| subtext | |
|
|
subtext
issue 10 12 June 2006 ***************************************************** 'Truth: lies open to all' ***************************************************** Every fortnight All editorial correspondence to: subtext-editors [at] lancaster.ac.uk. Please download and print or delete as soon as possible after receipt. Back issues and subscription details can be found at http://www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext. The editors welcome letters, comments, suggestions, and opinions from readers. subtext reserves the right to edit submissions. CONTENTS: editorial, news in brief, the dispute, pay framework blues, environmental management, protest at Lancaster: the spirit of 1992, Wallups' world, opportunities at subtext, letters ***************************************************** 1. EDITORIAL As of last Wednesday morning, the assessment boycott being held by members of the University and Colleges Union (UCU, formerly AUT and NATFHE) was suspended, while members are balloted on a new pay offer from UCEA. If the mood at the Lancaster UCU meeting last Wednesday is at all representative of wider national feeling, there can be no guarantee that the new offer will be accepted by members. But, for now, an episode of brinkmanship which has been highly stressful for many members of the University community has ended. Below, we print some initial reflections from those who were involved in different ways in the dispute. It has, of course, been final-year students who have suffered most anxiety during the boycott. As LUSU sabbatical officers comment below, this has often put a great strain on relationships between students and academic staff in the past few months. Nevertheless, it is to the great credit of LUSU and the wider student body that, despite some understandably wobbly moments, they have been highly supportive of the lecturers' struggle throughout the dispute. Amongst the other members of the University that have felt most pressure during the dispute have been the administrative staff who have had to field inquiries from anxious students, and of course the lecturers taking part in the boycott. But the sudden end of the boycott has created new pressures, and new possibilities for victimisation. In announcing the suspension of the boycott to union members, Malcolm Keight of the UCU stated that 'a commitment has been given to return to normal working but it is important to ensure that members are not subjected to any undue pressure or subjected to unreasonable demands.' The University has shown patience thus far. We hope that no one will take advantage of the situation by imposing unrealistic and divisive deadlines as a way of fomenting tension. Of course, because of the new pay framework, with its university-wide 51-point pay scale, any pay rise achieved by one sector of the university workforce results in a pay rise for all university employees. This is good news for non-academic employees of the University, who, once the final pay deal is agreed, will have benefited from the assessment boycott as much as the academic staff who took part. subtext hopes that a wider recognition of the power of industrial action, and of the shared concerns of all those working in higher education, will encourage greater solidarity between the different trade unions on campus, and indeed greater union membership. But debates about fair pay often mask more fundamental issues. There is a much larger problem of university employees feeling devalued, underappreciated and disenfranchised. There often seems to be a mismatch between employees' pride in their work, and the university's goals and targets, so that the best work in any field does not receive the recognition it deserves. An award from BAe Systems might be widely prized in management's eyes; by contrast, recognition from an impoverished community in the global south might not count for anything. If our efforts do not fit monetary measures of success, our work may be considered in vain, even worthless. Too many voices and concerns are not heard on this campus. The subtext editorial collective can identify some and bring them to wider attention, but there are many others. The only reason that the subtext collective consists primarily of academic staff is because these are the people who have come forward to get involved with subtext; it does not mean that subtext is intended solely as a forum for (disgruntled) academics. We want to offer a voice to all on campus: postgraduate students, contract staff, cleaners, technicians, librarians, administrative staff – you will all find a sympathetic audience here. In this issue, we try to redress the balance a little. We discuss how, although the new university-wide pay framework has bound us all together in terms of pay rises, the transition to the framework is producing its own casualties, especially amongst non-academic staff. We also discuss the importance of environmental concerns to the work carried out in Estate Management and elsewhere, and recall another chapter in student protest at Lancaster. Importantly, we ask for you to contribute your own perspectives to future issues of subtext. ***************************************************** 2. NEWS IN BRIEF Good league news LU News (http://tinyurl.com/lyunj) reports the good news that the Times Good University Guide 2006 has Lancaster as the highest ranked university in the North West – see the 'Top universities league table 2007' at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,716,00.html. ***************************************************** 3. THAT DISPUTE On the suspension of the assessment boycott, we solicited some initial reflections on the boycott from people that had been involved in it in different ways, including the Students' Union and the University management. The Vice Chancellor forwarded us copies of the letters sent out to staff and students on Wednesday. We reproduce the relevant paragraph below. We also have comments from LUSU's President and Education and Welfare Officer, and from an academic. ****** The 3 month dispute has put lots of pressure on students and members of staff. I wish to record my thanks and gratitude to all those staff in the Student Registry who have worked tirelessly to keep the examinations cycle running, to all staff who produced and released papers in a timely way to allow most examinations to take place without disruption, and to the student body at Lancaster who maintained a positive spirit and sense of proportion throughout the action. Paul Wellings, Vice-Chancellor ****** The AUT dispute has been one of the most challenging parts to this year.
