not directly on staff pay.
In its report on the Future of Higher Education
the Select Committee concluded in June 2003:
It is surprising that a funding settlement for
higher education that is generally regarded as one of the most
generous for years should not provide the money to address one
of the most significant issues in higher education, that of poor
levels of pay for academic staff. Yet on the evidence presented
to us, we must conclude that is the situation.
4. Trade unions and employers in higher
education sought to implement some of the Bett recommendations
in 2001 and constructed new national negotiating machinery (Joint
Negotiating Committee for Higher Education Staffs). In 2003, the
initial Framework Agreement was concluded which introduced a single
pay spine for UK higher education to be implemented through grading
arrangements negotiated locally, supported by a nationally commended
grading structure. In its original form the Framework Agreement
threatened to reduce the earnings expectations of academic and
academic related staff in pre-92 universities. It was only after
industrial action by AUT members that an additional Memorandum
of Understanding was agreed between the AUT and pre-92 employer
institutions that the Framework became workable in a way that
did not reduce the rewards available to key groups of staff. The
Framework has the potential to assist the achievement of equal
pay for work of equal value within higher education but it has
done little to address the fundamental problems of low pay and
career rewards.
5. Employers have always claimed that the
pay problems in higher education were a result of funding limitations.
The Higher Education Act 2005 provided for a substantial increase
in HE resources to English institutions by the introduction of
variable top-up fees, in addition there has been substantial increases
in research funding and other income from other sources. In Wales,
variable top-up fees will be introduced in 2007 and significant
supplementary income has been provided to institutions for 2006-07.
In Scotland, grants are being increased. The total impact of increases
in income for UK higher education is estimated to be 23.7% between
2005-06 and 2008-09 as shown in table 7 of the attached document
on funding data. (Paper No 3.)
Current dispute
6. Against this background and in the knowledge
of substantial increases in funding, the academic trade unions
submitted a pay claim on 6 October 2005 (Paper No 1). The claim
did not specify any specific increase but sought to engage in
a dialogue with employers to determine how the additional funding
could be effectively applied to staff salaries, in a way which
sought to address the long-standing pay problem and reverse the
relative decline of higher education pay.
7. The employers failed to offer a formal
meeting in order to pursue this dialogue and on 2 December, the
AUT executive declared an official dispute and announced plans
for a ballot of members to pursue industrial action. A meeting
did eventually take place on 10 January 2006. Despite an initially
constructive dialogue, the employers concluded that they would
not conduct further consultations on the issues raised by the
academic trade unions unless the unions withdrew their proposals
for the ballot. By this time, NATFHE had also agreed to ballot
its members on the same timetable as the AUT. From this point
on, the employers refused to negotiate directly with the AUT or
NATFHE. The reasons they gave were that a) they would not negotiate
while industrial action was taking place, b) they could not negotiate
until the non-academic unions had submitted their pay claim, and
c) they would not be able to negotiate until institutions had
received notification of their funding allocations for 2006-07.
8. Eventually, the non-academic unions pay
claim was submitted and an offer was made to those unions of a
two-year deal of 6% on 28 March 2006. This was rejected by those
unions. There then commenced a process of trying to re-establish
formal negotiations between AUT, NATFHE and the employers' body
(UCEA). Two informal meetings were held and the conclusion was
that ACAS should be asked to assist and three meetings were held
under the auspices of ACAS. There were broad proposals designed
to ensure that negotiations recommenced but before these were
delivered the employers took a unilateral step to invite the academic
unions back to negotiations. These negotiations took place on
8 May. It should be noted that this was the first time since 6
October 2005, that the employers had met the unions face to face
to discuss actual levels of proposed pay increase.
9. Negotiations were pursued throughout
that day and resulted in parallel offers being made to academic
unions (Paper No 2) and non-academic unions the offers together
amounted to a total increase in cost of 10.98% during the years
of the deal, which in turn produced a 12.6% increase on all salary
scales by February 2009.
10. The academic claim had always sought
a pay settlement over the three years, which ensured both "catch
up" and "keep up" elements. "Keep up"
was designed to ensure that salaries did not continue to decline
relative to average pay levels across the economy and "catch
up" to reverse the years of previous decline. The offer described
above will barely maintain higher education pay in line with average
earnings and no "catch up" element can be identified.
With the exception of a period during the 10 January discussions,
the employers, despite earlier recognition of the problem of low
pay in higher education pay, now seem to refuse to acknowledge
the need for a settlement which addresses "catch up"
and "keep up".
