Anyone in the UCU?

[Closetlibrarian]

And striking at end of Feb?

I joined UCU after the last strike, so this will be my first. Even though I voted in favour it, I'm now in an utter quandary. I have an absolute monster of a semester coming up and I'm fretting about all the lectures, tutorials, etc, I'll have to cancel as part of the strike.

If you've gone on strike before how did you present it to your students so that they didn't just get really pissed off with you for cancelling lectures (that we're then, according to UCU, not supposed to reschedule)?

Also, how did you mange with the loss of income? I'm the 'breadwinner', so 14 days of strike action is going to massively impact us (i.e. I'm not sure we'll be able to pay our bills).

You’re expecting other colleagues to take the hit, both personally and financially, in fighting for your pension as well as their own, while you minimise disruption to yourself.

It is considerably more complicated than that.

You commented upthread that no professor in your department is striking. The reality for a professor in my research area is that you have a much higher workload than lecturers/senior lecturers. (I accept that this may be different in other fields, but it is the case in the STEM fields I know.) Almost all of the workload will have to be done, strike or no strike.

So striking now means increasing workload later - to a virtually unmanageable level.

Striking now may also have huge implications for the department, in terms of things like student recruitment (admissions days are in this period), CQA validation etc. Failing to do these properly could cause substantial loss of income - and hence potential redundancies.

I am aware of senior staff on strike who are in practice doing these "essential" tasks and working 8+ hour days while officially "on strike", because of these reasons. It is not clear to me that this is actually better than them getting paid for what they are doing.

BTW I would also point out that in many places those who are not striking are, in practice, having to do extra workload as well as their own. So while they are not feeling financial fallout they are, in practice, covering their colleague's work, losing time for their own research.

Again - the reasons for covering for striking colleagues relate to concerns about sustainability of the department etc. One might disagree with the choice but it is too simplistic to call it selfish.

The reality for a professor in my research area is that you have a much higher workload than lecturers/senior lecturers. (I accept that this may be different in other fields, but it is the case in the STEM fields I know.)

This is not the case in my department (not STEM). If anything, in my department professors do less teaching and tend not to have major admin roles, while we all have the same research expectations.

If anything, in my department professors do less teaching and tend not to have major admin roles, while we all have the same research expectations.

I see people writing this in this section on MN. It always surprises me, because in every (top tier research) university I have ever worked in professors clearly have much higher research expectations and do not get reduced teaching.They also do FAR more management work - both inside and outside the university (REF panels, RCUK, government advisory groups, roles at other universities etc). This is true for humanities/social sciences as well as STEM. It is true that major research grants can be used to reduce teaching (although in some places, such as Oxbridge, even a major research grant doesn't necessarily buy you out completely) but the default is that professors get as much or more teaching. Indeed, in STEM, there may well be large core courses that are only ever taught by senior staff - they would never be given to early career staff.

Oh ok re the statistics. I didn't know how it worked and thought that because we only announce our strike after the event that statistics in themselves don't make a difference (I also thought we reported at the end of the 14 days, not each week, so glad I've got that straight).

I don't think it's that selfish. It's not unreasonable to consider your own circumstances in all this and I'm not expecting other colleagues to take the hit. It obviously isn't fair for staff who teach daily that they don't have the option of a partial strike but even if I strike in my absence (off campus, in a different town) it doesn't change this unfortunately. But I get the statistics point and it change things

Re partial striking, just so that the information is confirmed - it's entirely fine legally to strike some days during the period and not others. UCU have, indeed, encouraged people to join the union or join in the strike for later days even if they weren't striking earlier on, so it's not an all-or-nothing situation.

I also was reflecting on the lines whiskyowl said - that if you have 61 institutions, they can all afford different things. I think that is apparent in the way different VCs are responding.

Yes, and no.

It is of course true that different institutions are in different financial circumstances.

However, institutions in comparable financial circumstances are actually replying very differently. Some VCs are more bullish than others. Some VCs prioritise taking out large bonds (for which significant surpluses are necessary to get good rates). Some have a vision of cutting back significantly on academic staff and dumping more and more teaching on the remaining staff - that's what Snowden did at Surrey and what he is now doing at Southampton. Some are running loss making campuses overseas (I think Nottingham is one, also I think the Newcastle London campus is losing money) - they could close these to save money.