The meaning of stuck between a rock and a very hard place became very
clear. The students' union was put in a very difficult position. Union
Council voted to support the lecturers right at the very beginning. We
stood with the AUT until the end. This is not to say that all students
agreed with it. In fact, many students' didn't and we have the e-mails,
sometimes very frank, to prove it. In the end, no one believed the lecturers
did not deserve more pay. The question was always how far they would go.
****** Like many across the University sector, I was initially pleased to learn
the news of a settlement to end the prolonged pay dispute. It is clear
that many academics and students were under a terrible strain because
of the prolonged dispute and the boycott on assessment. There had been
a general feeling that drastic action was needed to bring home the declining
nature of academic pay even as academic workloads increased exponentially.
Yet there had also been massive strain because of the impact this action
would have on students, and because of the sheer uncertainty of the situation.
UCEA's tardiness in responding to union claims for fair pay had been frustrating,
but that faded into the background with the relief of an end to the dispute. So elation turned to disappointment. Not for the first time in this process, it seemed that union leaders had acted without consulting their membership, who were on the frontlines of the dispute. And now many of us face piles of marking on an extremely tight schedule, trying to meet deadlines for exam boards. This leaves some union members in a more vulnerable position as a result of the action, although the union was supposed to protect its members from vulnerability. The situation is hardly the most conducive to reasoned assessment. Just when the boycott was beginning to bite, too ... Why did union leaders take their members on a campaign, reject a deal because it is nowhere good enough, then accept almost the same deal without consulting those who voted for the action? The e-mail message from University and College Union (UCU) Joint General Secretary Sally Hunt to members on 7 June shows that she knew it was a bad deal and a cop-out. There is no serious indication why the UCU suddenly accepted more or less what it had rejected before - a move that seems to be sparking anger in local UCU branches throughout the UK. One wonders if UCEA used the 'nuclear option' of threatening to withdraw all offers and dispense entirely with national bargaining - a situation the union sees as highly undesirable. And yet, reading Hunt's statement, one wonders whether real national bargaining exists anyway. Her letter states that UCEA is not representative of the University sector as a whole; hence, implicitly, it follows that UCEA is not really negotiating nationally but on behalf of a sector of the University community. We face an uncertain future - a pay deal that falls far short of what union members felt was needed, and a sense that national union leaders have let their members down. Calls are already going out around the country for the current union leadership to stand down. Perhaps, with the AUT/NATFHE merger and the development of UCU, it is time for new people at the top. Local cynicism is mounting against the supine capitulation of UCU's national leaders, which may cause local unions across the UK to decide not to bother with national campaigns and negotiations in the future, but to focus on working at local levels. Ian Reader, Religious Studies ***************************************************** 4. PAY FRAMEWORK BLUES (AND REDS AND GREENS) As mentioned in the editorial above, the University recently introduced a locally negotiated pay framework, which is completely distinct from the national pay dispute. The framework was agreed by the Association of University Teachers (AUT), now known as the University and Colleges Union (UCU) after its merger with NATFHE. In total, 253 LAUT members (94%) voted in favour of the pay framework agreement, and 17 (6%) voted against it. However, less than half (49% of 548) of the eligible members voted, and the 17 who voted against it may deserve wider attention. AUT/UCU claims that it got the best deal possible for its members under the circumstances, and that the University held the trump cards. This may well be the case, but we wonder whether all of the unions represented their members equally well, and whether the University could have been less callous in its efforts to save money. An important influence on the pay framework was the national Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), agreed between the universities and the AUT after the latter's strike action in 2004. Under the MoU, the results of the agreement at any university must not be detrimental to the pay and conditions of AUT members. Unless 'red circled', a member's pay cannot go down, incremental steps to the next pay grade cannot be increased, and the terms and conditions of employment cannot be made worse. University employees who are red circled are deemed to have an overpaid role; on one extreme, individuals at Lancaster are facing as much as a £10,000 pay cut. The pay cut would not take place immediately, but only after three years, and might be avoided in many instances (e.g., through additional training). New hires would be affected immediately. Those who are green circled are deemed underpaid, and will receive immediate pay rises when the agreement is implemented later this year. Amongst AUT members, approximately 30 people were red circled at Lancaster, but the University had originally determined that the total should be considerably higher. Outside of the union, there is more red circling. All University cleaners, 134 in total, were red circled. Fortunately, they will not lose their pay after the university agreed to continue paying them the 'market rate' to ensure they stay here. The