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.

Is there anyone who thinks 18 random days spread over several weeks is a good idea? If UCU wants to play hardball, then surely going on strike for 3-4 solid weeks would be more effective? A day or two here and there is not going to be effective, in my view. The universities will just work round it...

If people are not striking, out Uni requires them to be on campus on strike days. We have to sign in and out to. Had a message today saying that if straight days coincide with teachers’ strike days and we have children, we cannot work from home but have to take unpaid or annual leave.

It’s basically exactly what UCU has been doing for the past 5 years with more or less zero success. Why are things so different now? Also, suddenly this seems to be all about pay. I haven’t heard anything about USS in recent weeks. Are they going to call even more strike action at a later date over the pension? Why this huge dramatic all-out action just over a pay offer? We’ve been offered 4-7% depending on pay grade and I doubt the action will leave us with that much more - maybe a couple more percent. Given what people will lose from striking, it seems really odd and disproportionate. And obviously a decent pay offer will be on the condition that any strike action is called off.

i don’t know if im missing something but why do people keep voting for this action when there’s no coherent strategy? If you asked the average person what exactly UCU are asking for, most wouldn’t have a clue (I wouldn’t either). Yet they sacrifice hundreds of pounds every year thinking that it will be different this time. Is it sunk cost fallacy?

Is anyone on here contract research staff? If so, do you know what your university does with your salary when you strike? I haven't been able to get any answers but I suspect mine keeps my salary rather than returning it to the research council that is funding me. I do very little teaching and cause little or no disruption when I strike. I end up just doing the work for free as I can't leave a project half finished. It's just not an option. Consequently, striking just feels like a deliberate act of self harm and handing my employer free money.

There was some interesting discussion at our branch meeting today about whether research staff might be better to not go on strike but to hand over our salaries to the strike fund. If we're going to be working for free, it's better to support the strikers than to let the university keep the money. Wondered what people's thoughts might be on this approach?

Well presumably a majority of UCU members do! This is the outcome of the branch meetings >>>> BDM >>>> HEC decisions. To me it is quite the leap of faith to think it will work this time when it hasn’t before but maybe they all know something I don’t.

I think the union's official position will be no, no way, everyone must strike. Which makes sense because then you would end up justifying extensions for everything. I did it myself in the first round of strikes in 2018. I was on sabbatical funded by a fellowship - my first real opportunity at doing research for 5 years in my current job; observing the strike would have basically meant no field research and hence the fellowship would have been for nothing. The inconsistencies of a strike strategy in a higher education context have been repeatedly pointed out in this and other threads, and research-only posts are only one example.

I suspect the current emphasis on pay is due to the wider context (many other professions striking over pay) and perhaps to avoid drawing attention to the fact that even after cuts, the USS scheme is generous.

It is interesting to hear that some universities require non-striking staff to be on campus on strike days. My university doesn’t but if it did, things might be quite different. Does anyone know if Queen Mary was successful with its hardline strategy over the marking boycott?

Others here may disagree but my sense is that some academics go on strike or vote for strike action due to peer pressure or moral vanity. This would explain why they agree to strategies that make very little sense.

Research staff paid by grants: universities can only charge the funders for the actual hours worked on the project, so if they withhold salary for strikes they cannot charge this amount to the funders. Some funders audit so carefully that they will refuse to pay for even 1 extra day charged by the university (usually accidentally, mixups on end dates of projects).

If an RA doesn't work the whole contract the PI can use that money for something else. Usually only salary money if it was salary money to start with. If you are lucky they will extend your contract.

Others here may disagree but my sense is that some academics go on strike or vote for strike action due to peer pressure or moral vanity. This would explain why they agree to strategies that make very little sense

that must be it because I can’t for the life of me figure it out otherwise. Every single year for five years straight and still nothing to show but “this time it’s definitely different because Jo Grady told us it’s different”. The employers must be laughing at the salary savings they are making. The students will whine a bit but will ultimately be pacified by the university assuring them they won’t be examined on any missed topics. Plus ça change.

Others here may disagree but my sense is that some academics go on strike or vote for strike action due to peer pressure or moral vanity.

I think this is the case in my department. Nearly everyone strikes and you're seen as a bit of an outsider if you don't. I haven't been striking this year, but it was a hard decision to make, partly because of how I knew my colleagues would react. It's very different to other departments at my university, where very few staff strike, despite having the same pay and pension issues.

I know of colleagues in the last few rounds of strike action who are being selective and choosing to strike on the days they would be due to teach (therefore not having to cross a picket line), but stating they are working as usual on days they can work from home. It’s a pick and choose scenario. Our management send a form and you declare whether you are striking/ working as usual for each of the individual days. Currently no requirement for non-striking staff to be on campus.

I now have very stressed colleagues who can’t afford to lose 18 days pay, and the thought of losing 18 days worth of work time, and the pressure that brings is excruciating.

UCU are out of touch beyond belief

This is another way in which the strike is counterproductive, because it requires such a financial sacrifice that you really can't be upset with people who don't strike, which reduces the peer pressure to strike.

The Four Fights thing seems to have died a death and I agree totally that the current focus solely/mostly on pay is to tie in with the rhetoric of strikes in other sectors. Having said that, I'm not sure there's much public sympathy for our pay given how well we're paid for the kind of work we do compared to the private sector.