On the other hand, I don't envy senior management having to make difficult decisions. There is a feeling that to be competitive you do need fancy new buildings and facilities. It's not true that this is irrelevant to student recruitment, particularly from families with no background of higher education (and therefore less understanding of what to look for in a university). Maintenance/rebuilding does have to be taken out of the general university budget, as - apart from money being thrown at e.g. new physics labs for Cambridge - there isn't government money for structural investment at universities.

But the elephant is always in the room - why do universities now need more non-academic staff than academic staff, when they didn't 20 years ago?

You commented upthread that no professor in your department is striking. The reality for a professor in my research area is that you have a much higher workload than lecturers/senior lecturers. (I accept that this may be different in other fields, but it is the case in the STEM fields I know.) Almost all of the workload will have to be done, strike or no strike.

I'm a professor in the Humanities and this is pretty true for me too.

Except I'm striking. And trying not to do the work I'm not being paid for. I'm keeping on doing "my" work, so that won't suffer when I have to do the inevitable 12 hour days to catch up after industrial action.

And my university is one of those tryng to impose 25% pay cut if we don't reschedule missed teaching.

I think it's dodgy legally: I'm being asked to do work that I didn't get paid for.

But still ...

And trying not to do the work I'm not being paid for.

But when it needs to be done, and you will end up doing it anyway, later, in addition to everything else that is expected of you, why should you not be paid for it.... ?

I do know of a number of professors who are striking - but I don't think one can sit in judgement against those who aren't, unless one knows all the circumstances.

I'm keeping on doing "my" work, so that won't suffer when I have to do the inevitable 12 hour days to catch up after industrial action.

I work to my limit all the time. I just cannot manage "extra" to catch up.

but I don't think one can sit in judgement against those who aren't, unless one knows all the circumstances.

I consider this pensions issue a matter of intergenerational justice. If these changes go through, they will disproportionately affect early and middle career academics. I heartily judge professors who have built up large pensions, big chunks of which will be final salary based, and who aren’t prepared to stand with their younger colleagues who by and large have experienced many years of precarious and poorly-paid employment. I think they should be ashamed of themselves.

I'm on a full research post so if I don't do the work this week I will have to do it next week. Nothing will be cancelled and no one will be taking over my work load. It'll mean I'll probably have a crazy week next week. Anyhow I am still thinking of striking one or two days this week ...

@SoupyNorman not all professors fit that model. I certainly don't.

And as one of the 14% of the professoriate that is female, I've made more tan my share of sacrifices, believe me.

So don't judge too quickly or comprehensively.

I wouldn’t judge you anyway, TheRagingGirl, as you’re striking .

As a single mother to two DC, one with additional needs, I have also made sacrifices, albeit professional ones. Why do women always end up having this conversation - career sacrifice or family sacrifice (I am assuming, I acknowledge this, regarding the 12 hour day comment). There is NO way on God’s earth I can put in twelve hour days, I put in 16 or 17 hour ones but half of that is looking after DC.

I have seen my career progression slip away, my book deadline slip, research ideas shelved because I cannot travel, I am beyond grateful to be able to do a job I love flexibly enough to still look after my children. But academically successful I will never be, and it is not for want of a brain.

I am not sure of the point of this post, I guess I have seen my professional ambition fade as the things needed became impossible. But this is a pattern that mostly happens to women (which is why only 14% of the professoriat is female). I am really, really sure that no man discussing the strike would be considering the sacrifices he has made to get to his position, unless they are financial in so far as he could have been better paid elsewhere.

Not sure what relevance that is, I just wonder why it is usually women who have to announce they have made sacrifices if they are successful. I don’t doubt it, by the way, but it stuck out at me. Or conversely, explain why they cannot ( or do not wish to) put in the 12 hour days to succeed.