situation in the Library is more worrying. Twenty-two Library employees were red circled, and numerous others have been told that the top of their pay scale has been reduced. They now face an uphill battle to get the pay cut overturned. The concentration of red circling among Library staff underscores the fact that they are among the most undervalued and under-appreciated members of the university community. Without the library, we would not even have a proper academic institution so their situation is puzzling. The pay framework has attracted criticism within the AUT/UCU. Neil Clarke, of the Department of Organisation, Work and Technology, told us, 'I do appreciate the level of work and commitment that the union executive has put into negotiating this framework. However, the fact remains that those staff who are least secure, and least rewarded for their work, are being most neglected and poorly served by this agreement.' Beyond red circling, the framework agreement creates a two-tier system favouring academic over other staff. Many Academic, Library, and Computing (ALC) staff are placed at Grade 6, and face uncertainty and a possible promotions round in order to get a pay rise into Grade 7. Those below Grade 7 have less annual leave, and cannot join the USS pension scheme. They can join the LGPS (Local Government Pension Scheme), which has a lower pension accrual rate. If they progress into Grade 7, they can transfer into USS, but their pensions will have been affected. The unions representing non-academic staff did not join the industrial action in 2004, and did not seek to enter into an MoU with UCEA; it is the occupations that they represent which seem to have come off worse. The UCU, for its part, admits that the framework agreement did not meet the needs of academic-related staff, and that something had to give. The University, finally, has been pressing to save money, but at times may have forgotten that real people are at the end of the pay decisions. ***************************************************** 5. ANOTHER GREEN WORLD? Sharon Woodruff will shortly be leaving the post of Environmental Manager at the University. In a recent interview with subtext, Sharon reflected on what changes she has witnessed in her twelve months in the post, and what challenges lie ahead for the University. Sharon started off by explaining that by far the most significant development over the last year has been the putting into place of Lancaster University's Environmental Management System (LUEMS), consisting of an environmental policy (http://tinyurl.com/hqgf4), an agreed set of procedures in areas such as heating and hazardous waste, and a process of continuous auditing and review. This should provide an important foundation for improving the University's environmental performance in the years ahead. Some good environmental news is expected to come with Phase Four of the current round of construction, part of which will involve the building of new student residences at Grizedale and County. It has been more or less agreed that these will be based on the Canadian Accent Homes design, involving timber frames, high levels of insulation, and solar shade for cooling in the summer, which should enable them to join InfoLab 21 in gaining an 'excellent' score on the Building Research Establishment's Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM). However, Sharon pointed out that older campus buildings pose more of a problem in energy terms: the retro-fitting of existing campus buildings with movement sensors, timers and other energy-saving devices still has a long way to go. Still on the topic of energy, as reported in an earlier 'No Rumours' column in subtext, the University's central Combined Heat and Power plant behind Bowland Tower is nearing the end of its natural life. While the University could continue to run the plant until it finally breaks down, it would have to do so at its own risk, with no company prepared to enter an operational maintenance contract and no guarantee of spare parts. So Estates has commissioned the consultants Arup Energy to look at the different energy options for the University. Sharon told us that she has made sure that various forms of renewable energy - both large and centralised, and small and decentralised - were amongst those options being considered by Arup. With summer 2007 as the likeliest time for any closedown of the CHP plant and the transfer to new forms of energy generation, the next few months should see the delivery of Arup's report, and positions on the various options being taken by UMAG and the Estates Committee. One to watch, then. What about recycling, we asked? Have you made any progress in making it integral to the daily life of the University? Sharon said that her emphasis over the last year has been on trying to improve recycling arrangements outside campus buildings. If all goes well with current negotiations, the University should have a new recycling contract to be in operation from 1st August. We should expect to see a much more consistent and logical distribution of recycling points around campus, with the vast majority of bin areas behind campus buildings including facilities for recycling cardboard, office paper, and newspapers and magazines. Once these outdoor arrangements have been improved, Sharon hopes that attention will be placed on how to get people to sort waste within buildings, and to take it to the recycling points. So, after your year trying to green the campus, we asked, how would you say the University is doing in terms of improving its environmental performance? As a sector, Sharon pointed out, Higher Education is far behind, with only a few institutions such as Leeds Metropolitan and Gloucester really standing out in terms of environmental performance. Lancaster still has a long way to go, but has clearly started to move in the right direction. On 12 June