I also agree about moral vanity. It's virtue signalling. I'm in a Department where the vast majority of people strike so there's certainly peer pressure too. There's lots of talk (in-person, in emails, on social media, with students) about 'solidarity' and 'comrades' and lots of photographs from the picket lines. It's not just about striking, its about being seen to be striking.

Yes, KStockHERO, I think you're right. Unfortunately, most of those who are not striking do their utmost to not draw attention to this fact, as if it were something shameful. As a PP has said, this is to avoid conflicts with colleagues but really, why should I justify myself for not doing something that seems unwise and detrimental to my students and when there is so much justified criticism of UCU?

Hardly anyone in my department is striking - this is a massive shift from past industrial action (it's post 92 so we weren't involved in USS). I know some universities are sloshing in money but I imagine most like mine aren't, so if they put academics pay up significantly how would that be financed? Surely it would mean redundancies. My employer given staff such as cleaners and security bigger payrises which makes a lot of sense. For me pay is probably the least of my complaints about my job - and I say that as a lone parent working part time

I thought this thread was really interesting re post-92s: twitter.com/Sweetburlingame/status/1617798782976143360

And if I hear again the argument "the universities have plenty of money, look at how many new shiny buildings they're building" I think I am going to scream. In my campus a number of new shiny buildings have been built but I actually wish they built more. I had no lights in my office for nearly three months and this week the ceilings of one of our rooms collapsed. A functional building would make more difference to me at this point than a 1% higher pay rise.

The 'shiny new buildings' rhetoric absolutely boils my fanny.

A lot of the university building projects are funded by complex loan systems, business bonds, and loan notes that normal academics can't begin to understand.

They are also often undertaken to offload cash because universities are technically charity organisations that can't retain 'profit'.

As you say, shiny new buildings are also essential to provide staff with safe working spaces.

They are also key to attracting students. Students won't come to universities where teaching is done in crumbling flat-roofed buildings reminiscent of 1970s comprehensive schools.

Now I understand the argument that all of these points are part of a wider issue of the marketisation of higher education. But that ship's sailed now. Get with reality.

It's heartening to know that Grady is working on the right issues: twitter.com/DrJoGrady/status/1619259180845793280

Sigh … so predictable. On that thread, there is an earlier screenshot of a Grady tweet praising Meghan Markle for visiting a school. A school child could see the double standards here.

Nevermind all the issues around strike strategy, Grady’s attacks on women’s rights and her general intolerance, it’s intellectually embarrassing to be represented by her.

This is the sort of narrative that really ticks me off: www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/lecturer-earned-little-5k-year-26092726.

So this sounds terrible, eight years on short term contracts until a permanent post is obtained. But if you look at the person in questions work page, you see that two of those years were between getting a masters and starting a PhD and the. six of those years were as a PhD student (while receiving a fees bursary) and then ‘they’ got a permanent job. I wouldn’t class a post-Masters student and a part-time PhD student as a lecturer. And getting a full time job straight after finishing one’s PhD and then being promoted to SL within 3 years seems pretty good to me.

This is the equivalent of last year’s “lecturer lives in a tent” story where the person in question turned out to be a PhD student who had never approached the university support services for help.

Colour me crotchety but I get fed up of these disingenuous paintings of PhD students as actual academic staff.

Just checked the twitter of UCU’s Beloved Leader. think Jo Grady needs a nice cup of tea and a lie-down. She is losing the plot. Or maybe she just hates women.

Promotion to SL in three years is not bad at all.

She’s honestly defending Lloyd Russel-Moyle for ‘speaking out against transphobia’? And rapists in women’s prisons is a ‘fake debate’ … sure. Has she mentioned the culture wars yet? Is the Observer a ‘Tory rag’ yet? Keep it coming, Jojokins …

This is ridiculous! If she only earned £5k pa during her PhD presumably she didn’t have a bursary or a GTA role. So the £5k was her being employed by the university in an hourly paid role separately from her PhD. It surely isn’t the university’s fault she didn’t adequately plan her finances while studying, and this situation has nothing to do with the general working conditions of academics. You’re right it’s so disingenuous.

I mean there’s an argument for only allowing funded PhDs to prevent students getting themselves into this sort of hardship, but that would be unworkable in some institutions and disciplines.

I just don’t understand this whole PhD as staff campaign. Lots of PhD students are also staff, and in those paid positions they should have good conditions. But it’s a research DEGREE not a job. Is the idea they would pay no fees? Who would supervise them? It makes no sense.

Goodness what rubbish in that article. This person has a permanent role on over 40k a year and was promoted after two years. They only finished their PhD in 2020 fgs and are on a pay grade that goes up to 53k with automatic incremental rises each year, regardless of performance. To make out that this is some sort of poverty wage is ridiculous. Perhaps it would have been an idea to get a better paying job to do alongside an evidently unfunded PhD for a number of years too. And the marking 150 essays stuff. It makes it sound like this is a weekly occurrence or something rather than a few times a year. Yes it’s a bit stressful when marking periods hit but the people who constantly claim they need/want an hour per paper to mark and give detailed feedback sound hopelessly inefficient (and students often don’t bother reading feedback). And I doubt very much that LJMU allocate just 15 mins for a 4000 word essay as every place I have worked or externalled at allocates marking time according to assessment length.

So much of the narrative in all this is ridiculous and disingenuous.