UCU leader calls for bullying

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 MG 29 Nov 2021

UCU: Bullying and harassment terrible, free speech and academic freedom underthreat

UCU Leader: Lets bully and harass people.for disagreeing with us.

https://twitter.com/nickhillman/status/1464154854851596307?t=Im-qPRuL2Aydcl...

7
 ianstevens 29 Nov 2021
In reply to MG:

This "disagreement" has accelerated the marketisation of academia in the UK, and associated degradation of working conditions, pay and pensions for members of the union. She's right to disagree with it what is quite clearly a hyperbolic, albeit poorly worded, fashion which is almost certainly not a literal recommendation. 

1
OP MG 29 Nov 2021
In reply to ianstevens:

I dont know why you put "disagreement " in brackets. And it's no where.near as clear cut as that (final salary was stopped in 2011)

> . She's right to disagree with it what is quite clearly a hyperbolic, albeit poorly worded, fashion which is almost certainly not a literal recommendation. 

She'd go beserk if one of her members was subject to such behaviour.  She's a hypcrite.

3
 Ramblin dave 29 Nov 2021
In reply to MG:

I know nothing about the politics here, but just based on normal Twitter etiquette, calling this an incitement to bullying seems like a fairly big stretch. The tweet that he's complaining about is part of a conversation between two people, and doesn't directly identify him - it's essentially just someone complaining about him and someone else telling her to give him a piece of her mind. If anything, by quote-tweeting the account to all his followers, his "help, help I'm being oppressed" response is closer to being an incitement to a pile-on than the original tweet was.

2
 nThomp 29 Nov 2021
In reply to MG:

Nothing unusual there. Jo Grady appeared to be unbothered by Kathleen Stock's treatment, which according to Stock qualified as workplace harassment and exactly the kind of thing I thought unions were supposed to prevent. Clearly, only if you have the right politics.

2
 gravy 29 Nov 2021
In reply to MG:

And your interest in this matter is?...

8
 Offwidth 30 Nov 2021
In reply to gravy:

He was an academic who was unhappy with UCU, defending Nick, an ex conservative HE minister's advisor, who is anti UCU. Instead of this silly dead cat game we might more usefully deal with the actual issues at hand.

Universities promised to take a serious look at the use of casualised contracts and serious discriminatory evidence on pay quite a few years ago now, as part of a dispute settlement in good faith. Now it turns out they have done next to stuff all (with a few individual institutional honourable exceptions, with more honest management). There is also the matter of pay and pension erosion that could lead to a serious brain drain (my office mate left for Oz three years ago for the same grade job at double the salary and he subsequently said half the hassle) but even as a UCU moderate I think such blatant exploitation takes precedence. It's plain shameful the little most of our Universities do to stop discrimination and exploitation in 2021. 

Post edited at 00:41
2
 Offwidth 30 Nov 2021
In reply to nThomp:

I'm surprised you don't realise that the Institution has the majority of the responsibility to protect academics like Kathleen, not UCU. I've successfully defended people like her as a UCU rep (with more respectful management). The erosion of academic freedom is more because some management don't care to defend, than because some on the left want to try and 'cancel'.

Post edited at 00:51
5
OP MG 30 Nov 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> He was an academic who was unhappy with UCU, defending Nick, an ex conservative HE minister's advisor, who is anti UCU.

"Defending" in thinking he should be able to present his case without threats of online pile-ons.  Given your periodic attempts to police debate here, I would have thought you would find Jo Grady's tweet objectionable too.

Post edited at 08:29
4
 nThomp 30 Nov 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

You don't think someone like Kathleen Stock's academic freedom was seriously eroded because a vocal minority were given far too much leeway to get away with behaviours that, done by anyone else, would result in a meeting with HR?

OP MG 30 Nov 2021
In reply to nThomp:

> Nothing unusual there. Jo Grady appeared to be unbothered by Kathleen Stock's treatment, which according to Stock qualified as workplace harassment and exactly the kind of thing I thought unions were supposed to prevent. Clearly, only if you have the right politics.

