Anyone else not striking?

[goingpearshaped]

I am not in UCU so not striking. Anyone else? I can sense the divide already between those striking and those not in our dept, I really hate this. Agh, what a mess all round.

This is exactly what I think @KStockHERO, word for word.

Me too, I see people at school drop off and I think my uni colleagues typically have no idea of how well paid we are in comparison to some. I think academia has many issues btw but not pay broadly. I feel like I am in good company and the comparison with angry student politics is a good one. This will achieve nothing at all imo.

I'm not striking either. I'm new to the dept (and not in the union) so I don't know what sort of impression it makes - but I do know that I have bumped into a lot of colleagues today so I'm not the only one. I just can't bear to give my money to the UCU.

For me, it's not just the amount we're paid. It's also that we have pretty good conditions compared to the vast, vast, vast majority of workers.

Even professional jobs paying roughly the same wage don't have anywhere near the same level of autonomy, freedom, lack of micromanagement, general interesting-ness

The common rebuttal is that this isn't the case for people on short-term contracts or PhD students. But I think, by and large, it is true for those people too.
Of course it's shit when you're on a short-term contract but there are very few well-paid, professional work sectors where you can expect to walk into a permanent job almost immediately after training (which in academia would be your PhD). I'm not sure why UCU thinks academia should be the exception to this.

Another thing that I find absolutely toe-curling about UCU strike conduct is the so-called 'teach outs'. I still can't really see how they're not, essentially, teaching or research dissemination.

Precarity is a huge issue. But I think there's some hypocrisy on the matter on the part of UCU/UCU-active colleagues.

For example, it's all very well to say that PhD students should have a job contract and a salary, like in some European countries. Well great but then it means that the numbers of PhD students would be greatly reduced - scholarships are already highly competitive in my discipline, let alone if these scholarships were transformed into real "jobs". So it would mean that instead of having 6 PhD students that you can use for promotion, you'd only have 1 or 2.

I have colleagues who are the only permanent member of staff in a masters programme otherwise staffed entirely by hourly paid lecturers. These colleagues tend to be the most vocal against precarity. Now, they could argue that they have no power to make everyone permanent and that if they gave the university an ultimatum, the uni would close down the masters rather than hire more permanent staff. But in the meanwhile my colleagues are profiting in terms of building their profile, applying for promotion, etc. on the back of hourly paid lecturers... while at the same time attracting new students who might stay for a PhD and then stay for hourly-paid positions... so more precarity all around.

(This is from a Humanities department; I appreciate that on the issue of PhDs, post-docs, etc. STEM might be different).

I think for many of my colleagues (and many other of the most visible UCU members), being in a union has an intrinsic value, no matter how useless it actually is. Given the history of the trade union movement, I can actually sympathize with this position,

Yes. My department is pretty heavily UCU but I find the pickets ERC when we have been on strike to be a bit - well, almost hypocritical. I think it’s a group of very middle class people who like to think they are still “sticking it to the man” when they are often more likely on combined incomes of a lot, while junior colleagues are still unable to afford buying a house in their 40s.

I agree in theory with collective action, and anyones right to withdraw her labour, but in the case of academics, I don’t think it works. We must be able to find cleverer more effective ways of making our points.

Brava yes @KStockHERO You put it so much better than I have.

adding my voice to those not in UCU and not striking.

the very first strike in 2019 or so seemed to be focused just on pensions and i had a lot of sympathy - there are clearly some idiotic assumptions in the pension calculations that made things look much worse than they are, and there really had to be a concerted effort to say that the issue needed fixing.

but this set of strikes seems utterly pointless. the pensions issue is getting resolved and the rest of it is far too vague. It feels like a general protest against 'we don't like the system and we dont like the government and we don't like Brexit and we want to be like the miners in the 1980s' but that doesn't actually accomplish anything. all it does it piss off the people who could be allies.

Have to say that I do think that the no of PhD students should be reduced - we take on too many marginal students who we then have to cosset through to the end. It is cruel to encourage them to believe that a permanent post is waiting for them all when they finish.

I agree with many of the comments on this thread about UCU and the strikes. I finally left UCU over their handling of the Kathleen Stock situation, but wouldn't have taken part in the current round of strikes in any case. However I'm really not convinced that "the pensions issue is getting resolved"; the proposed inflation cap is particularly worrying. Trying to look on the bright side, at least UCU appear to have dropped their ridiculously naive "no detriment" position.

@ghislaine

Have to say that I do think that the no of PhD students should be reduced - we take on too many marginal students who we then have to cosset through to the end. It is cruel to encourage them to believe that a permanent post is waiting for them all when they finish.

I agree so hard with this. UCU leads PhD students to believe that the system is stacked against them after their PhDs whereas its actually against them beforehand by letting so many of them onto the course in the first place.

I actually believe that radical change needs to happen around PhDs to the point where self-funding isn't an option (or only an option in very, very exceptional circumstances). We need fewer, but much better quality PhD researchers across the sector.
This would make PhDs more like job-based training and potentially lead to better 'employment' conditions for students which is what UCU want.

