The Student Room Group
Voting for TSRs Ultimate Study Playlist is NOW OPEN >>
Voting for TSRs Ultimate Study Playlist is NOW OPEN >>
Voting for TSRs Ultimate Study Playlist is NOW OPEN >>

University Strikes: How are you affected?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Fusion
This is the harsh stone reality of it. Defined benefit pensions are one of the biggest economic disasters of all time - there's a £6bn deficit in the university lecturers pension fund - who will foot this bill?

And this is happeneing across the economy. They're not alone in their outrage. But it's economics. And losses have to be stemmed. For everyones stake.


exactly. There have been studies that prove one of the reasons millennials are paid less, is companies are spending more on pensions for retired employees.

It also makes any potential sale of a troubled company far more complicated, increases the chance of everyone losing their job and tax payer bailing out that companies retired employees via PPF fund.
My uni's philosophy department has done a fun thing where they've asked lecturers and tutors to tell students when their classes aren't cancelled, working around the silly union rules where the lecturers don't bother telling you. Saying that my tutor told us anyway that his seminar was cancelled so bleh.

Anyhoo I'm definitely affected but I have the advantage of actually knowing what is and isn't cancelled, which is nice. No rescheduling by the sounds of things though, which is kind of annoying.
Original post by 04MR17
Check who the UCU actually represent


The strike is about the USS pension scheme. All university staff above a certain grade are in the USS scheme, regardless of whether they are academics or professional services staff.
Reply 63
Avatar for Fusion
Fusion
20
Original post by hannah00
exactly. There have been studies that prove one of the reasons millennials are paid less, is companies are spending more on pensions for retired employees.

It also makes any potential sale of a troubled company far more complicated, increases the chance of everyone losing their job and tax payer bailing out that companies retired employees via PPF fund.


Younger people seem unware of the injustices of it all. All these FTSE companies have massive deficits in their db pension funds, at BT alone it's around £14 billion. That's money that won't provide any return to the company. Nor will it be used to invest in new recruits or staff training or infrastructure.
Original post by LostAccount
So your explanation of why the system doesn't work and why it's unsustainable for government is that not enough universities have closed/gone bankrupt?
That's how a market is supposed to work. I'm not saying I agree with marketisation. I'm just saying that markets always have winners and losers, and the losers go out of business. And that hasn't happened.
Original post by Fusion
Younger people seem unware of the injustices of it all. All these FTSE companies have massive deficits in their db pension funds, at BT alone it's around £14 billion. That's money that won't provide any return to the company. Nor will it be used to invest in new recruits or staff training or infrastructure.


DB Pension components increase ranging from RPI to 8%(Post 88 GMP) a minimum each year, when yields on gilts are close to 1% and interest rates are 0.5%.

Who is suppose to pay the 7% difference ?.

Far more sensible for pension payments to linked to actual economic fundamentals of how your investment performs, than some formula devised in 20 years ago.
Original post by 04MR17
They can tell you which classes ate cancelled, they are choosing not to.


Staff taking industrial action can be asked to indicate if they are going to be absent, but they can choose not to give advance notice. If they want their absence to be recorded in 'number of staff striking' figures, then they do have to report that they were absent on strike after the event.

So Faculties and Departments can't tell students in advance which classes are cancelled.
Original post by threeportdrift
The strike is about the USS pension scheme. All university staff above a certain grade are in the USS scheme, regardless of whether they are academics or professional services staff.
@MagicalMedic, here is more of your answer.:smile:
i have a grand total of 0 lectures called off. It sucks because i didn't get a reading week either.
Original post by LostAccount

"Lecturer in Economics" (£33,518 starter)
"Lecturer in African Literature" (£33,518 starter)
"Lecturer in Medieval Literature" (£33,518 starter)

Please tell me with a straight face that these two courses are legitimately of the same societal or economic value, or generate the same revenue in tuition fees for the university.



Ngl i have no issue with them getting the same wages. The situation outside of uni should have nothing to do with it. It should be the quality of the lecturer and their reputation/quality of published work in their field.


If you want revenue brought by tuition fees to be a factor, you'd have to rank courses by the amount of undergrads they accept. That's not exactly the same as demand for a uni place.

Idk what courses have the most people. But it definitely isn't Engineering or Maths/economics at most unis. Ironically, way more undergrads are humanity students.. which goes against your post

also before anyone calls me a biased, I'm doing Engineering lol.
Original post by 04MR17
That's how a market is supposed to work. I'm not saying I agree with marketisation. I'm just saying that markets always have winners and losers, and the losers go out of business. And that hasn't happened.


Markets work on an equilibrium.

By your theory, we should be seeing at least one major bank fail per year because there's simply too many to choose from.
Original post by LostAccount
Markets work on an equilibrium.

By your theory, we should be seeing at least one major bank fail per year because there's simply too many to choose from.
:toofunny: Good one.:yy:

I made no comments on banks. Banks and universities work quite differently.
Original post by lucabrasi98
Ngl i have no issue with them getting the same wages. The situation outside of uni should have nothing to do with it.


Ah yes, let's just employ Emma Watson to be the Senior Lecturer on History of Magic for 75 000 a year with her two students.

Nothing screams 'efficiency' and 'value for money' as people being given money like water out of the tap for teaching 3 kids on bursaries ballet dancing.

You know what, I don't personally care.

However, my empathy on this issue with the lecturers varies with how lecturers perceive their kin, and if the majority of them do actually believe that every course from Women's Studies and History of the Spade should be paid the same as Neuroscience and Computer Science, then frankly I won't even shed a sigh for their loss of pensions. They're not fit to work in a system where rationality is (supposed to be) a requirement.

