When do you think the strikes will be?

[JasminaPashmina]

Just that - when do you think the strikes will happen?

Before Christmas by chance?

Sorry, I should qualify my comment. The boomers would do well if the employers met the UCU demands on pay and pensions

I don’t actually think anyone will do well out of the strike, boomer or not. I also find the OK boomer thing horribly ageist and disrespectful. It’s like the ‘Sure, Karen’ stuff that gets levelled at older feminists. Makes me sick.

It's become increasingly clear to me that Jo Grady didn't and doesn't have a clue about what her role entails. To cheer that Selina Todd was cancelled from the event would be bad enough if she'd done it in private, but doing it in public suggests that she doesn't know that as GS it is unfit to show favouritism for some members over others... or that she does know it but doesn't care and thinks that red lipstick, witty slogans and being "cute as hell" is enough to continue in post.

Well, she ‘won’ her job via a twitter popularity contest, why would she take it seriously? Apologies for flippant tone throughout, I completely share your concerns.

Yeah, I mainly blame the people who were taken in and voted for her. There was no substance there from the outset. At the hustings at Cambridge, when asked about her experience of handling a large budget, she responded that ‘there are staff who do that’. She also believed her job as a lecturer, involving juggling many tasks, equipped her to run a large union with a multi-million pound budget. I am a lecturer and it doesn’t equip you with management skills at all. Maybe if you were Head of Faculty or School, it could be said to do so but at L/SL level, no way on earth. Just not a clue.

I’m now seeing quite a few academics on twitter openly criticising her on the grounds of academic freedom. Some pleasant surprises there.

Kathleen Stock has just announced that she has resigned. I’m surprised she stuck it out this long to be fair. I am glad that people are calling Grady out. It’s disgraceful behaviour.

I watched in absolute disbelief as Jo Grady waded into the Selina Todd situation. Despicable. As the leader of an academic union she should be in support of open, critical academic debate.

I think I've said this before on here but she reminds me of a high school bully. The kind of person who was on the margins of the 'popular' mean girls group at school but is making up for it now by acting like a nasty bitch. Meanwhile, all of the popular girls that she so tried to be a part of have grown up, moved, and probably become nice normal people.

I can't help but feel that Grady's public persona of cute dogs, red lipstick, leopard print, and taking-no-prisoners probably worked well with her students when she was a lecturer. I can see how students would warm to that. But she's not a lecturer, she's in an incredibly highly-paid, responsible, politically-charged job which requires a high level of professionalism. I don't think she's made this adjustment and its making her look ridiculous (which upsets me because I'm actually pleased a fairly young, working class woman is heading up the Union, I really really wanted her to be brilliant in the role!).

This tweet in particular (the bit in brackets) made me think. In fact it ties in with something @Pota2 (I think?) mentioned a few pages back: twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1234409210982608897

With both the strikes and trans issues, I see a lot of the "radicalism" online comes from PhD students. And I agree with Kathleen that in many cases it seems to serve the purpose of impressing senior academics. There's a particular brand of senior academics (say between mid-30s and early 50s), who are very vocal in Union matters who are also anti-GCs. The thing is, they are particularly active/visible in social media, and so I think that many PhD students/early post-docs think that these academics are the establishment, the people early-career researchers need to ingratiate themselves with to get ahead in academia. And so they become "performative" and show how radical they are on both counts.

I think some of these early-career researchers are in for a nasty surprise. See for example, this: twitter.com/ChrisRenwick/status/1233719360038023169 .
The author of the screenshotted tweet is apparently a PhD student. Whereas this might get her some applause from the "in" crowd, there are a lot of academics, myself included, who when making hiring decisions or looking for collaborators would raise an eyebrow as to why on earth an academic would include/exclude scholars from a reading list based on criteria other than their relevance to the course at hand. I often feel sorry for these early-career researchers, as I think many of them might be damaging their future prospects for the sake of getting a few "likes" on Twitter.