Sharon will leave the University, now hopefully a greener place than she found it. Will Estates replace her with another full-time Environmental Manager, and one with the same commitment to change? Either way, it is important that the members of the University keep a keen eye on strategic decisions over the next few months, and hold it to the commitments made in its environmental policy, especially its promise to 'continually improve our environmental performance'. ***************************************************** 6. HISTORY OF PROTEST AT LANCASTER: THE RENT STRIKE AND OCCUPATION OF 1992 In a future instalment of this series of articles, we hope to cover the frequent student occupations of University House that took place throughout the 1970s. However, in this issue, we report on a brief revival of such tactics in the early 1990s, one which took most observers by surprise. In the Michaelmas Term of 1992, students returning to the University found they were facing large rent rises, and several hundred of them joined a rent strike that was organised by LUSU. Rent payments were diverted into a dedicated strike account rather than going to the University, and large numbers of students attended university committee meetings to protest at the rise. At one of the strike meetings, someone read out a newspaper article about a successful occupation about canteen prices in Paisley. The LUSU Executive invited the President of Paisley Union to speak about this at a LUSU Meeting. At this meeting, held in the Faraday Lecture Theatre on a Thursday, 300 students voted to hold an occupation against the rent rise. They immediately marched on University House, entering it through the main entrance and a back entrance near the library, and took occupation of the rather plush Senate Chamber that at that time took up D Floor. The occupation was to last ten days. From the next day onwards, mass meetings were held twice a day in the Chamber, at 8 am and 6 pm. These were always the highest points of attendance: at other times, students came and went, but at any one time there were at least 20 students in the Chamber. Outside the meetings, the occupiers talked and played board games, smoked, made banners, held debates, talks and workshops, or just partied. Political principles quickly evolved: for example, it was decided that, over occupation matters, the mass meetings were sovereign, rather than LUSU. A banner was hung over the University logo on the west face of the building, reading 'under new management'. Numbers swelled further on Monday, especially when people learned that the University management had taken out an injunction against the supposed ringleaders, including members of the Union Executive. At the mass meetings, the occupation decided that, rather than protest outside the court, strikers should hold a rally on campus instead. What mattered, it was decided, was not the legality of the occupation but simply whether the University and police had the necessary force to evict the whole occupation. Tuesday saw a mass rally in Alexandra Square, of around 1000 students, one of the main points of high drama during the occupation. There were hopes amongst some that this would be an inspiring turning point after which the occupation would escalate. However, there had been splits on the Union Executive over the occupation, and the President turned the rally into a Union meeting, with only one motion - to end the occupation. After passionate argument on both sides, however, the motion was defeated. From that point the occupation became more of a siege. Students put a claxon on the roof, to be used to summon supporters from across the campus. There were a few false alarms, with hundreds turning up, fearing an attempted eviction. The police exploited this by driving vans up and down the University driveway to trigger an alarm. By the third or fourth false alarm, spirits were starting to flag. The occupation changed tactics, starting to occupy other offices up and down campus as well, seriously irritating the management. The mood got darker. A rota of AUT members wearing 'observer' armbands kept vigil on entrances to the 'occupied territories' as monitors against any mistreatment and victimisation. During one mass meeting, cries of 'they're coming' from student lookouts alerted the occupation that a delegation from senior management was coming up the stairs. Confronted by rows of 300 students, they visibly paled. By Thursday, eviction was expected at any time. Lack of sleep and the constant anticipation of eviction were taking their toll. However, a friendly psychology lecturer assured the occupation that the bailiffs wouldn't come at night because of the increased risk of someone getting injured. From this point, the occupation relaxed their vigilance at night and got some sleep. The occupation knew that an eviction was on the way when cleaners told them that they had been called in to clean the Chamber at the weekend. Sure enough, the police and bailiffs arrived at 8 am on Saturday, to be met with non-violent resistance by 200 students with linked arms in the senate chamber. All were carried out passively, and no one was arrested. The police took the men first, offending the women and leading to a last hour of defiance. There was an immediate march around campus, and a committee for reoccupation was created, but the occupation was over. In terms of its overt goals, the occupation was unsuccessful - the rent rise was not stopped (although rents didn't rise so steeply over the next five years). However, events at Lancaster did inspire a number of occupations at other Universities, and a whole cohort of Lancaster students had a brief but intense experience of solidarity, a glimpse of an alternative to the isolation of student life, leaving them with close, enduring friendships and a wealth of anecdotes. They also had a 'thick' experience of politics as lived