Industrial action
11. The ballots referred to above were concluded
for the middle of February and both AUT and NATFHE memberships
gave overwhelming support for strike action and action short of
a strike. On 7 March 2006, a strike of AUT and NATFHE higher education
members took place throughout the UK. On 8 March, action short
of a strike was commenced. This took a number of forms, most significant
among them was the boycott of examination and assessment. Clearly,
by the 17 May, that boycott is having a major impact at all higher
education institutions. It should be noted that from 10 January
until 8 May, the employers consistently refused to enter into
negotiations on this issue. Furthermore, they failed to respond
the initial approach by the academic unions on 6 October 2005.
12. The offer described in Paper No 2 was
rejected by the negotiators on 8 May, a decision that was endorsed
unanimously by AUT Council on 11 May, representatives also voted
unanimously to continue with the action short of a strike. The
academic unions have always made it clear that they wish to negotiate
a satisfactory agreement which properly acknowledges the increase
in resources available to higher education institutions and ensures
that staff receive long overdue improvements to pay levels, which
can be met by applying part of that additional income.
Paper 1
ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS, EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTE OF SCOTLAND, NATFHE—THE UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE
LECTURERS UNION 2006 PAY CLAIM
1. In England and Northern Ireland in 2006,
and in Wales in 2007 (excluding Welsh domiciled students), higher
education institutions are introducing variable top-up fees payable
by undergraduates—a change which, as the Prime Minister
has acknowledged, is intended to bring additional funding into
the sector for improvements to pay, as well as other items. In
Scotland extra compensatory grant has been allocated to make up
for the extra income available elsewhere from top up fees.
2. We note the statement of the former higher
education Minister Alan Johnson in the House of Commons on 29
April 2004:
". . . the Prime Minister, in a speech late
last year, said: `The shortfall of teaching funding has badly
hit the salaries of academic staff, which have shown practically
no increase in real terms over two decades.' That is one of the
reasons why we are pursuing the controversial measures in the
Higher Education Bill. Not only are we putting in an extra £3
billion from the taxpayer, but an extra £2 billion will come
through existing fees and through the increase. University vice-chancellors
tell us that, in general, at least a third of that money will
be put back into the salaries and conditions of their staff. That
will make an enormous contribution in tackling a very serious
and deep-seated problem."
3. AUT and NATFHE are seeking an undertaking
from UCEA and each of its constituent employers that the commitments
given by Vice-Chancellors to Alan Johnson with regard to extra
fees income that "at least a third of that money will be
put back into the salaries and conditions of their staff"
will be honoured. AUT and EIS are seeking an undertaking from
UCEA and its Scottish employers that the increased funding for
the sector announced by the Deputy Minister in 2005 will be used
for pay purposes.
4. Failure to provide this commitment will
send a clear message to staff within the sector, and while we
are prepared to negotiate we are not prepared to accept any drawing
back from the position put by Vice Chancellors in their arguments
for the introduction of top up fees, as set out in the quote from
the then minister above.
5. An adequate proportion of new income
derived from top up fees and other sources must be used to improve
pay. This proportion must be at least one third of all new income
within the sector. The resulting increase in funding for pay must
result in substantial percentage increases to close the gap identified
in the Bett report.
6. We are willing and available to negotiate
on this, including how such monies might be allocated to benefit
employees and improve their terms and conditions and over what
period, but will need to be in a position to report a positive
outcome to the Executives of all three unions on 2 December at
which point they will decide upon next steps.
7. We should be clear that a failure to
respond positively and provide these commitments will lead to
the existence of a trade dispute between us.
8. We are happy to make further information
available on the additional estimated income available to institutions
in the event that you do not have.
ACADEMIC TRADE UNION SIDE, ASSOCIATION OF
UNIVERSITY TEACHERS, EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE OF SCOTLAND, NATFHE—THE
UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE LECTURERS' UNION
EXPANSION OF
THE 6 OCTOBER
2005 SALARY CLAIM
FOR 2006
The fundamental principle of the academic trade
union claim is that an adequate proportion of income from new
sources eg increased teaching and research grants, increases of
"other income" and variable top up fees, should be applied
to pay, with resulting increases being delivered through national
pay bargaining. In doing so employers should address the problem
of "catch-up" pay increases as described in the 2005
pay claim.