Quite. Kathleen Stock was almost a perfect  "Voltaire test". It's the pretence of being concerned about such things while in reality just being a political pressure group, quite happy to resort to heavy-handed methods, that I find objectionable.

2
 Offwidth 30 Nov 2021
In reply to nThomp:

The trouble with that line is one person's academic freedom can't be protected by damaging that of others. HR has a responsiblilty to deal with breaches in behaviour under rule. Yet nearly every time one of these cases explodes it's because cowardly management throw an employee under a bus instead of trying the harder route of upholding academic freedom for all and policing actual breaches of policy.

1
 Offwidth 30 Nov 2021
In reply to MG:

You find it objectional because they have different opinions to you. If academic freedom means anything then such tricky debates and protests must be allowed to happen (within the regulations that apply to accepible behaviour, which management control, not UCU).

OP MG 30 Nov 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> You find it objectional because they have different opinions to you.

No - if Nick Hillman had done likewise I would find that just as objectionable (and I don't particularly agree with him on tuition fees, the point in question)

> If academic freedom means anything then such tricky debates and protests must be allowed to happen

Really?  You are now saying online mobs are part of academic debate!?  If anyone is justifying bad behaviour of those they agree with, it's you.

3
 Offwidth 30 Nov 2021
In reply to MG:

Done what exactly...we only see one side of the argument? I can't judge how appropriate or otherwise Jo's tweet is as I'm not on Twitter as it's really depressingly poorly controlled 'bear pit'. I lack the information to assess as no one has linked the actual arguments between some highly politically motivated people with very different views. If I had to guess I'd say its unlikely to be a major issue.

It's funny you'd say on a debate about dragging that you say I try to police debate here. All I ever do is express opinions and you are free to disagree (and often do).

I really don't like internet bullying or pile-on's, so would call that out if it is true. In UKC terms that's even when the poster affected is someone else I often disagree with who gets banned for clear rule breaches, say like Wire Shark or Trad dad (Dan has the ignominy of being banned from the often sanctimoniously anti-ban UKB as well). I've retained quite a few friendships with people with very different views or beliefs from mine as I've consistently and actively defended academic and other freedoms in the face of bullies.

>Really?  You are now saying online mobs are part of academic debate!?  If anyone is justifying bad behaviour of those they agree with, it's you.

I've been pretty clear modern organisations have written rules on what is unacceptable behaviour and that they should police that; such that views on all sides are heard respectfully even on highly contentious subjects. I don't like leftist mobs but even worse for me is those who in complaining about such mobs exaggerate them and hypocritically attempt to organise counter mobs. Some of the biggest threats to freedom of speech are from people complaining about cancel culture, the same people who complain of internet mobs too often raise their own.

Post edited at 09:32
3
 ianstevens 30 Nov 2021
In reply to MG:

Because "disagreement" doesn't really seem strong enough, at least from my personal experience at my career stage (I'm an early-career academic). On a personal note I'm less invested in these round of strikes as I managed to get out of the UK system into a far more functional (read: European) one. Anyway:

I'm more than aware of the details of the reasons for industrial action. In my last 2.5 years in UK academia I had 4 (four) jobs, in all of which I was promised time for research and career building, as well as having the carrot of an extension to something more secure dangled in front of me. Each and every time I had more and more teaching/administrative responsibility dumped onto me and was ditched as soon as my contract ended; with the expectation that I passed on all the material I developed to the department(s) in question for use in future courses. One job my FORMALLY AGREED, SIGNED OFF BY HR workload was 140 % FTE. Guess what I got paid for. I moved across the country three times, unable to settle or build personal relationships or routines. In my final job, me and 6(six) other precariously employed colleagues covered 30% of the teaching in a department with over 60 staff. We were all told our contracts we be extended at the end. Needless to say, they were not - under the guise of falling student numbers (which never came to fruition) and university finances. The university in question has tens if not hundreds of millions in the bank.