@JasminaPashmina I don't think she's made this adjustment and its making her look ridiculous If she were just making herself look ridiculous, it wouldn't be so bad. But she is making the entire profession look childishly unprofessional and out of touch. The fact is that this government has it in for universities and we are going to feel the consequences of this shortly. They think (rightly, in my opinion) that we are out of touch, that we have lost the trust of the public, that there is a lack of intellectual and political diversity, and that academic freedom is under threat (and that's before we get to all the other problems they've identified - grade inflation, unconditional offers, poor quality courses). Grady and her Twitter antics are playing right into their hands.

@aridapricot - I completely agree that many of these Twitter bullies are making themselves unemployable. I won't be supporting postdoc applications or shortlisting for jobs anyone who I've seen engaging in this sort of behaviour. I don't feel sorry for them, though. If you support no-platforming (which is, in fact, against the law) you'll have to accept that there are many departments who won't employ people who work against the principles of academic freedom and bully colleagues. They are old and supposedly intelligent enough to understand that there is a world that exists outside the Twitter echo-chamber.

Jasmina I agree that she embodies that popular girl at school personality but as you say, she should have moved on by now. School was 20 years ago and you are running a trade union. It's such a shame because it then confirms what some of the critics would have said about her when she was elected. I think she plays on that persona, perhaps to show that she is more relatable than the previous GS but when you are negotiating against the fat-cats, endless selfies, nail-varnish emojis and Oprah gifs don't make a good impression. Maybe it shouldn't be like this but it is and if you publicly act like a teenager and demonstrate a complete inability to be impartial, you won't command the respect of those who deal with you.

aridapricot I cringed so hard reading that reading-list tweet. Shit. You're so right about the senior academics who give the impression that they represent the establishment. The thing is, they have climbed the greasy pole and they are much more fickle than you might think. If you're a lowly PhD student, they might well like your tweet or even retweet it, but that won't translate into permanent employment. They will have their own protegees already (who will already be ESRC/AHRC funded and from a 'traditional' academic background) and will pull strings to get them jobs. They won't care about the ones who embarrassed themselves on twitter in the name of being woke. It's sad but true because the clearest examples of nepotism and underhandedness that I've seen in my field have come from so-called intersectional feminists at reader or prof level. Oh and they have pulled 12 hour days and put pressure on management to be bought out of teaching to get to where they are - make no mistake. They aren't as cuddly and friendly as their bios would presume. They are where they are because they make money for the university.

In the meantime, there will be a large section of other academics who, like you say, will be on hiring committees and will be put off by this sort of behaviour. I would not hire someone who bases citation on who they personally like. I would also not hire someone who openly disparages other academics and calls them bigots. I have seen ECRs with zero publications still doing hourly paid work 4 years after PhD graduation, openly claiming that Selina Todd is a shit historian (because they don't agree with her) and same with Kathleen Stock. It wouldn't matter where I stood in the gender debate - I just wouldn't hire someone with that attitude.

@GCAcademic I suppose the reason why I feel sorry for these PhD students and EC academics, is that they are being encouraged by senior academics who don't have as much to lose. It's these senior academics, I think, who encourage the idea that we're in an "exceptional" situation and so breaking the law (as in no-platforming) or not respecting basic norms of civility is acceptable. But senior academics face lesser consequences, because once you're in a permanent position it's actually very difficult to get fired, or even disciplined, whereas if you're still looking for your first permanent job and you have a track record of bullying strangers online, well, this doesn't look very good. @Pota2's comment re many of the bullies having limited experience in academic also resonate with me - when you're employed FT and hopefully for a significant chunk of years to come (if not for the rest of your working life), then the idea of bullying strangers online for having different opinions becomes incredibly idiotic. What if you find yourself in the future working alongside such strangers or their colleagues/friends in the same department/school/discipline/project - you wouldn't last one week in academia.