The Framework Agreement and the Memoranda of
Understanding have provided a platform for the improvement of
pay levels generally but much more needs to be done and most of
this can only be achieved through an uplift to the national pay
spine.
We are also seeing an imbalance of benefits
within HEIs arising from the Framework, in particular, there have
been some improvements in starting salaries for lecturers and
post-doctoral researchers, but lecturers at the maximum of their
scales have seen hardly any improvement, with a small number of
institutions providing exceptions. The significance of this is
that higher education still fails to offer an attractive career
option when compared with other professions that usually require
lower levels of qualification to gain entry, but offer substantially
more in terms of career earnings.
Over the years we have seen the decline in the
relative earnings of academic and academic related staff as employers
have stuck to pay offers based on the increase in the teaching
grant which have been around the level of inflation and sometimes
lower. At the same time "other income" to universities
has increased. The proportion of expenditure on staff has declined
(from 70% to 58.5% over the last 30 years) whilst at the same
time pay levels have become increasingly uncompetitive.
The changes to research funding arrangements
and the introduction of variable fees will result in a considerable
boost to HE income. Scotland has adopted a different approach
by rejecting fee increases but substantially increasing funding
available for institutional grants. Overall income available from
other sources continues to increase. Projections of the impact
of new income sources on UK higher education are set out in the
appendix to this paper. Over the next three years income to higher
education in the UK will increase by at least 25.1% which can
fund increases of the pay bill of more than 20%.
Taking into account additional income sources
HEIs now have an opportunity to address the longstanding problem
of uncompetitive pay levels and the academic trade unions are
seeking a pay offer which meets the following criteria.
1. It represents an acknowledgement that
a proportion of new sources of income will be applied to increasing
levels of pay.
2. That increases will start to address
the need for "catch up" salary improvements.
3. These improvements will become available
as income increases.
4. These increases will be in addition to
the normal expectation of increases intended to keep pay in line
with competitive salaries elsewhere in the economy "keep
up".
5. Thus increases over the next three years
could be expressed as follows:
(a) 1 August 2006 increase equalling the
sum of the rise public sector average earnings increase for the
12 months to April 2006 + 4% (or a flat rate increase whichever
is larger).
(b) 1 August 2007 increase equalling the
sum of the rise public sector average earnings increase for the
12 months to April 2007 + 3% (or a flat rate increase whichever
is larger).
(c) 1 August 2008 increase equalling the
sum of the rise public sector average earnings increase for the
12 months to April 2008 + 3% (or a flat rate increase whichever
is larger).
6. An extension of the 51 point pay spine
to 60 points.
7. Adjustments to the commended grading
structure in appendix C, so that
(a) the maximum of AC4 is raised by four
points;
(b) the maximum of AC3 is raised by four
points;
8. A commitment from all higher education
employers to apply the amendments to appendix C as agreed.
Paper 2
[EMPLOYERS' "FINAL" OFFER MADE ON
8 MAY 2006
2006-07 1 August 2006
| 3% |
| 1 February 2007 | 1% |
| 2007-08 1 August 2007 | 3% |
| 1 February 2008 | 1% |
| 2008-09 1 August 2008 | 3% |
| 1 February 2009 | 1% |
| |
|
Table 3
UK: FUNDING COUNCIL
GRANT AND
ACADEMIC FEES
In the UK, net grant and fees for higher education
institutions—excluding capital and expenditure from top-up
fee income on bursaries, administration and outreach—are
estimated to increase by 8.6% in 2006-07, by 8.0% in 2007-08 and
by 5.7% in 2008-09. Between 2005-06 and 2008-09, net grant and
fees—including net top-up fees—are estimated to rise
by 24.0% in the UK, or by £2.8 billion (see table). In 2006-07,
there will be an extra £1,015 million in net grant and fees,
followed by an additional £1,024 million in 2007-08 and an
estimated £785 million in 2008-09. The estimates for 2008-09
are conservative, based on the GDP deflator forecast; the table
does not include other sources of income such as research contracts,
catering and accommodation, and investment interest.
