Memorandum submitted by NUS
POSITION OF
NUS
NUS has supported the academic unions' campaign
for better pay from the start and we continue to do so. We believe
that the quality of higher education will diminish unless we ensure
that lecturers are well-paid and highly motivated—without
this, we fear that less people will want to enter the profession,
and that more of our leading academics will be attracted overseas
where pay and conditions are better. We want UK students to continue
to be taught by the best, and we believe that the only way of
doing this is by ensuring that lecturers are adequately paid.[3]
3
NUS is nevertheless extremely concerned about
the impact the industrial action is having on our members. As
the representative body of two million students in higher education,
we feel it is our duty to do everything we can to help resolve
this situation as soon as possible, and minimize the impact on
students wherever possible.
ACTION TAKEN
BY NUS
Whilst we respect the AUT's democratic mandate,
we are extremely concerned about its boycott of setting exams.
Both unions are boycotting the assessment of students' work, but
it is only AUT that is refusing to set exams. We feel that this
aspect of the boycott is having the most worrying and disproportionate
impact on students. If exams are set, students will be able to
receive their grades much quicker once this dispute is over than
if exams are not set at all. The fact that exams are not being
set is obviously causing enormous worry to all students,
but there are additional worries for vulnerable students. We face
a situation where international students may have to leave the
country before having taken their exams, or may be forced to find
additional funding to pay for visa extensions, accommodation and
living costs, etc. Also, disabled students' eligibility for Disabled
Students Allowance may come to an end before they have been able
to sit their exams. We have written to Bill Rammell MP to call
him to take steps to ensure that provisions are made to minimize
the impact on these students. We have repeatedly asked AUT to
reconsider this tactic, but they have repeatedly refused to do
so.
We have called on UCEA to end their stalling
of negotiations. We were very frustrated with their initial approach,
whereby they offered many technical excuses as to why they could
not formally meet with the unions. Thankfully, formal meetings
have now taken place, but this initial stalling has meant that
the negotiation process has only just commenced with exam season
upon us, despite the fact that the initial pay claim was made
back in October 2005. Following the unions' rejection of the recent
pay offer, UCEA is now making no effort to re-enter negotiations.
This dispute can only be settled if both parties are prepared
to meet regularly for talks. This must be a priority for all parties.
In order to exert maximum pressure and ensure
that this dispute is settled as soon as possible, we have called
upon prominent figures to get involved to try and resolve the
situation. We have written to Bill Rammell MP on many occasions,
and we have recently also written to Alan Johnson MP. Due to their
particularly worrying situation, NUS International Students Committee
have also written to the Prime Minister this week.
NUS is concerned at the impact this boycott
will have on students with job offers, or students who need to
be accredited with professional organisations to continue their
training or enter their profession. The concern is that students
may not be able to take up a placement or training due to the
delay in getting their final grades and degree classification.
We are therefore currently in discussions with the Association
of Graduate Recruiters and numerous professional organisations
to try and find a way through this for students in this situation.
We are calling on students to complain to their
institutions about their mishandling of this pay dispute, and
their failure to address a long-standing issue with their staff.
POTENTIAL ISSUES
FOR FURTHER
INVESTIGATION
In 2004, during the passage of the Higher Education
Bill, the Vice Chancellors promised a pay increase of one third
of the new income through top up fees. They did their sums then
and said they could afford it so what has changed since then?
AUT/NATFHE say that a 23% pay increase will
represent one third of the new money, whilst UCEA say that their
recent offer of 12.6% represents one third of this money. How
do both of them arrive at this figure?
Why does AUT feel it is necessary to boycott
the setting of exams when NATFHE feel they can achieve the same
result merely by boycotting the marking of exams?
Will UCEA agree to recommence negotiations as
soon as possible?
Why have the institutions allowed the situation
to reach this crisis point? Alan Johnson MP, the then Minister
for Higher Education, talked about the "very serious and
deep seated problem" of low pay in the sector back in 2004,
and yet nothing has been done about it until the situation has
erupted. Would they not agree that they have failed in their responsibility
to both staff and students by the disregard and mismanagement
of this problem?
Would the unions or UCEA make public the number
of students they estimate will be affected by the ongoing dispute,
in particular the number of students who will be unable to take
exams?
3 3 Whilst we support the call for a better funded
education workforce, NUS maintains its position that increases
in higher education funding should come through central government
(through progressive taxation) rather than directly through students. Back
| 