My experience is far from extreme in UK academia, where skilled workers are treated like disposable garbage. So I think if one of the drivers and supporters of the horrendous "market-led" neoliberal system getsa few nasty comments on social media because of the words of a union leader, they'll be alright in contrast to the many people who are having a truly shit time whilst trying to build careers, put down roots and start families. 

Post edited at 10:23
1
 nThomp 30 Nov 2021
In reply to ianstevens:

> So I think if one of the drivers and supporters of the horrendous "market-led" neoliberal system gets a few nasty comments on social media because of the words of a union leader, they'll be alright in contrast to the many people who are having a truly shit time whilst trying to build careers, put down roots and start families. 

The problem is, this falls into the bullying criteria. Especially as, under current rules, someone only has to perceive that they are being bullied and they, by definition, are. 

So fine if you don't think unions should be bothered by such things. But anti-bullying regs are written into the rules and enforced. They apply to everyone, or no one. Just because there is some other issue (particularly a political one) that you feel aligned towards, doesn't mean the rules go out the window. That's a dark place to go.

Post edited at 12:06
2
OP MG 30 Nov 2021
In reply to ianstevens:

> Because "disagreement" doesn't really seem strong enough, at least from my personal experience at my career stage (I'm an early-career academic).

Which is part of the problem.  If people can't accept there are reasonable and different positions to hold about HE funding but need to assume it is some sort of battle, you end up with shouting and mobs.

> My experience is far from extreme in UK academia,

I am curious what you expected.  It's well known that moving from PhD>postdoc>academic is tough with progressively fewer roles so people have to do other things.  That's just reality not some oppressive nightmare. Similarly, having to move jobs and have short-term contracts early in a career is hardly unusual or surprising. Leaving work you have been paid for with your employer when you leave is similarly unsurprising (most employers wouldn't let you take it with you at all).

7
OP MG 30 Nov 2021
In reply to nThomp:

I am quite surprised by the responses here.  I expected more "yes, she shouldn't do that but heat of the moment" type , rather than, "it's OK, she's on our side".  Apparently the ends do justify the means.

4
 Ramblin dave 30 Nov 2021
In reply to MG:

Honestly, what I see here is someone taking a fairly innocuous "I'd give him a piece of my mind if I was you" comment directed to one person, and holding it up to all his followers and dishonestly representing it as an incitement to bullying in a deliberate attempt to smear a political opponent which is also a lot more likely to encourage harassment than the original tweet was. I hadn't heard of either of these people before yesterday, but seeing this exchange I'm left thinking what a nasty bit of work he seems to be.

3
 nThomp 30 Nov 2021
In reply to MG:

> I am quite surprised by the responses here. 

I'm not at all surprised, unfortunately.

This culture war, which I am told doesn't exist, is almost religious. One side is certain of its righteousness, and in such a fight of good and evil, it is perfectly reasonable that no holds are barred - David against Goliath, liberalism against fascism.

With that framing and the opposition classed as an existential threat, it becomes quite reasonable to justify the flexible application of rules to oneself that are simultaneously demanded of others (and by which they are judged). 

8
OP MG 30 Nov 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

That sounds very like the "it's just banter", "can't you take a joke" type justification for bullying and racism that is so common.  For comparison, do you think if a VC had tweeted the same about Jo Grady to 10s of thousands of followers, she would be happy?

4
Removed User 30 Nov 2021
In reply to MG:

When you say 'Nick Hillman' do you mean Nicholas Piers Huxley Hillman?

2
OP MG 30 Nov 2021
In reply to Removed User:

Possibly -  would that make it OK?

2
 Offwidth 30 Nov 2021
In reply to nThomp:

Don't be silly: bullying has to be evidenced in process: you can't just say you are being bullied and that means you are.

