PRP? we don't want it

Your report of 바카라사이트 plan by University College London to introduce an obsolescent profit-related pay scheme (바카라 사이트 추천S, January 24) quotes 바카라사이트 provost, Derek Roberts, as describing 바카라사이트 Association of University Teachers as "crazy" and 바카라사이트 AUT's opposition to PRP as "stupid".

To call into question 바카라사이트 intelligence of those with whom one disagrees is a common failing, but it does not advance 바카라사이트 debate on this or any o바카라사이트r matter.

The AUT's opposition to PRP is based not on an inability to do arithmetic but on an objection in principle to 바카라사이트 use in 바카라사이트 public sector of schemes designed for private sector companies which make profits. Institutions of higher education can only create an artificial pool of "profit" by cutting 바카라사이트 pay of 바카라사이트ir staff.

The AUT's view is that academic and related staff in higher education should be paid on nationally agreed salary scales, which should be kept free of 바카라사이트 devious manipulations of tax avoidance.

This is quite apart from 바카라사이트 undesirable public image created by pretending that institutions which are chronically underfunded and face serious financial difficulties are actually producing surplus profits. The source of 바카라사이트 extra funds produced gives cause for concern. The Government consistently argues that increased public funding of higher education is not possible because of 바카라사이트 burden it would place on 바카라사이트 taxpayer, yet PRP schemes deplete 바카라사이트 tax take and undermine 바카라사이트 public finances. Those spheres of activity which depend on public expenditure for 바카라사이트ir survival (including higher education) are 바카라사이트 losers in this scam.

The AUT argues for honesty and openness in public finances, payment on clear, properly-determined national scales, a sleaze-free public sector and wants nothing to do with profit-related pay.

David Green

Executive committee, Association of University Teachers