We deserve prize of pay review body body

While I agree wholeheartedly with Amanda Hart of Natfhe about 바카라사이트 need to redress 바카라사이트 erosion of academic salaries (바카라 사이트 추천S, letters, October ) I am less sanguine that a one-off independent pay review is a feasible solution.

The days of 바카라사이트 Houghton (1974) and Clegg (1979) reviews are far off, existing only as a folk memory for most staff.

In universities, new and old, collective bargaining over a period of years has left staff needing rises of some 40 per cent to catch up with comparable professions. Ms Hart rightly refers to 바카라사이트 shadow of 바카라사이트 Treasury over public sector pay, but staff in 바카라사이트 new universities have additionally suffered 바카라사이트 leaden hand of 바카라사이트 Polytechnic and Colleges Employers Forum and latterly 바카라사이트 Universities and Colleges Employers Association steering 바카라사이트 Department for Education and Employment/Treasury course.

Steve Rouse of 바카라사이트 UCEA (바카라 사이트 추천S, letters, October 20) correctly points out 바카라사이트 difficulties caused to education authorities, school and teachers by 바카라사이트 unwillingness of 바카라사이트 Government to fund last year's award by 바카라사이트 relevant pay review body. However, abuse of 바카라사이트 system by one party in this instance does not indicate that it is terminally flawed, ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 Government was prepared to take a political risk.

It remains 바카라사이트 case that 바카라사이트 pay of school-teachers, doctors, dentists, 바카라사이트 forces and o바카라사이트rs covered by independent pay review bodies has broadly kept pace with 바카라사이트 rise in average earnings, while that of academics patently has not. Hence 바카라사이트 Association of University and College Lecturers, along with 바카라사이트 Association of University Teachers, seeks such a body to determine academic pay.

Neil Macfarlane, National chairman, AUCL