As for the University culture war rant... it's been done to death on UKC. There is evidence of vast numbers of academics leaving  UK HE on gagging orders, but those who are right wing anti- culture war warriors can be counted on one hand and most of them were on unusual contracts. The same applies to being cancelled by the woke... massively exaggerated in the UK. The scale of the leftist influence is small and the huge problem on the other (managerialist) side is being largely ignored.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/apr/17/uk-universities-pay-out-9...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-45447938

Post edited at 13:13
 Offwidth 30 Nov 2021
In reply to MG:

One-sided sounds are all we have yet from you,  so how about giving us the full information and not just one side of it? You never know I might even agree with you if we know the full picture but as things stand your rhetoric looks dishonest.

2
 Ramblin dave 30 Nov 2021
In reply to MG:

> That sounds very like the "it's just banter", "can't you take a joke" type justification for bullying and racism that is so common.  For comparison, do you think if a VC had tweeted the same about Jo Grady to 10s of thousands of followers, she would be happy?

It takes serious mental gymnastics to see Jo Grady's tweet as "bullying". It wasn't directed at tens of thousands of followers, she directed it to one person. And it wasn't about Nick Hillman it was about an unnamed person who, with a bit of digging or a lot of background knowledge you could probably figure out was Nick Hillman. This is not how people incite a pile-on - when people want to do that, they generally quote-tweet the victim onto their own timeline for all their followers to see, so they can go and get stuck in as easily as possible. Which is exactly what Hillman has done here.

OP MG 30 Nov 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> One-sided sounds are all we have yet from you,  so how about giving us the full information and not just one side of it? You never know I might even agree with you if we know the full picture but as things stand your rhetoric looks dishonest.

Dishonest?  I gave the link above.  Please let me know where I am being dishonest, or perhaps withdraw the accusation.

5
OP MG 30 Nov 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> It takes serious mental gymnastics to see Jo Grady's tweet as "bullying". It wasn't directed at tens of thousands of followers, she directed it to one person. 

That's not how twitter works, as you well know.  

5
 Ramblin dave 30 Nov 2021
In reply to MG:

> That's not how twitter works, as you well know.  

It's how conversations work. And it's how conventions of Twitter work. A reply is directed to the person who is being replied to, not, unless there's some serious nudge-nudge-wink-wink implied, to anyone who might be listening in. 

I mean look, thought experiment time. You're in a Pub thread on UKC. Someone mentions that they're in another thread having an argument with someone (unnamed) in another thread who's being rather unreasonable or hypocritical and you reply with something like "oof, I'd give them a piece of my mind if I was you." It turns out that the person was me, I report you for "encouraging bullying and harassment", the mods agree and you get banned. Does that seem reasonable?

Post edited at 13:34
2
OP MG 30 Nov 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> It's how conversations work. A reply is directed to the person who is being replied to,

...and copied to however many thousand followers the twitter algorithm decides.  It's well established that Twitter isn't a one to one system - people get sued for libel, for example, for what they say.

> You're in a Pub thread on UKC. Someone mentions that they're in another thread having an argument with someone (unnamed) in another thread who's being rather unreasonable or hypocritical and you reply with something like "oof, I'd give them a piece of my mind if I was you."

Except it is "why don't we all go a pile on x", which I would say is bullying, yes.  And there have been some rather uncomfortable instances of this here in the past.  It's also more than that because the UCU, which she leads, make a big thing about bullying and harassment being bad.

4
 Ramblin dave 30 Nov 2021
In reply to MG:

> ...and copied to however many thousand followers the twitter algorithm decides.

Who are unlikely to interpret it as an instruction to them when a) they aren't being addressed and b) the person who is being referred to isn't even being directly identified.

> Except it is "why don't we all go a pile on x", 

Except that it isn't. This is literally not what she's saying or implying except in the minds of people who are determined to use it as a stick to bash her with.

3
 Rob Parsons 30 Nov 2021
In reply to ianstevens:

> I'm more than aware of the details of the reasons for industrial action. In my last 2.5 years in UK academia I had 4 (four) jobs, in all of which I was promised time for research and career building, as well as having the carrot of an extension to something more secure dangled in front of me.  ...