Table 3
UK: GRANT AND
FEES—NET
OF CAPITAL
AND TOP-UP
FEE COSTS
UK |
2005-06
plan
£000s |
2006-07
Forecast/plan
£000s |
2005-06 to 2006-07
extra
£000s |
2005-06 to 2006-07
change
% |
2007-08
Forecast/plan
£000s |
2006-07 to 2007-08
extra
£000s |
2006-07 to 2007-08
change
% |
2008-09
Forecast/plan
£000s |
2007-08 to 2008-09
extra
£000s |
2007-08 to 2008-09
change
% |
2005-06 to 2008-09
extra
£000s |
2005-06 to 2008-09
change
% |
1
Government
grants
(minus
capital) |
7,254,623 |
7,698,841 |
444,218 |
6.1% |
8,094,998 |
396,157 |
5.1% |
8,292,628 |
197,630 |
2.4% |
1,038,005 |
14.3% |
2.
Academic
fees
and
support
grants
(inc net top-ups)#
|
4,531,041 |
5,102,076 |
571,035 |
12.6% |
5,715,871 |
613,795 |
12.0% |
6,288,915 |
573,044 |
10.0% |
1,757,874 |
38.8% |
Total
grant
and
fees
(net
of
capital
and
top-up fee
costs)
|
11,785,664 |
12,800,917 |
1,015,253 |
8.6% |
13,810,869 |
1,009,952 |
7.9% |
14,581,543 |
770,674 |
5.6% |
2,795,879 |
23.7% |
# incl net top-ups in England, Wales and NI; no top-ups in Scotland
Top-up figures are provisional figures for Wales and Northern
Ireland, awaiting further analysis
Sources:
England: Government grants: HEFCE and TDA in 12.04 grant
letter, including recurrent resources for research, and capital
grants; increase for 2008-09 in line with GDP deflator @ HMT 23.12.05.
Although there is some difference in grant levels for 2006-07
between the DfES grant letter of December 2004 (used in table
2) and the DfES grant letter of 31.1.06 and the subsequent HEFCE
allocations, the differences are relatively slight; the December
2004 figures are used because they also include TDA funding. Academic
fees and support grants: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2006/06_01/
.
Wales: 1. Higher level learning incl HEFCW grant—NAW
Draft Budget Proposals Oct 2005, plus additional funding (inc
Supplementary Income Stream) anno. Nov 2005. 2. Academic fees
and support grants—HESA 2003-04 Resources, uprated by HMT
GDP deflator @ 23.12.05. Estimated top-up fee income: AUT estimates
based on 2003-04 HESA data: 23,615 full-time 1st-year u/grads
UK and other EU domicile x £1,800 in 2007-08, then x2 in
2008-09.
Scotland: 1. Funding council grant: SFC circular SFC/22/2006,
Table D1: 2005-06, 2006-07; 2007-08: increased at rate for 2007-08
indicated in "Building a Better Scotland" (2004); 2008-09:
uprated by HMT GDP deflator. 2. Academic fees and support grants:
HESA 2003-04 Resources, thereafter uprated by HMT GDP deflator
@ 23.12.05. Additional fee income from 2006 has been excluded
from this table.
Northern Ireland: 1. Government grants—Source: HESA
2003-04 Resources, uprated by HMT GDP deflator @ 23.12.05. 2.
Academic fees and support grants—Source: HESA 2003-04 Resources,
uprated by HMT GDP deflator @ 23.12.05. Estimated top-up fee income
from 2006—AUT estimates based on 2003-04 HESA data: 10,265
full-time 1st-year u/grads UK and other EU domicile x £1,800
in 2006-07, then x2 in 2007-08 and x3 in 2008-09.
|
Paper 4
ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS
AVERAGE PAY
DATA USING
THE ANNUAL
SURVEY OF
HOURS AND
EARNINGS
Further and Higher Education
For the period 1998-2001, public sector average pay[1]
increased by 6.9% above inflation. For university teaching professionals,
pay for the period was 0.1% below inflation;[2]
for higher and further education teaching professionals, pay rose
by 3.7% above inflation.
Following the revision in 2002 of the Standard Occupational
Classification, from SOC90 to SOC2000, there is a second series
of average pay data, from 2002-05. Over this period, public sector
average pay increased by 5.8% above inflation. For higher education
teaching professionals, average pay rose by 2.7% above inflation;
for further education teaching professionals, pay fell by 1.0%
below the rate of inflation.
In summary, average pay for teaching professionals in further
and higher education since 1998 has fallen far behind the level
of increases in the public sector as a whole; indeed, for higher
education staff in 1998-2001, and further education staff in 2002-05,
average pay has not even kept up with all items RPI inflation.