I definitely think that this debate emboldens people to act in ways that are detrimental to their careers. When you see people in the media saying that Selina Todd is committing literal violence, it's easy to think that you have free rein to fully indulge your inner misogynist without any consequences.

For example, some chump calling himself a human rights expert likened Rosa Freedman to a holocaust denier when she was no-platformed at Essex for a talk on a totally different subject. You could tell that he thought that he would get support from everyone and probably got a shock when he was called out for vile anti-semitic abuse. I hope that a complaint has been made to his employer too. I believe he is permanently employed but I can imagine an ECR getting even more carried away and not having that protection of being a permanent member of staff.

I don't feel sorry for them either really. I would just implore them to think about what they're doing. It could be that in a couple of years, people are keen to distance themselves from this after some more NHS scandals come out about children's transitions. But you'll still be the idiot who publicly laid into an influential history or philosophy professor who probably won't be too keen to help you get ahead in your career.

Wondering if you've all seen this

I remember before Christmas when we (as in us MNers on this thread questioning UCU and Grady) were being mocked on Twitter by Grady and some of her fans being non-solidarity TERFs.

I wonder what those who were mocking us will have to say now that there's a wider conversation about this? My suspicions are that they'll be notably quiet.

There are certainly new voices openly condemning Grady following her bitchy little digs at Selina.

@GCAcademic You're absolutely right that it does bring the whole sector into disrepute which could have serious consequences for us all. I'd like to see more space in the corporate world for personalities and femininity (e.g. women who like red lipstick and want to talk about it) but Jo Grady shouldn't be leading this charge/change!

On the issues of the ECRs/PhDs acting as mouth-pieces for the uber-woke, I'm not sure how I feel. Sometimes I feel sorry for them because they're new to the game and if they're in an echo chamber of similarly-minded people then I can see how they get overcome and start tweet all sorts of nonsense. On the other hand, though, they absolutely are old enough and educated enough to engage with the wider debate and should be more sensible than tweeting reactionary bullshit.

There are also structural inequalities at play where some types of people are better equipped to play the game and judge the right thing to do than others. I think their supervisors (assuming they're not the woke-folk and are aware of what their students are up to on Twitter) need to have a word and urge some caution. TBF, they may well have done and the ECRs/PhD might have just ignored it completely.

Either way, the main thing is that it makes me absolutely cringe to see ECRs/PhDs behaving like this.

I think it's quite clear that it's gone beyond something that can just be explained as 'TERFs throwing toys out of the pram'. Even if they have no stake in the gender debate, I don't think most academics agree with the ostracisation of respected academic who hold sensible and lawful views backed up by both law and science.

Coupled with that there is the fact that these strikes have been a disaster from beginning to end. We still have a couple of weeks left, I know, but I can't see it ending well. People will have lost a lot of money from striking and those who haven't already started asking questions will hopefully do so.

And the vast majority of us on here are not anti-unions at all! Why else would we be joining other unions. The problem lies in the leadership of the UCU. They can continue to ignore what is staring them in the face, but that's probably not a good idea. For one thing, the subs of someone like Kathleen Stock are going to be far more valuable financially than the ECRs claiming free membership and who are rapidly diminishing the chances of ever being in a position to have to pay higher subs than that.

That’s tricky though, isn’t it, as it should only be the quality of your scholarship that gets you an academic job. But collegiality is an important factor and how collegial is somebody going to be who spends a lot of time on twitter witch hunts? There are so many ‘how to do social media for junior scholars’ out there, I’m not sure it’s that easy to plead ignorance. The logic of our current political moment being an emergency seems to be a good explanation, though.

PS, the parallels with the Labour party are just so obvious:

Dissatisfaction with leader seen as too bland and middle of the road

Cult of personality is elected amid surge in membership, all motivated to vote for them. A new era is promised.

New era turns out to be a load of bollocks, hotly denied by the leader's inner circle, who turn on an attack any dissenters.