The forthcoming industrial action is also about the handling of the USS pension scheme.

 ianstevens 30 Nov 2021
In reply to MG:

> Which is part of the problem.  If people can't accept there are reasonable and different positions to hold about HE funding but need to assume it is some sort of battle, you end up with shouting and mobs.

> I am curious what you expected.  It's well known that moving from PhD>postdoc>academic is tough with progressively fewer roles so people have to do other things.  That's just reality not some oppressive nightmare. Similarly, having to move jobs and have short-term contracts early in a career is hardly unusual or surprising. Leaving work you have been paid for with your employer when you leave is similarly unsurprising (most employers wouldn't let you take it with you at all).

If it's reality not oppressive nightmare then how am I now in a system where 2-4 year postdocs are the norm, and I've yet to meet anyone described as a "teaching fellow" or "associate lecturer"? HE in the UK is broken. It's breaking people. There's a difference between an expected and acceptable level of difficulty, and what happens in the UK.

 ianstevens 30 Nov 2021
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> The forthcoming industrial action is also about the handling of the USS pension scheme.

I'm aware. It's still the four fights being pushed right? Casualisation is the closest one to my heart clearly, as it's hard to think about a pension when you need to worry about making the rent.

 nThomp 30 Nov 2021
In reply to ianstevens:

Is it not more a case of supply and demand? Universities are churning out far more degree holders, through to PhD-holders, than there exists jobs for. There are simply too few openings for the number of graduates. Sure, if there exists a specific project then you may land a post-doc, but if there are no guarantees of further funding then what incentive is there for an employing institution to lock themselves into the offering a permanent contract? No employer takes on staff they can't get rid of if demand and funds are uncertain. And if the T&Cs of a university are disliked, why not join the rest of us out in the wider world? It's really not that bad out here in neo-liberal land.

If there is a market for your skill then fine. But the public who is funding this have just as much a right to demand accountability and not to be required to pay for the employment of every person who graduates with a PhD in "Tugboats of the Severn Estuary - 1790, 1793"

6
OP MG 30 Nov 2021
In reply to nThomp:

I broadly agree with you.  However, there is, I think, a problem with the general  message universities (or perhaps certain staff within universities) give, which can give the impression that a PhD is a passport to a academic job, and failing to get one is a personal failure.  Neither is true, and it should be made clear to anyone doing a PhD so they go in with their eyes open, and don't think they *must* get a permanent job or have failed. 

On the other hand academics as a group have little experience outside academia and really think (for example), an employer contribution to a pension of over 20% is somehow a raw deal

4
 Offwidth 30 Nov 2021
In reply to MG:

You broadly agree with that? We have massive shortages for graduates in many key subjects made worse by brexit.

No one claims a PhD is a passport to an academic job but ian is perfectly correct that time and time again post docs are over promised and let down. The record I saw was someone not permanent after 21 years. Permanent isn't really permanent you can still be made redundant. For western democracies only in the UK does a permanent academic post have so little protection (a threat to academic freedom in itself). Unlike someone on an individual fixed term post that redundancy isn't attached to a specific time limit and so a financial case has to be made for an identifiable group, in negotiation with UCU.

The raw deal isn't about your cheap jibe of 20%: it's about the way that final salary pensions are calculated using a mechanism that makes them doomed to fail by piling caution upon caution under the unusual economic circumstances of the past decade, especially the distorting influence of QE on the valuation. USS assets have been growing much faster than inflation, and the membership is fairly static and yet the fund is increasingly going into deficit on the valuation. Its bloody obvious the pension valuation mechanism is broken and UCU alongside First Actuarial have shown how and why.

Post edited at 16:56
 wintertree 30 Nov 2021
In reply to ianstevens:

> It's breaking people.

Absolutely.  Quite often some of the best people.

I think this was the first part of the thread I’ve understood.  I find UCU politics very opaque.

OP MG 30 Nov 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> We have massive shortages for graduates in many key subjects made worse by brexit.

2+2=4 is another fact completely irrelevant to the points being made.