and experienced, rather than simply debated and discussed. Did the University management learn anything? Well, they did install a revolving door and roof-top security fencing - not quite a claxon to rally supporters, but maybe they learnt something about how to conduct a siege in University House. ***************************************************** 7. WALLUPS' WORLD FROM: Nigel Wallups For the past 10 years, my time has been eaten up by administration and I haven't had time to get back to my research. I was once involved in research on insect control methods and their importance for public policy. I still feel I've a lot to contribute to this topic, but the field of entomology has moved on while I'm standing still. I feel that it's time to bring together the two halves of my life: insect control, and university management. But there might be more cutting edge methods that you might be able to advise me about. Maybe you can help? I keep thinking about parallels between the staff and the aphid. If you look at academic staff walking along the open square of Lune Valley Enterprise University, what do you see? I see the potential for peaceful harmony because we at LuVE-U really do love the people who work for us. If you look a bit deeper though, you might be surprised at what you see: sapsuckers, glorified lice feeding off of the growth in my four-crane campus. They seem reluctant to embrace the entrepreneurial ideals that are part of the future of universities. Research income is coming in, but there could be more. There's knowledge transfer, but not enough. Our staff seem reluctant to realise their full entrepreneurial potential. Surely there must be ways of making the staff less resistant to my ideas, but what can be done to set things right? It would be no use combating the recalcitrance of some staff with pesticides (they have probably developed resistance to certain toxins anyway). There is a place for insect-control methods, but I'm going to need your help to figure out the best way to do that. I was brainstorming, putting ideas to paper, and came up with several possibilities about how to use insect control methods to manage our staff. One option would be to plant buildings in different parts of the campus, each one attracting different staff intrusions and interference so that the university itself could be spared from pests. Another option might be to introduce other staff to devour the existing ones. There could also be lessons from ants, in developing a symbiotic relationship with aphids – maybe there is a way to cultivate the staff, and control them through a spirit of cooperation. They would never see it coming, and never would realise that they were being controlled by a greater and more beneficent power. Strategies, strategies, strategies. Some methods will require being tough, and others will let me show my softer side. I need you to help me figure out the best methods for maximum PR value. Please send your best image consultants, focus groups, and slogans at once. The right turn of a phrase can go a long way. Buildings could be renamed once again to disorient the staff even further – this time, named after different insect colonies. Staff could be rebranded as specimens, under our watchful eye. With your help, insect control methods can be the way forward for Lune Valley Enterprise University. ***************************************************** 8. OPPORTUNITIES AT SUBTEXT [If you would like to contribute to subtext, here's how. We phrase our request in management speak, but we are very serious about wanting your input – eds.] Reflecting the university's spirit of corporate governance, subtext is pleased to offer exciting quality participation opportunities for energetic self-starters who function well in a team environment: 1. Special Bonus Participation Level 1A. This is our highest possible level of participation. It entitles the bearer to unlimited QinetiQ airline miles (some restrictions may apply depending on flight schedules; not valid in certain countries). As a Special Bonus Level 1A Participant, you would join the editorial collective, contributing to its output, and adding a voice as a major change driver. 2. Enhanced Participation Level 3C. This is for people who want their voices heard on a one-off basis. It entitles the bearer to a free, unguided tour of the artwork on University House D Floor (no flash photography, proper attire required, and only available subject to unspecified background checks). As an Enhanced Level 3 Participant, you would join our collective for one issue only as our very special guest. 3. Basic Participation. This level of participation comes with access to the university's book silos or, as they used to be called, libraries (only valid during hours of operation; in keeping with university targets, all work done in the silos should relate to knowledge transfer or RAE-related activity). Basic Participants would have a chance to be closer to some of the most underappreciated members of the university community (book silo operators). As a Basic Participant, you would contribute an original piece of writing about an issue of concern to you, for inclusion in an issue of subtext. If you would like to participate as a Special Bonus Level 1A Participant, Enhanced Level 3C Participant, or Basic Participant, please e-mail us at subtext-editors [at] lancaster.ac.uk. ***************************************************** 9. LETTERS Dear subtext A propos the Autonomous University of Lancaster, you may perhaps have heard of the Université populaire de Caen, founded in 2002 by Michel Onfray (see http://perso.orange.fr/michel.onfray/accueilup.htm). Fraternellement, David Nott ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical
order) of: Lenny Baer, Steve Fleetwood, George Green, Patrick Hagopian,
Gavin Hyman, John Law, Maggie Mort, Rhona O'Brien, Ian Reader and Bronislaw
Szerszynski |