INDEXED REAL TERMS AVERAGE (MEAN) PAY SERIES, 1998-05,
UK
3 digit
SOC code |
Public sector | University and polytechnic teaching professionals
| Higher and further education teaching professionals
|
1998 | 100.0 | 100.0
| 100.0 |
| 1999 | 103.0 | 99.3
| 99.8 |
| 2000 | 103.1 | 99.1
| 101.8 |
| 2001 | 106.9 | 99.9
| 103.7 |
| |
| |
4 digit
SOC code |
Public sector | Higher education teaching professionals
| Further education teaching professionals
|
2002 | 100.0 | 100.0
| 100.0 |
| 2003 | 101.3 | 100.2
| 98.1 |
| 2004 | 103.3 | 100.0
| 98.6 |
| 2005 | 105.8 | 102.7
| 99.0 |
| |
| |
SOC: Standard Occupational Classification.
Full-time employees on adult rates whose pay for the survey pay-period
was not affected by absence. Data for 2004 excluding ASHE supplementary
information.
Source: Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings; real terms
calculations by AUT.
[INDEXED REAL TERMS AVERAGE (MEAN) PAY SERIES, 1998-05, UK]
SOC: Standard Occupational Classification.
Full-time employees on adult rates whose pay for the survey
pay-period was not affected by absence. Data for 2004 excluding
ASHE supplementary information.
Source: Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings; real
terms calculations by AUT.
COMMENT
At a time when public sector average pay has been increasing
well above the rate of inflation, very little if any of this benefit
has been seen by teaching professionals in further and higher
education. A great deal of pay catch-up needs to take place for
FE teachers and their colleagues in higher education. Over the
decade from 2008, we look to the government to provide public
sector funding increases sufficient to tackle the problem of past
underfunding of pay in further education. We look to employers
in higher education to pass on the benefits of increased grant
and fee income to their employees.
THE ACADEMIC
PAY SHORTFALL
1981-2003
1. Academic pay and non-manual average earnings 1981-2001,
UK
In the period 1981-2001, non-manual average earnings in the
UK increased by 57.6% above inflation. The salary for academics
at the top of the Lecturer B scale in pre-1992 higher education
institutions rose by 6.1% above inflation over the same period;
the salary for academics on point 6 of the senior lecturer scale
in post-1992 higher education institutions rose by 7.6% above
inflation. The changes in pay levels for pre-92 academic staff
also apply to pre-92 academic-related staff, who were on the same
pay structure. There was thus a 51.5% shortfall in real terms
between average earnings and pay for academics in pre-92 HEIs
over the period, and a 50.0% shortfall for academics in post-92
HEIs.
Table 1
ACADEMIC PAY AND NON-MANUAL AVERAGE EARNINGS 1981-2001
(REAL TERMS INDEX APRIL 1981=100)
Year at
April | Average NM
earnings*
| Pre-92
lecturer # | Post-92
senior
lecturer#
|
1981 | 100.0 | 100.0
| 100.0 |
| 1982 | 99.7 | 96.0
| 96.5 |
| 1983 | 104.5 | 96.5
| 97.3 |
| 1984 | 107.5 | 97.0
| 96.2 |
| 1985 | 107.8 | 95.4
| 95.0 |
| 1986 | 113.9 | 107.4
| 99.1 |
| 1987 | 118.2 | 103.0
| 99.9 |
| 1988 | 125.9 | 105.1
| 107.0 |
| 1989 | 128.3 | 103.1
| 106.4 |
| 1990 | 128.9 | 102.7
| 106.6 |
| 1991 | 130.0 | 102.7
| 105.2 |
| 1992 | 133.5 | 102.6
| 104.8 |
| 1993 | 137.8 | 102.8
| 105.0 |
| 1994 | 138.0 | 102.8
| 104.9 |
| 1995 | 138.7 | 102.2
| 104.3 |
| 1996 | 141.3 | 102.6
| 104.8 |
| 1997 | 144.1 | 103.1
| 105.3 |
| 1998 | 145.4 | 101.1
| 103.2 |
| 1999 | 149.1 | 104.8
| 107.0 |
| 2000 | 151.4 | 104.9
| 107.0 |
| 2001 | 157.6 | 106.1
| 107.6 |
| |
| |
* Mean weekly earnings for full-time adult non-manual employees
in GB whose pay was not affected by absence, males and females
together, NES.
Table A18.1; Source: 1983-90: NES A 17.1 (NES 1990); 1991-2001:
NES A 30.1 (NES 2001); real terms index calculated by AUT.