> No one claims a PhD is a passport to an academic job

You are simply wrong there.  It is often the strong implication made when PhD students are recruited, and worse, there is an assumption that PhD students should only aim for academic roles by some supervisors.

> but ian is perfectly correct that time and time again post docs are over promised and let down.

Pretty much what I was saying, although for PhDs

> he record I saw was someone not permanent after 21 years. Permanent isn't really permanent you can still be made redundant.

Anyone can be made redundant.  If you don't have an open-ended contract after 21 years, either you are happy with that or you should have left and done something else.

4
 Offwidth 30 Nov 2021
In reply to wintertree:

Above all else a union should be about protecting the most vulnerable members, so ian is completely correct and MG projects the too common academic cynicism that perpetuates such problems.

UCU pension politics is by necessity highly complex due to the complexity of the scheme, the interference of TPR, the dubious behaviour of USS trustees and the failure of Universities to push for reform to a more sensible valuation that would save them money (with no real change to risk... an overpaid scheme just ends up with a massive surplus).  Some sterling work has been done in UCC by volunteer mathematicians and paid actuaries to counter the prevailing wisdom of defined benefit valuations and even spotting some genuine errors... a bane to USS trustees (who are supposed to be on the scheme members side)

There is optimism in DB pensions these days, as exemplified by the FT taking on 'the Wolf' and dumping the self proclaimed DB hawk Ralfe (who was made to look a complete idiot on his view on high risk of the government taking on the closed Coal Miners scheme, which for decades now has been providing a massive profit for government because it was over funded due to the valuation mechanism and so has a huge surplus).

Just one example of Wolf's bold outlook.

https://henrytapper.com/2021/06/14/the-fts-martin-wolf-on-meaningful-reform...

1
OP MG 30 Nov 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> Above all else a union should be about protecting the most vulnerable members, so ian is completely correct and MG projects the too common academic cynicism that perpetuates such problems.

Adding cynicism to dishonesty as baseless claims are we?  I can see why you fit in with UCU.

6
 Offwidth 30 Nov 2021
In reply to MG:

The point made was we have too many graduates. We don't, they are just distributed in areas such that we end up with shortages in key subject areas important to the economy and will have to i oort expertise to fill those gaps. Our market led govenment refuses to use market incentives to resolve this other than in a few areas (like Maths BEd).

Supervisors don't control PhD students like they used to, they are part of a community with formal support systems and much better protections. Part of that is making it clear that it's not a passport to an academic job in the UK. You are stuck in a past where that might be the case (but there were more jobs then).

2+2=4 is another fact completely irrelevant to the points being made about the responsibility of Universities to postdocs on employment contracts by talking about PhDs who are generally not.

Actually in pretty much ever other western democracy than the UK its hard to remove permanent academic staff. I can imagine you pep talks....your just a fool working as a UK academic when pay, conditions and job security are so much better everywhere else.

Post edited at 17:30
OP MG 30 Nov 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> The point made was we have too many graduates. 

It wasn't.

> Supervisors don't control PhD students like they used to, they are part of a community with formal support systems and much better protections. Part of that is making it clear that it's not a passport to an academic job in the UK. You are stuck in a past where that might be the case (but there were more jobs then).

Don't patronize me.  I will almost certainly have done more and more  recently than you in this area.

> I can imagine you pep talks....your just a fool working as a UK academic when pay, conditions and job security are so much better everywhere else.

Actually more "academia is a great, challenging career, interested, varied and with a lot of freedom. Also well paid.  Other careers are great too.  Keep an open mind"

Meanwhile we have your take....

Post edited at 17:35
3
 Offwidth 30 Nov 2021
In reply to MG:

You and I have had these debates for years and you have been upset with UCU for years. That's part of academic debate I guess... Yet given the huge scale of the UK blight of academic casualisation remains, there must have been some failure on all side.