Professors in my department do not teach at all. Associate professors barely teach. Some of them do have considerable management and administrative tasks (but many of them do not). I’m not entirely sure what a few of them actually do because they certainly aren’t producing publications (or even bidding for grants, never mind getting them) in all the time that they’re not teaching and not doing anything administrative. One in particular appears to do precisely nothing as far as anyone can tell.

I heartily judge professors who have built up large pensions, big chunks of which will be final salary based, and who aren’t prepared to stand with their younger colleagues who by and large. have experienced many years of precarious and poorly-paid employment

You really are being pretty judgemental.

I am a professor - but I am also mid-career, having become a professor in my 30s (like many in STEM fields).

In my research field, it has been the norm for decades for people to do several post-docs, usually international, before getting jobs. Actually things are much better now for early career researchers than they were in the late 80s/early 90s (before I came along).

Like RagingGirl, I and most of those women who become professors (far less than 10% in my field) have often made huge sacrifices along the way - moving countries, leaving behind relationships, not having children, having fewer children than we wanted. Of course that doesn't mean academic women who aren't professors haven't made sacrifices too - but there isn't anything to be gained by making comparisons about choices.

House prices have grown out of control in the UK, but in real terms academic salaries actually improved in the 2000-2008 period, relative to the period before, and interest rates are at historical lows. Academia has never been easy in its early stages. Yes, there are ways in which it is deteriorating, but pitting professors against the rest and saying one lot has it easier isn't getting anyone anywhere.

Professors in my department do not teach at all. Associate professors barely teach.

This structure is not going to survive much longer. With decreasing budgets, no department can afford such "wastage".

"I heartily judge" - yes, that's being judgmental. Obviously.

pitting professors against the rest and saying one lot has it easier isn't getting anyone anywhere.

I consider the professors who aren't striking to be pitting themselves against the rest of us, quite literally, by strikebreaking.

And the precarious nature of early career academia these days is emphatically not a matter of 'choices'.

This structure is not going to survive much longer. With decreasing budgets, no department can afford such "wastage".

Sadly it appears to be getting worse and worse where I am. Every year we have more APs who appear to contribute precisely nothing to the department. It’s not like there isn’t plenty of teaching they could be contributing to.

(I really find very hard to believe that no professor teaches in a department. And that professors are not producing REF outputs, not getting grants, not doing admin and not teaching. Why on earth would any university tolerate this? What university is not scrutinising outputs from departments at faculty/central level and cracking down on such behaviour? I would really love to know.... given that every university I know is obsessed with REF, grant income etc. I am external examiner at several RG universities - all have a policy of putting academics automatically into performance management if they are deemed to be underproducing REF outputs.)

And the precarious nature of early career academia these days is emphatically not a matter of 'choices'.

It never has been in many STEM research fields. Out of my (large) Oxbridge PhD cohort, less than 10% got first postdocs, and less than 5% ended up with permanent jobs. A number of others hung around for a few years on part-time teaching before having to give up.

What is, I think, more recent is that non-STEM fields have started to follow the STEM fields (in the race to the bottom). A number of my Oxbridge college contemporaries in humanities did indeed walk straight into permanent jobs out of PhDs or a year or so afterwards.

BTW there are still "choices" to be made - in my research field you will need to be willing to move around from country to country for 5+ years and willing to settle outside of the UK if you want to stay in academia.

Even if you are willing to do this, you may well not make it - but if you insist on staying in the UK you almost certainly won't manage to get a postdoc and stay in academia. So there is a big "choice" of whether you are willing to leave the UK or not, to try to stay in academia.

Funnily enough, many things happen to women in life which are not necessarily ‘choices’. How sanctimoniously smug, dismissive and condescending to women who face real barriers to progression, regardless of what choices they would have made, to say that there is no gain to be made about comparing ‘choices’. For many women, it is NOT about ‘choices’, it is day to day survival.

Note: choices they would have made, not choices they can make.

And of course there is merit in comparing people’s career trajectories, what advantages they had, what challenges they faced - otherwise, how do you ensure groups are not systematically discriminated against? Not only in academia, but generally to ensure a more equal and fair society.

Or is it really just, ‘this is what I did, and I made it’?