Huge spectacular political failure on a never before seen scale

Refusal to acknowledge failures and claims of smear campaigns and 'having won the argument' ensue

just leaving this there

Daca, yes, it should be quality of scholarship but the market is over-saturated and if you show yourself to be someone who cannot get on with others, it will damage your chances.

The other thing is that the reason there are so many PhD places is neoliberalism. At least half of them wouldn't be there if the employers accepted all of UCU's demands. There would be fewer jobs and entry would be tougher, albeit that it would come with more stability than it currently does.

Collegiality features significantly in hiring decisions, for permanent staff at least. I think a lot of junior academics really underestimate this. The job is tough, workload is high, everyone has to pull their weight and departments simply can't accommodate divas or bullies. At every appointment panel I've been on, there have been questions about collegiality and in many cases, the ways have been addressed by candidates have lost them the job. I absolutely would look at social media, too, at the shortlisting stage.

It's also not escaped my irony radar that if I'd been striking, the two Leverhulme ECF applications I'm down as mentor for wouldn't have been submitted last week. I wonder how some of bullies like the reading list purist would feel if that was their application affected?

Coupled with that there is the fact that these strikes have been a disaster from beginning to end.

I agree with everything that has been said about academic freedom. But why do you think the strikes have been a disaster, Pota? Negotiations have reopened in both disputes, at the request of employers, and these are being described as constructive. I don’t recognise the picture you’re painting.

I know so many academics who are officially on strike but working behind the scenes on tasks like funding applications, references for students (I just submitted one), collaborative work, admin etc. The problem is that most of us are very committed to our jobs. Another reason why strikes should be a last resort.
The Facebook page from York is interesting, isn’t the Women’s Strike linked to SWP? And why do they rely on graduate students? Judging from the vibe on my (left-wing) campus, the strike is not going well. And yes, eerily reminiscent of the Labour Party. When will the next General Secretary election be?

AgileLass really? There has been one offer on conditions that was not an offer at all because it didn’t move on one of the only substantive points that UCU had. There has been no offer on pensions. There have been 14 days of strike so far.

They are being described as constructive by the UCU negotiators but there are seldom any details given about what the contents are (I do understand they are without prejudice but still). I can’t see any real evidence of success. Maybe I will be proved wrong but there’s also the point that the best you will get on pensions is an interim agreement that will need to be renegotiated when there is a new valuation.

I guess it depends on your definition of success but I can’t see anything resembling success with these strikes. What I can see is a desire to ‘go in hard’, a call for strike action as a first rather than last resort, a failure to conserve the energy of strikers for a point in time when it would have more success, a decision to place the strike at the same time as the GE, hugely reducing its visibility.

There’s also the fact that HEC is dominated by the left and are unlikely to allow any offer short of meeting all the demands to be put to the members.

If there isn’t an offer by next week, how much longer will you be prepared to strike before thinking that maybe they haven’t been a resounding success?

@Daca
The problem is that most of us are very committed to our jobs. Another reason why strikes should be a last resort

I'm not sure it's always about 'commitment' to our jobs. I actually have very serious issues with this idea but that's for another thread maybe!

I think it's because we all have too much work to and we're over-stretched. I know that people will say "that's exactly what we're striking for" but I don't see it in practice. I don't see how the UCU strike is practically addressing the issue of workload.

I also think it's because research is the most enjoyable part for most of us so I think a lot of people are just enjoying the opportunity to have a couple of weeks at home working on research. For many, they're willing to sacrifice pay for this.

But, yes, the autonomy of academia means that a strike means basically nothing. It's not like a strike in a factory where production just shuts down, things don't get made, orders don't get filled, customers don't get their goods. Nope, work will be caught up on and everything will go back to normal. For me, something like UCU members refusing to produce journal articles or boycotting the REF would be much much more effective but that, of course, means personally sacrificing future career prospects which few are willing to do because for all the talk of solidarity and collectivity, academics are mostly individualist career-focused single unit entities.