# Maximum point Lecturer B (excluding discretionary points).
~ Original top of scale, now point 6
[CHART
1] [ACADEMIC PAY AND NON-MANUAL AVERAGE EARNINGS 1981-2001]
2. Academic pay and comparator professions 1994-2003
After annual inflation (measured by the all items retail
price index) is removed from the earnings data, and the data are
indexed, the decade to April 2003 saw a 12.6% increase in public
sector average earnings in real terms (table 2, chart 1). By contrast,
average earnings for academic staff in Britain rose by only 6.6%.
In other words, over the decade to April 2003, real terms earnings
for academic staff fell 6.0% behind public sector average earnings.
Real terms increases over the period for comparators ranged from
12.1% for accountants and 12.3% for secondary teachers, to 26.6%
for medical practitioners and 31.6% for managers and senior officials.
Table 2
AVERAGE EARNINGS: ACADEMICS AND COMPARATORS 1994-2003
(REAL TERMS INDEX CHANGES, 1994=100, BOTH SEXES, GREAT BRITAIN)
|
Higher education (ex-University & polytechnic) teaching professionals
|
Personnel, training & industrial relations managers
| Managers & senior officials
(ex-General administrators; national government (HEO to senior principal/Grade 6))
|
ICT professionals (ex-Computer analysts/pro-grammers)
|
Medical practitioners |
Secondary education teaching professionals
|
Chartered and certified accountants
|
Public sector average earnings
|
Year at
April
| | | |
| | | |
|
| 1994 | 100.0 | 100.0
| 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0
| 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0
|
| 1995 | 99.5 | 97.8
| 103.8 | 97.5 | 99.1
| 98.4 | 97.1 | 100.1
|
| 1996 | 96.3 | 102.9
| 106.0 | 99.4 | 103.2
| 98.7 | 99.8 | 102.0
|
| 1997 | 99.4 | 103.2
| 108.6 | 102.7 | 107.6
| 99.4 | 102.5 | 103.4
|
| 1998 | 100.5 | 105.5
| 106.7 | 101.6 | 107.2
| 97.9 | 103.1 | 102.2
|
| 1999 | 100.7 | 107.2
| 112.3 | 102.4 | 111.5
| 101.2 | 107.3 | 104.5
|
| 2000 | 99.7 | 106.3
| 109.6 | 102.6 | 109.5
| 102.0 | 104.4 | 104.7
|
| 2001 | 100.7 | 118.2
| 113.8 | 108.4 | 122.6
| 108.8 | 114.1 | 109.3
|
| 2002 | 103.8 | 111.8
| 119.2 | 109.2 | 127.6
| 111.8 | 115.9 | 111.5
|
| 2003 | 106.6 | 123.3
| 131.6 | 122.3 | 126.6
| 112.3 | 112.1 | 112.6
|
| |
| | | |
| | |
Notes: Average gross weekly pay for full-time employees
on adult rates whose pay for the survey pay-period was not affected
by absence; both sexes.
Source: New Earnings Survey (series); real terms index
by AUT using all items RPI at April.
[CHART
2] [AVERAGE EARNINGS: ACADEMICS AND COMPARATORS 1994-2003
(REAL TERMS INDEX CHANGES,] 1994=100, BOTH SEXES, GREAT BRITAIN)
Notes: Average gross weekly pay for full-time employees
on adult rates whose pay for the: survey pay-period was not affected
by absence; both sexes.
Source: New Earnings Survey (series); real terms index
by AUT using all items RPI at April.
Paper 6
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE QUALITY AND STANDARDS OF UK DEGREES
INTRODUCTION
Rather than putting pressure on the UCEA Board to negotiate
properly with the academic unions, vice-chancellors have been
devising a series of measures to get round the marking and assessment
boycott. Despite the unions' submitting their claim back in October,
the UCEA—by refusing to negotiate—have dragged out
the dispute so that it is now affecting second semester exams,
including finals.
Some of the universities' contingency plans include:
— Emergency changes to degree regulations to allow
students to progress and graduate without completing the full
course.
Newcastle—a new clause in university regulations will
allow classified degrees to be awarded even if modules are not
examined and as many as 50% of final marks are missing.
Keele—regulations allow students to graduate in exceptional
circumstances if they have obtained 75 credits rather than the
usual 120.
— In terms of degree regulations, professional bodies
with a statutory responsibility for ensuring standards for qualifying
degrees are particularly concerned about these contingency plans.