It shouldn't be normal for every academic in social sciences (my field) to have 4 or 5 PhD students of varying quality at any one time. We should have 1 or 2 at any one time and work with them as collaborators, as supervisors and mentors.

I hear the arguments that this would disadvantage certain groups of students and I'm empathetic (as a first generation, working-class academic). But what's the benefit of stacking PhD programmes with self-funded students from these backgrounds if they're never, ever, ever going to stand a chance of getting an academic job. It's just kicking the can further down the road.

I think my uni colleagues typically have no idea of how well paid we are in comparison to some

OTOH, we're not well-paid in comparison to the equivalents in other professions - consultants, senior lawyers, senior civil servants. Academics' entry level qualifications are way above those jobs, and the level of constant achievement is also at least on a par with those professions.

But we've always swapped salaries for autonomy and curiosity-led work. And a decent able-to-be-relied-on pension.

Both those things are being eroded, in an entirely ideological policy over the last decade. So, in that respect, we do have a lot to fight for, but striking is not the way to do it. We are knowledge workers, not manual labourers, and our industrial action needs to recognise this.

Like many others I left UCU due to their appalling failure to support their women members. My institution didn't meet the threshold anyway, and if I had been a member I would have voted against striking. Conflating all the issues into one amorphous lump is infantile.

I actually believe that radical change needs to happen around PhDs to the point where self-funding isn't an option (or only an option in very, very exceptional circumstances). We need fewer, but much better quality PhD researchers across the sector.

AS long as we are super-vigilant about our criteria for quality, otherwise we'll go back to the dominance of white middle-class men.

I have found my people, I think! Wow, there is so much I agree with on this thread. Yes, yes to the issue about PhD students. The number of times I have seen the 'I am fighting for better conditions' lot retweet some advert and saying 'come and apply to do a PhD with me on applying a queer theoretical lens to Lego figures' (or something equally meaningless). They must know that this person who signs up for a pitiful stipend for three years (when we all know it takes 4) has little chance of getting a permanent job. Don't get me started on the 'I'm so blessed because I have teaching buy-out but I care deeply about working conditions' people either. Oh the hypocrisy. They would die if the playing field was actually levelled out.

I also agree that they are misguided about pensions. No detriment has thankfully been abandoned but I remember in 2018, some of them were arguing for the reinstatement of a final salary scheme, including the current GS. Deluded. I once told a friend in the private sector that there were strikes due to poor pension. I also told her about the USS scheme and she told me I was welcome to come chat to people in the private sector and find out about their, almost exclusively DC, schemes.

I keep hearing from my colleagues 'oh, if I worked in the private sector, I'd be loaded. They're lucky to have me'. Well, maybe but these are not people who I could see in higher managerial roles and I think they have deluded themselves into thinking that they would be earning megabucks if they weren't in academia when I doubt that.

I earn around 52k. My sister is a nurse works so hard in such hard conditions and gets paid a little over 30k. I feel ashamed when I tell her that my colleagues on the same pay are striking over their 'shit wages'. Truly ashamed. Just like I did when a colleague of mine tweeted that he was convinced that his employer was trying to kill him because they wanted him to teach in person after a year online. Serious cringe.

@LaChanticleer

I think my uni colleagues typically have no idea of how well paid we are in comparison to some

OTOH, we're not well-paid in comparison to the equivalents in other professions - consultants, senior lawyers, senior civil servants. Academics' entry level qualifications are way above those jobs, and the level of constant achievement is also at least on a par with those professions.

But we've always swapped salaries for autonomy and curiosity-led work. And a decent able-to-be-relied-on pension.

Both those things are being eroded, in an entirely ideological policy over the last decade. So, in that respect, we do have a lot to fight for, but striking is not the way to do it. We are knowledge workers, not manual labourers, and our industrial action needs to recognise this.

But why do we compare ourselves to these roles and not eg school teachers (compared to whom, our salaries are not hugely out of whack)? I think STEM is different but in social sciences, I wonder why someone who researches in eg queer theory or tattoos (there is a charming guy who does) is convinced that their comparator is a partner in a corporate law firm. In social sciences, very very little of our research achieves any public good. It is read by very few and it makes little difference to people's lives. It allows us to pursue our interests but it is fairly self-indulgent.

Yes, I think in many cases our work is not socially important. I doubt my work has made much difference to society. But I find it jolly interesting and I relish the freedom to do pretty much what I like.

I do think we need to avoid the trap of working for a pittance because we have a vocation rather than a career. But for me the trade-off in wages is balanced out by the ability to pursue my own niche interests. I am not kidding myself that my career is critical to anything in the greater scheme of things.

The number of times I have seen the 'I am fighting for better conditions' lot retweet some advert and saying 'come and apply to do a PhD with me on applying a queer theoretical lens to Lego figures' (or something equally meaningless). They must know that this person who signs up for a pitiful stipend for three years (when we all know it takes 4) has little chance of getting a permanent job.

And actually those who get a stipend are the lucky ones! Imagine being self-funded...

@ghislaine

Yes, I think in many cases our work is not socially important. I doubt my work has made much difference to society. But I find it jolly interesting and I relish the freedom to do pretty much what I like.

