University Lecturers Union Threatening Strikes

[harvey19 541]

Maybe the way forward is for the students to sue the university and the union for failing to provide the tuition they have paid dearly for if the lecturers as directed by their union go on strike.

Fit for Purpose is the tuition they pay for.

As I said earlier let the union be scrutinised regarding the demands they are making for the lecturers and see how their organisation compares.

I am sure the majority of  university staff have the students best interests at heart and so must concentrate on their tuition to help them succeed in their future lives.

 

[altus 540]

11 hours ago, sheffbag said:

We are talking about universities here. They are the ones paying 21.4% . Are you suggesting they took a payment holiday?

They took one by reducing employer contributions between 1997 and 2009. (Source here)

[BigAl1 143]

4 hours ago, harvey19 said:

Maybe the way forward is for the students to sue the university and the union for failing to provide the tuition they have paid dearly for if the lecturers as directed by their union go on strike.

Fit for Purpose is the tuition they pay for.

As I said earlier let the union be scrutinised regarding the demands they are making for the lecturers and see how their organisation compares.

I am sure the majority of  university staff have the students best interests at heart and so must concentrate on their tuition to help them succeed in their future lives.

 

The students have no contract with the Union

 

It is all very well them suing the university but all that will achieve is to make things even worse. yes I understand where you are coming from but the law of unintended consequences will apply most universities are already under severe financial pressure so obvious solutions are to stop high cost courses (medicine, dentistry , engineering many of the sciences) and concentrate on the low cost ones like history, fashion, journalism. of course they might increase future fees

[harvey19 541]

2 hours ago, BigAl1 said:

The students have no contract with the Union

 

It is all very well them suing the university but all that will achieve is to make things even worse. yes I understand where you are coming from but the law of unintended consequences will apply most universities are already under severe financial pressure so obvious solutions are to stop high cost courses (medicine, dentistry , engineering many of the sciences) and concentrate on the low cost ones like history, fashion, journalism. of course they might increase future fees

I would prefer the universities teaching subjects such as those you mention, medicine, dentistry, engineering and the sciences etc. and drop the courses which do not lead to careers in necessary areas of skill shortages.

 

[BigAl1 143]

43 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

I would prefer the universities teaching subjects such as those you mention, medicine, dentistry, engineering and the sciences etc. and drop the courses which do not lead to careers in necessary areas of skill shortages.

 

The trouble with that is that they are the courses that cost the most to run. There are many other valuable courses but there are also too many that are of little value. I am also in favour of apprenticeships which can also be of great benefit. 

[sheffbag 230]

On 21/10/2021 at 12:03, altus said:

They took one by reducing employer contributions between 1997 and 2009. (Source here)

Altus,  Your source just loops me back to the first page of the thread but if you are talking about when they lowered the contribution from 18.55% to 14.% for that period  then that contribution is far higher than any other pension scheme at that time. 

 

Not sure why that was done then but it does coincide with when Labour was in government

[Dannyno 19]

Just to point out that UCU can't just decide to go on strike.  They will do what their members want to do.  That's why they are balloting, and then they can only legally call their members out on strike if there is at least a 50% turnout and if at least half of those voting vote to do so.

[Dannyno 19]

22 hours ago, sheffbag said:

Altus,  Your source just loops me back to the first page of the thread but if you are talking about when they lowered the contribution from 18.55% to 14.% for that period  then that contribution is far higher than any other pension scheme at that time. 

 

Not sure why that was done then but it does coincide with when Labour was in government

The story of the pensions catastrophe is complicated, and implicates both Tory and Labour administrations.

 

The "pensions holiday" thing goes back to the Thatcherite Finance Act 1986.   That said that pension schemes were not allowed to build up "excess" surpluses (because they had turned into a tax-free profit-boosting loophole for some employers).   If they did, they had to pay back the employer, pause contributions or upgrade their benefits structure.    

 

That created an incentive for employers to seek to avoid the build up of taxable surpluses by taking contributions holidays when the stock market was high.

 

None of that had anything to do with Labour.   But what Gordon Brown did was abolish dividend tax credits, which hit pension funds hard.

 

There's some shocking books out there on all of this - it's a scandalous story all down the line and we're still picking up the pieces.

[spilldig 189]

Does it really matter that much though?  I mean what we need is apprenticeships, because they worked and they gave people exactly the right training for the job,

[Dannyno 19]

On 21/10/2021 at 17:16, BigAl1 said:

The trouble with that is that they are the courses that cost the most to run. There are many other valuable courses but there are also too many that are of little value. I am also in favour of apprenticeships which can also be of great benefit. 

There really aren't lots of courses which are of "little value".

 

BTW: Universities also offer apprenticeships.

 

See for example:  https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/apprenticeships

1 minute ago, spilldig said:

Does it really matter that much though?  I mean what we need is apprenticeships, because they worked and they gave people exactly the right training for the job,

It's a shame there's this idea that courses should be primarily vocational, since people can get very good jobs of the back of apparently non-vocational courses like history.

 

But universities have always done vocational training - medicine and law, for example, are vocational if anything is and have always been taught in universities going back to the invention of universities (along with entry to the priesthood, which is where the very word "vocational" comes from!).    And now, as I already noted, universities are doing apprenticeships.

[Dannyno 19]

On 21/10/2021 at 16:29, harvey19 said:

I would prefer the universities teaching subjects such as those you mention, medicine, dentistry, engineering and the sciences etc. and drop the courses which do not lead to careers in necessary areas of skill shortages.

 

It's worth looking at the government's list of shortage occupations (for visa purposes, but relevant here).

 

It includes medicine, dentistry and the others you mention, but it also includes:

 

Archaeologists

IT business analysts and system designers

Programmers and software developers

Web designers

Cyber security specialists

Architects

Artists

Ballet dancers

Musicians

Arts officers and directors

Graphics designers

Care workers

 

All except I guess ballet dancing are courses which are taught at universities. 

 

There are teaching shortages too, and teaching is taught at universities - the usual teaching specialisms we're short of are of course in STEM subjects, but there are also shortages in modern languages and RE.   

 

[altus 540]

23 hours ago, sheffbag said:

Altus,  Your source just loops me back to the first page of the thread but if you are talking about when they lowered the contribution from 18.55% to 14.% for that period  then that contribution is far higher than any other pension scheme at that time.

Sorry the link screwed up. The correct one is here.

 

Yes , I was talking about when they reduced the contribution to 14%. If someone signs up to a job with lower wages than other jobs but with a better pension it's not reasonable to later say "your pension is better than other people's and that's justification for cutting it". The employers are hardly going to make payments to compensate for 30+ years of lower wages are they?