Law Society: "We rely on national measures to ensure
standards of degrees. We have a statutory responsibility for ensuring
standards for every qualifying law degree and we would not be
willing to compromise. I know universities are trying to bring
in contingency plans that would circumvent strike action, but
we can't say it does not matter if a student has not completed
part of the qualification. We would be concerned about this and
would want to know there had been no compromise." (Universities
plan easier degrees to beat strike, Observer, 30 April).
— Universities are threatening to use under-qualified
staff to set and mark exams.
For example, one university has attempted to use employment
agency to mark scripts (luckily the agency turned them down).
We've also seen evidence of a Law firm seeking "volunteers
who would be willing to mark some exam scripts". Examples
of post-docs being offered £1 a script to mark law papers.
— Other institutions have threatened to recruit
a "Dad's army" of retired academics to mark scripts.
For example, Cambridge—see "Dad's army stands
by to beat exam boycott", THES, 31 March.
— A number of institutions are proposing to use
casual staff with little or no knowledge of the specific course
as replacement examiners.
In recent years the QAA have highlighted the quality problems
that can arise from an over-reliance on underpaid and exploited
hourly-paid staff. For example, the QAA's recent institutional
audit at London South Bank University found that hourly-paid lecturers
were often less able to keep up to date with the subject areas
they taught and had few or no opportunities for staff development
and training.
— Using previous exam papers—often without
consulting with relevant specialist colleagues and therefore with
inaccurate knowledge of the course. Similarly, exam boards may
not include the most relevant members of the department, ie they
are not being properly constituted.
Instances of assignment titles and questions bearing little
resemblance to topics covered on the course (hence issues of fairness
for students); question papers riddled with errors and typos.
CONCLUSION
All of these emergency proposals threaten to jeopardise the
quality and standards of this year's degree awards and may cause
long-term damage to the UK higher education. It is not in the
students' interests to be awarded "devalued degrees";
nor for universities to render degree classifications meaningless
to prospective employers. As Gill Howie said at Council, there
is a danger that employers will view all degrees awarded this
year with suspicion, ie "students are going to be asked if
they graduated in 2006".
There is also a potential risk to the international reputation
of UK degrees and therefore of overseas income. See comments voiced
by Will Migniuolo, director, UK operations of US agency, Arcadia
University Centre for Education Abroad (Boycott fears for overseas
market, THES, May 5).
HEIs are also making a mockery of existing quality controls,
such as the QAA's ten-volume code of practice on student assessment
and external examinations. It is no surprise that the QAA chief
executive (Peter Williams) has had to warn universities not to
put their academic standards in "peril":
"If . . . an institution chooses to continue to award
qualifications, we shall expect it to do so taking every measure
to ensure its academic standards are not put in peril and the
value of its awards is maintained", ("QAA fears bid
to beat boycott will erode standards", THES, May 12).
ACTIONS
AUT and NATFHE have written to the QAA about the use of casual
labour. So have the NUS (12 April).
We have also written to 20+ professional and statutory bodies
(GMC, GTCE, RSC etc) warning them about university contingency
plans in their subject areas (5 May).
Our members are trying to raise quality concerns directly
with external examiners. However, at Birmingham, management have
warned AUT members from doing this on the grounds that "you
could very well be contravening the Data Protection Act".
SELECT COMMITTEE
ON EDUCATION
AND SKILLS
DECEMBER 2003
3 December 2003
On 3 December, recently appointed Alan Johnson appeared before
the Education and Skills Select Committee and was asked about
the Higher Education Bill.
Q80 Chairman: [Barry Sheerman]: This Committee
found, clearly, in its investigation into both access and retention,
as well as our look at two other aspects of higher education,
that higher education did desperately need greater investment.
Also, the evidence given to this Committee was that if there was
one thing that would probably predict the British economies success
and wealth creation in future, it was going to be that successful
investment in higher education. I personally believe that investment
must come because one of those aspects that we found was the low
pay of university teachers over a long period of time. Given that
we have to have new resources flowing into higher education, and
the Government has come up with one way of doing this, what is
the answer to the Opposition, at quite the way it has been done,
when people say, "Well, a fixed fee for everyone. Perhaps
£3,000 we can accept, but everybody should pay the same,
every university, every course, every institution." What
is your answer to that kind of view that has been expressed in
early day motions and so on?