I do think we need to avoid the trap of working for a pittance because we have a vocation rather than a career. But for me the trade-off in wages is balanced out by the ability to pursue my own niche interests. I am not kidding myself that my career is critical to anything in the greater scheme of things.

Oh yes, definitely! And not all jobs have to make a difference to society. But I'm just curious as to why people who are earning 50-65k (which applies to many of the people I know who moan about pay) talk about 'poverty wages' and have convinced themselves that if they weren't academics, they would be earning a fortune. Most people don't earn a fortune and compared to the national average, we are paid okay, especially given the flexibility we get (sometimes). Yes, I'd like to earn more but I have worked in the private sector too (unlike many academics) and I worked harder there than I do now (not saying I don't work hard now but it was a different pace and incredibly intense). If I wasn't in academia, I don't think I would be raking it in. I'd probably be comfortable but I don't think I was ever destined to be a total high-flier (although many of my colleagues are obviously convinced that they were). But at the end of the day, it's a public sector job whose primary value is educating students. It's just not feasible to be earning massive salaries so anyone who wanted that should have looked elsewhere from the outset. There are loads of really skilled and difficult jobs that pay less than academia, just as there are ones that pay more.

@aridapricot

The number of times I have seen the 'I am fighting for better conditions' lot retweet some advert and saying 'come and apply to do a PhD with me on applying a queer theoretical lens to Lego figures' (or something equally meaningless). They must know that this person who signs up for a pitiful stipend for three years (when we all know it takes 4) has little chance of getting a permanent job.

And actually those who get a stipend are the lucky ones! Imagine being self-funded...

Yes, definitely! Living on 16k a year is for the lucky ones! My PhD supervisor had around 5 PhD students at any one time. She had 4 completions in the space of a few months when I was there. She only completed her own PhD about 15 years ago. By the time she retires, she will have supervised over 100 students. It's like a factory. She's not unique. My department where I did my PhD had 60 PhD students registered. Most of them will never get jobs in academia. However, academic promotion depends on being able to tick the supervisor box.

I could easily double or triple my salary in private or public sector. My DH works in the public sector with a PhD and has double my salary (perhaps a gender pay gap thing going on there too!) And he works 36 hours a week and when he shuts his laptop at 5pm on the dot, work is over. I work nearer 50 hours a week to try and keep up with workload.

I don't think I'm owed more money really but I can see that if you had 7 years of specialist training in other roles you'd likely be on more.

US academics also get a hell of a lot more money, of course the culture is different but a us author I work with earns three times what I do. In my field a lot make the switch from private consulting firms to academia as the latter is seen as more lucrative. I don't think I'd say that about the UK system!

What is strike action during reading week (as it is in many universities this week) meant to achieve?

I think whether one would be able to command a higher salary outside academia depends to a great extent on the field.
In my rather small field, I know of two people who left after their PhDs to pursue high-profile business consultacy-type jobs. Another who was quite high up in their career left for a government position. But these jobs aren't directly related to my discipline - if you insisted you wanted to do something related, you'd probably have to take a pay cut, at least initially, or cobble up various freelance jobs. I also don't think that making the switch from a Humanities PhD/academic career to the higher levels of the corporate world is open to everyone - depends on personality, skills and yes probably connections too.
I personally think we Humanities types generally have a good deal (and I believe in the US salaries can vary substantially between discipline - with disciplines which have more direct applications outside academic commanding higher salaries), and also find it interesting that "poor pay" complaints seem to come mostly from the Humanities, and not from, say, scientists...

@aridapricot

I think whether one would be able to command a higher salary outside academia depends to a great extent on the field. In my rather small field, I know of two people who left after their PhDs to pursue high-profile business consultacy-type jobs. Another who was quite high up in their career left for a government position. But these jobs aren't directly related to my discipline - if you insisted you wanted to do something related, you'd probably have to take a pay cut, at least initially, or cobble up various freelance jobs. I also don't think that making the switch from a Humanities PhD/academic career to the higher levels of the corporate world is open to everyone - depends on personality, skills and yes probably connections too. I personally think we Humanities types generally have a good deal (and I believe in the US salaries can vary substantially between discipline - with disciplines which have more direct applications outside academic commanding higher salaries), and also find it interesting that "poor pay" complaints seem to come mostly from the Humanities, and not from, say, scientists...

I agree completely that it depends on field. In social sciences (where I am), its very unlikely you'd be able to command the same pay at the same age/stage as academia. But in some areas of STEM (where my partner is), this is more of a possibility.

But academia and the private sector are very different beasts in terms of conditions. The people who've left my partner's lab and gone into industry (straight from PhD or post-doc) earn fairly comparable salaries but their work isn't anywhere near as autonomous, flexible, and curiosity-driven as academia.

My DH works in the public sector with a PhD and has double my salary (perhaps a gender pay gap thing going on there too!) And he works 36 hours a week and when he shuts his laptop at 5pm on the dot

Good friend of mine (in MFL, so a core Humanities scholar) did this at SL level, and found the same. And that she was treated far far better in all sorts of ways, than in an academic post.