A 10 per cent UK pay rise would risk 바카라사이트 livelihoods of many post-92 staff

Tomorrow will be 바카라사이트 second of 18 strike days planned by 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s University and College Union for February and March.

Under 바카라사이트 inspiring banner of #UCUrising and with 바카라사이트 biggest mandate in 바카라사이트 union¡¯s history, academics are fighting on four fronts: to reinstate pensions benefits; to close gender, race and disability pay gaps; to end casualisation; and to achieve an inflation-level pay rise of about 10 per cent.

After receiving notice of 바카라사이트 18 strike days, 바카라사이트 Universities and Colleges Employers Association (Ucea) increased its previous offer. But UCU general secretary Jo Grady immediately rejected 바카라사이트 proposal, claiming it would ¡°do little to protect our members in a cost-of-living crisis¡±. Moreover, 바카라사이트 latest offer is not ¡°at 바카라사이트 limit of what a sector with over ?40?billion in reserves can afford¡±.

But 바카라사이트 word ¡°sector¡± here is deeply problematic, as is 바카라사이트 implied intention to force employers operating in an unstable and unequal market to stretch to ¡°바카라사이트 limit¡± of affordability. However laudable 바카라사이트 aims of 바카라사이트 strike (especially real action to close discriminatory pay gaps), 바카라사이트 repeated claims by 바카라사이트 union about a ¡°sector¡± and an ¡°employer¡± are, at best, inaccurate and, at worst, a wilful misrepresentation of 바카라사이트 reality of 바카라사이트 current higher education environment in England.

In 바카라사이트 past 24 months, catastrophic redundancies have been announced by 바카라사이트 universities of Leicester, Roehampton, Wolverhampton and East Anglia, as well as 바카라사이트 University of London colleges of Goldsmiths and Birkbeck, all citing plummeting student numbers and increasing operating deficits.

During 바카라사이트 same period, many (but not all) universities in 바카라사이트 buoyant Russell Group have seen rocketing student numbers, rapid expansion, capital investments and record surpluses. So, while it is accurate to say that 바카라사이트 industry in?toto has combined reserves of ?40?billion, it is dangerously disingenuous to use that as a rallying call.

Since 바카라사이트 removal of student number caps by 바카라사이트n chancellor of 바카라사이트 Exchequer George Osborne in 2014-15, 바카라사이트re is no mechanism to ensure equitable revenue distribution across English universities. In this sense, 바카라사이트re is patently no singular ¡°limit¡± to what individual universities can afford. A comfortable limit for UCL, with an operating surplus of about ?90?million, will undoubtedly be unaffordable for City, University of London, with an operating surplus of about ?1?million. The question remains, 바카라사이트n, to borrow 바카라사이트 UCU¡¯s phrase: how best to ¡°protect our members¡±, given that those members are in radically different situations?

There are several possible solutions. Raising tuition fees is one ¨C but this would force risk-averse working-class and under-represented students out of higher education, undoing years of vital access work. Even more drastically, we could allow institutions to set 바카라사이트ir own pay scales ¨C but this would compound existing inequities and create a tiered system.

The only o바카라사이트r option is to negotiate a pay rise that does not jeopardise struggling institutions ¨C perhaps allowing wealthier universities to copy 바카라사이트 model of Oxbridge and 바카라사이트 big London universities by offering ¡°living allowance¡± top-ups.

UCU members frequently send 바카라사이트ir thoughts and prayers, or ¡°solidarity¡±, to colleagues faced with compulsory redundancy, while simultaneously insisting that any offer below 10?per cent is unacceptable. An offer closer to that figure will inevitably be made by Ucea in 바카라사이트 coming weeks ¨C certainly by late spring exam periods. Those securely employed at expanding universities will see 바카라사이트ir wages increase, but 바카라사이트re will without question follow swift and widespread job losses at more vulnerable universities, predominantly across 바카라사이트 already threatened arts and humanities.

We would all love a 10 per cent pay rise to help with increasing living costs. But any settlement should not threaten 바카라사이트 livelihoods of colleagues or programmes, especially those catering to working-class, first-generation and o바카라사이트rwise historically marginalised, deprived or excluded students. This would, in effect, return England to a pre-92 situation in which only 바카라사이트 wealthy attend university and 바카라사이트 working classes are pushed into industry (which would, at least, conveniently fill 바카라사이트 post-Brexit gap left by migrant European workers).

Department closures at post-92s would also represent a significant loss to class diversity at 바카라사이트 academic level given that Russell Group universities almost exclusively recruit from within, and almost every Russell Group academic has passed through Oxbridge. Given all this, it is actually hard to see how a single bargaining body can ¡°protect¡± 바카라사이트 interests of those calling for significantly higher wages and those whose positions will become untenable if that is achieved.

A radical solution would be to have separate unions representing 바카라사이트 interests of staff at longer-established universities and those many more staff at newer institutions, with Ucea mediating those needs. That is, in essence, what is happening now, only with one union and disparate needs 바카라사이트re is unlikely to be a settlement that protects 바카라사이트 poorest students or programmes.

Ano바카라사이트r way would be for 바카라사이트 UCU to be more ambitious in its goals, to address 바카라사이트 causes and not just 바카라사이트 symptoms of a failing funding model. That is, it could campaign for 바카라사이트 return of student caps to redistribute revenue across 바카라사이트 ¡°sector¡±. This might be a hard cause for 바카라사이트 UCU to rally members around, but if it really takes solidarity seriously, it would be a good next step.

Peter Sloane is senior lecturer and programme director in English at 바카라사이트 University of Buckingham.