Q88 Paul Holmes: One of the arguments in favour of
differential fees is that universities need to be able to raise
more money for various things, including paying higher academic
salaries, does that not automatically mean that all of the universities,
which is what the vice chancellors told us, are all going to want
to charge £3,000 because the Government are not going to
give it to them and the only way they can get the money is by
charging £3,000. All of them will want to charge £3,000
if only to be able to meet those sort of requirements.
Alan Johnson: I do not think that is going
to happen for the reasons I have explained before. If it does
you then talk about a fixed fee of £3,000, so it should meliorate
some of the concerns about fixed fees. I just do not think that
is going to happen. I saw the BBC survey last week that said that
90% of universities are considering charging £3,000. I am
surprised it is as low as 90% "considering charging £3,000".
It does not say they are considering charging it right across
the board for every course. I just cannot see that happening.
It is a very important point. The taxpayer should meet the lion's
share of higher education. There is 6% real increase over the
three years of this Spending Review that we are putting in, the
£10 billion, £400 for every taxpayer in England, will
be going into higher education, and that is absolutely as it should
be. They need more for salaries, they are scandalously poorly
paid in terms of statistics, a 20% increase over the last 18 years
compared to 60% in general, they need it for that, they need it
for bursaries and access schemes and they need it for the estate.
That is a very important part of the additional funding that is
going in. That money is not going to go to a tax haven in the
Cayman Islands, it is going to be reinvested back into universities
and into the staff, which is why I find it strange, I have to
say, as a former leader of a trade union that the trade union
representing such poorly paid staff do not take the opportunity
for extra funding coming in, indeed they say there should be no
graduate contribution whatsoever. I would have thought post Dearing,
post Cubie and post Reece and, yes, you can have your arguments
about variability but your position and the position of AUT is
that graduates should not make any contribution at all. I fail
to see how we will solve these problems without an additional
stream of funding. The other part of the Dearing recommendations
about employers making contributions, and we have several initiatives
underway at the moment, is I do not see how the taxpayer can be
expected to meet all of these costs with 40% to 50% participation
in the same way as we could when higher education was reserved
for the tiny elite. I really think we should have moved on from
that argument.
The select committee published a report on the White Paper
"the future of higher education" in July 2003 and there
is a small section on academic pay. It includes the line:
Academic staff might reasonably question whether it is worthwhile
continuing in the profession, and new entrants may be discouraged,
if there is no prospect of the issue of low pay being addressed.
The final recommendations (higher education in the future)
includes the following:
We believe that the Government needs to improve academic
and other salaries in order to address problems of recruitment
and retention. It might be that this is an issue that will need
to be dealt with in the next Comprehensive Spending Review round,
but this will not help the immediate problem. Staff/student ratios
have worsened significantly in recent years, and it would be detrimental
to the health of the sector if they were allowed to deteriorate
further.
The most remarkable element of the Government's funding settlement
for higher education, however, is the absence of any substantial
overall improvement in academic and other salaries.
There are a number of actions it could take which we believe
would make its proposals more generally acceptable: provide for
an overall increase in starting pay for academic staff and in
other salaries which takes some account of the relative decline
of recent years.
SELECT COMMITTEE
ON EDUCATION
AND SKILLS
Examination of Witness (Questions 60-79)
14 January 2004
RT HON CHARLES CLARKE MP
Q60 Helen Jones: But the other problem I think we
have discussed on numerous occasions is that there are some universities
which have a much higher proportion of students on low incomes.
Under the scheme that you are proposing about which you are in
discussions with the universities, how will those universities
be able to fund an adequate level of bursaries for their low-income
students?
Mr Clarke: If you take those universities,
I said to the House, and it is the case, that a maximum of 10%
of their total extra income from charging fees would go on student
bursaries. That is to say, at least 90% of any increased revenue
that comes from charging a higher fee can go to academic salaries
or whatever it might be in the particular university. That, I
think, is a fair state of affairs; it means they are the major
beneficiary that comes through. If they were to charge the fee
at a slightly lower level, for example, the £2,700 figure,
then they would have to provide nothing in terms of student bursary
to meet the point that we are talking about in this conversation,
so there would be a question of all that increased revenue, the
difference between the £1,200 and the £2,700, would
go into the universities' main resource. Now, I think most vice-chancellors
accept that and that is why they are supporting our proposals.
1
the average referred to is the mean Back
2
Measured by the all-items Retail Price Index. Back
|