Those who have a brain will go to the private sector, and chances are anyone who does have the above-mentioned mindset of "EQUALITY FOR ALL!" will not bother going to the private sector and will stay in academia irrespective of how much they lose in pensions, so cutting pensions will make no difference to staffing numbers.

Cutting away excess wages from the less demanding industries will not only allow the university to be more competitive in the market for STEM lecturers (and other higher demanding industries), and attracting higher quality lecturers, but also likely still be able to pay higher wages for things like creative industries and psychology than the market rate, hence still maintaining an aura of 'fairness' or 'living wage' or call it what you want.

A newly employed lecturer in medicine and finance will be earning less than a graduate 6 months after graduation.
A newly employed lecturer in creative industries will be earning more than an average person 30 years into their career.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by 04MR17
:toofunny: Good one.:yy:

I made no comments on banks. Banks and universities work quite differently.


You haven't made a rational comment at all, so I'm just mocking at this point.

Funnily enough as your view of successful markets is the failure of underperforming institutions, then I trust I have your backing on the issue that a successful market will see USS fail and pensions cut as they're underperforming, so we're both on the same side, and thus there's nothing to discuss.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by LostAccount
Ah yes, let's just employ Emma Watson to be the Senior Lecturer on History of Magic for 75 000 a year with her two students.

Nothing screams 'efficiency' and 'value for money' as people being given money like water out of the tap for teaching 3 kids on bursaries ballet dancing.

You know what, I don't personally care.

Those who have a brain will go to the private sector, and chances are anyone who does have the above-mentioned mindset of "EQUALITY FOR ALL!" will not bother going to the private sector and will stay in academia irrespective of how much they lose in pensions, so cutting pensions will make no difference to staffing numbers.
Error 409: No vinegar with all that salt :hand:
Original post by LostAccount
You haven't made a rational comment at all, so I'm just mocking at this point.

Funnily enough as your view of successful markets is the failure of underperforming institutions, then I trust I have your backing on the issue that a successful market will see USS fail and pensions cut as they're underperforming, so we're both on the same side, and thus there's nothing to discuss.
If you believe education markets work on an equilibrium then I don't see the need to make any further effort since you're not going to appreciate my point of view.
Original post by 04MR17
Error 409: No vinegar with all that salt :hand:


You're as edgy as a butter knife.
Original post by LostAccount
Ah yes, let's just employ Emma Watson to be the Senior Lecturer on History of Magic for 75 000 a year with her two students.

Nothing screams 'efficiency' and 'value for money' as people being given money like water out of the tap for teaching 3 kids on bursaries ballet dancing.

You know what, I don't personally care.

However, my empathy on this issue with the lecturers varies with how lecturers perceive their kin, and if the majority of them do actually believe that every course from Women's Studies and History of the Spade should be paid the same as Neuroscience and Computer Science, then frankly I won't even shed a sigh for their loss of pensions. They're not fit to work in a system where rationality is (supposed to be) a requirement.

Those who have a brain will go to the private sector, and chances are anyone who does have the above-mentioned mindset of "EQUALITY FOR ALL!" will not bother going to the private sector and will stay in academia irrespective of how much they lose in pensions, so cutting pensions will make no difference to staffing numbers.

Cutting away excess wages from the less demanding industries will not only allow the university to be more competitive in the market for STEM lecturers (and other higher demanding industries), and attracting higher quality lecturers, but also likely still be able to pay higher wages for things like creative industries and psychology than the market rate, hence still maintaining an aura of 'fairness' or 'living wage' or call it what you want.

A newly employed lecturer in medicine and finance will be earning less than a graduate 6 months after graduation.
A newly employed lecturer in creative industries will be earning more than an average person 30 years into their career.




Has Emma Watson published loads of work in her field? Is it well reviewed? Is she good at lecturing students?

. Plus womans studies isn't the only alternative to STEM in existence. Most courses will be grouped into departments. Departments covering humanities will have massive amounts of undergrads.

As i said, at nearly every uni it's more than you'd see in their STEM courses. Definitely more than in engineering and medicine. By your own rationale, this is justification to up their lecturer wages.


I'm curious as to why you think anything other than how good the lecturer is + their academic background should affect WAGES. At the end of the day, a History and Biology lecturer do the same job. Educate, lead research groups (or research themselves) and mark work. Shouldn't matter that they're educating different subject matters. But hey that's just my opinion.

I feel the conclusion drawn from your last point should be upping everyone lecturers wages. Not slashing some peoples. I'm aware that this has to come at the expense of something. But i can think of much better things to cut than wages of humanity lecturers. The amount we spend on military or anything nuclear related makes me facepalm.
Original post by lucabrasi98

I feel the conclusion drawn from your last point should be upping everyone lecturers wages. Not slashing some peoples.


Universities will get this money from where?

Slashing investment or cutting student services and facilities?

Original post by lucabrasi98
The amount we spend on military or anything nuclear related makes me facepalm.


It's been a long time since I looked at financials statements of any university, but I cannot acclaim to ever having see a university spend money on their own nuclear weapons programme.

This is a strike of private sector employees against their private sector (non-government-underwritten) pension fund, which their private sector employers decided to cut.

If the university system wants to start being a public sector service, then they need to start offering value for money for the taxpayer, which includes paying lecturers of economics more than lecturers of history by cutting the latter's wages closer to the market rate.

As much as the NHS was founded on the principles of equality for all, specialist consultants are not paid the same for their different specialisations because there is a different market rate for all of them, with compensation anywhere around 50k for pediatrists to 150k for orthopaedics.

They do the same reputable job of caring for patients, and both probably have research in their field that is well-received among peers.

Can't have your cake and eat it.

Value for money in the public sector or autonomy in your equality whims in the private sector.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by lucabrasi98
snip


Original post by LostAccount
snip


This thread is veering off-topic. :nope: I think you should take this particular discussion into another thread. :yep:

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you