It's not just post-docs there is also an army of part-time staff, sometimes not even properly documented. Many of the less experienced zero hour staff, or staff on PhD rates, are paid less than minimum wage for the pay divided by time taken. For full rate contracted sessions this now often includes preparation, session audio-video editing (since covid), student support and interaction between sessions, marking and session administration. They often put up with this shit for a somewhat random chance of a permanent job. When I started in the mid eighties someone permanent leading the module prepared the work, dealt with students outside class, marked and administered; any requirement on session video or audio editing was something they had a right to get paid extra for as part of their IPR.

1
 Offwidth 30 Nov 2021
In reply to MG:

It pretty clearly is in what nThomp said, as related to your " I broadly agree with you".

I did finish my last PhD student and my involvement in other teams PhD examinations just pre covid, when I retired, but I was also on my University Academic Board , my School Quality Board and involved in the top level research quality arrangements and the University graduate school reforms so I doubt your breadth of experience significantly exceeds mine. If you are so experienced with modern improvements in graduate schools why are you implying the bad practice you did?

On your elegy it can indeed be that (it was for me, most of my generation and those prior to that) but you missed " if you are lucky". When pay, conditions, opportunity and job security are now so much better in other countries, why not work there instead?

1
OP MG 30 Nov 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> It pretty clearly is in what nThomp said, as related to your " I broadly agree with you".

> I did finish my last PhD student and my involvement in other teams PhD examinations just pre covid, when I retired, but I was also on my University Academic Board , my School Quality Board and involved in the top level research quality arrangements and the University graduate school reforms so I doubt your breadth of experience significantly exceeds mine. 

I'm not pasting my CV here but it's certainly no less.  Why do I say what I say?  Because I've seen it first hand both professionally and personally at multiple institutions.

> On your elegy it can indeed be that (it was for me, most of my generation and those prior to that) but you missed " if you are lucky". When pay, conditions, opportunity and job security are now so much better in other countries, why not work there instead?

If you think so, indeed, why not?  The fact many don't, and many come to the UK for HE from UG to senior levels, gives you the answer.

3
 Rob Parsons 30 Nov 2021
In reply to ianstevens:

> I'm aware. It's still the four fights being pushed right? Casualisation is the closest one to my heart clearly, as it's hard to think about a pension when you need to worry about making the rent.

There are two distinct disputes - namely the USS pensions dispute, and the 'Four Fights' - each of which has been balloted on separately. The forthcoming industrial action covers both.

 ianstevens 01 Dec 2021
In reply to nThomp:

There is indeed an element of supply and demand. However that’s not an excuse for shitty temporary jobs, just because once a worker has had enough another will be along to replace them. I’d much rather secure, properly paid jobs which are more highly competitive to get. Nobody in modern academia expects to get a PhD and walk into a job for life, but are prepared to compete to get one. However, these should be over worked, under paid short term jobs - they should offer some kind of short-term stability. A salary (many are zero hours), reasonable workloads with some career development time, and a couple of years of security are all people want. It’s not a ridiculous ask. Even if the cost is an even more competitive job market.

Post edited at 11:48
 Offwidth 01 Dec 2021
In reply to ianstevens:

My bigger worry is at some point we reach tipping points in departments for the average workhorse academics who will realise they are just being treated like lemmings. MG is sort of right in that research stars do get treated well in the UK (as long as they produce) and many proto-academics aspire to that success (it's what drives similar abusive employment arrangements in the US). I know of a lot of departments across quite a few Universities (mainly but not exclusively post 92) where experienced and highly able staff numbers have suddenly plummeted in the last two decades due to a demographic bulge on the main teaching and course administrative staff and better opportunities elsewhere (even in the UK some Universities do treat staff a lot better than others) and big increase in ill health when stress hits those who remain. Places where suddenly maybe a quarter or more of staff were newish (less than 5 years) to UK HE teaching and quality processes, have CVs based on previous departments with better funding but are required to teach ten hours a week whilst producing significant research outputs (grants, PhDs and 3 star papers) very quickly and with too little support.. this isn't very stable for the future, good for teaching quality, or good for the health of those involved in the game. It's a meat grinder system when it happens and just burns up talent.

Post edited at 12:06

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...