Tag Archives: pensions

subtext 189 – ‘imaginative thinking subtext’

Posted on June 28 2019 | Comments Off on subtext 189 – ‘imaginative thinking subtext’

Every so often during term time.

Letters, contributions, & comments: subtext-editors@lancaster.ac.uk

Back issues & subscription details: http://wp.lancs.ac.uk/subtext/about/ 

In this issue: editorial, recruitment drive, VC swan song, pensions, bailrigg fm, dundee, overheard on the spine, art degree show review, letters.

*****************************************************

And so, we are almost at the end of our sixth VC’s tenure. Professor Mark E Smith, CBE (as of a few weeks ago), perhaps has not quite lived up to the rock star credentials of his namesake. He made a strong start and endeared himself to large parts of the University community by scrapping two schemes overseen by the previous incumbent, namely the proposed (or threatened) merger with the University of Liverpool, and the dreaded Business Processes Review (BPR). He is well-liked by many senior staff at the University, and courteous and relatively even-handed in many interactions with the University community. In talks to wider groups, he has a tendency to focus on detail and technicalities, particularly for contentious issues (see report on the VC all-staff meeting, in this issue). And he has amused some colleagues with a few verbal quirks, using characteristic metaphors such as ‘taking the temperature of the room’ at Senate to decide what Senators wished to do (some of whom might have preferred to be given the opportunity to vote on issues, rather than have their will interpreted in this way).

Relations with staff seemed to sour considerably at the start of the ongoing pensions crisis, where the VC looked rather disconnected and uncaring compared to other VCs, who not only made public statements of support for their staff, but in some cases even stood with them on the picket lines. When the VC did visit the Lancaster UCU picket line, he was dropped off by his driver in the University’s official Jaguar, and then proceeded to attempt to answer questions via megaphone, in his usual technical style. There was little sense of solidarity with staff, despite his claim that his own pension was also affected. He may have been put in a difficult position in this regard due to his role as the chair of UCEA, which represents employers’ interests, and his own substantial pay package.

Other developments during his tenure (see subtexts passim), including the Professional Services Project (the BPR by another name?), changing the Professional Development Reviews of old into a Performance and Development Review, the destruction of the University Court, the disempowering of Senate, the incidents involving bigoted material and behaviour among the University community, the realisation that we have a massive gender pay gap, and the increasing centralisation and managerialism that have crept into many the University’s structures and processes, will do little to leave good memories of his time here.

It may be that another VC would have done far less to arrest or at least slow the flood of utilitarian thinking and marketisation that afflicts the higher education sector, in the face of government policies that very explicitly push in this direction of travel. It is clear from the initial consultation of staff during the new VC’s recruitment process that many staff wish to find a new leader who will stand with staff and students against these trends, rather than attempting to explain them away. Despite this, it is likely that Mark Smith will be remembered as someone who worked hard for the University, and cared a great deal about his work – which is more than can be said about some VCs! We wish him and the staff and students of Southampton University the best of luck in their future endeavours.

 

Comments Off on subtext 189 – ‘imaginative thinking subtext’

Posted in editorial

Tagged , , , , , ,

TWO STRIKES AND YOU’RE OUT

Posted on June 28 2019 | Comments Off on TWO STRIKES AND YOU’RE OUT

More than a year after UCU members stood down from the picket lines, the prospect of another strike is again looming in the air over alleged mishandling by the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS), the fund manager, and over employers acting in bad faith with regard to pensions. The main concession the striking union gained from employers back then, as avid subtext readers will no doubt recall, was the establishment of the so-called Joint Expert Panel, which would look closely at valuations past and future and make recommendations which both employers and staff representatives would stick by. Employers, however, have been rather selective in which elements of the panel’s recommendations they support. If this dispute were only between employers and staff, this position would clearly contravene the spirit and letter of the agreement gained during the last strikes. However, because USS is a separate legal entity, employers can throw up their hands and claim that they can’t do anything about USS’s refusal to implement the JEP valuation recommendations, and USS in turn claims that it is bound by the regulations around pensions.

There are a number of problems with these claims of helplessness: first, the board of USS consists of both employers and staff representatives, with employers holding the casting vote. They can set policy for USS. Second, it has been alleged, according to reports in the Financial Times and the Today Programme (links below) that USS has withheld information from its trustees and misrepresented The Pensions Regulator’s position on risk.

https://www.ft.com/content/96ae5d3a-98e0-11e9-9573-ee5cbb98ed36

https://www.ucu.org.uk/article/10180/Professor-Hutton-speaks-to-Radio-4-on-USS-failings

UCU is demanding that employers bear the additional costs of pensions (due to USS’s decisions on valuations) until the JEP recommendations are implemented in full. Watch this space – or possibly the space outside the Sports Centre, where strikers may in due course again put on picket discos and brandish signs with duck-related puns.

Comments Off on TWO STRIKES AND YOU’RE OUT

Posted in news

Tagged , , , ,

STRIKE UP YOUR LIFE

Posted on March 15 2018 | Comments Off on STRIKE UP YOUR LIFE

In the fortnight since the last edition of subtext, there has been a considerable amount of strike-related activity, both in Lancaster and at the national level.

THE LOCAL FLAVOUR

The campus picket lines have been busier than ever, with a head count of over 160 on Tuesday this week, along with music and dancing every day (Zumba being particularly popular) and even some protest poetry on Wednesday. The VC ‘visited’ on the 8th March, but received a markedly less positive reaction than the several HoDs who did their stint on the lines. A video of his visit, with added commentary by the local UCU branch, is available here: https://youtu.be/lfSTLmdnRVE

Compared to previous disputes, the staff on strike are spread across the whole range of departments in the University, with somewhat less representation from LUMS. Meanwhile, the teach out events, featuring everything from a personal history of the 84/85 miners’ strike to yoga, have also been well attended – see below.

Numerous colleagues involved in the strike have remarked what a sense of solidarity and community is emerging from being thrown together in these adverse circumstances, while the lack of day-to-day work schedules seems to have unleashed all kinds of creativity and willingness to engage in activities that we never normally have time for. Union members were particularly heartened by the strong support from students, some of whom have been coming to the picket lines and teach outs every day.

***

STRUCK DOWN IN ANGER

At the national level, the past few weeks have seen a flurry of activity. Universities UK (UUK) initially refused to negotiate with UCU, then agreed to meet but not reopen the decision on the pensions proposal (raising questions about what exactly they were proposing to discuss). When one VC after another came out publicly in favour of open negotiations, UUK were eventually forced into a humiliating climbdown and agreed to talks without preconditions at ACAS.

Following a few quiet days last week, and then an announcement that negotiators would be working through the weekend, Monday evening saw the announcement of a so-called agreement between UCU and UUK. This represented an improvement of sorts on the original UUK proposal, but included a worse accrual rate (1/85th of salary for each year of service vs the current 1/75th), an increase in both employee and employer contributions, and a cap of 2.5% on the rate that pensions could increase annually with inflation, meaning that if prices rise by more than this amount, pensions would lose value in real terms.

The reaction from UCU members was… not good. Very quickly, UCU Twitterati took the proposal apart, and an open letter in opposition to the proposal had collected around 3000 signatures by midnight on Monday, while a further 4000 signed by 11am the following morning.

Above all else, members were incensed by the proposal that teaching that had not taken place as a result of strike action should be rearranged. Colleagues argued that this would effectively mean doing work they had already sacrificed pay for. And in any case, there was not nearly enough time to fit 14 days’ worth of teaching into the few remaining days of term.

Throughout Tuesday, members of the union’s Higher Education Committee were subject to a frenzy of social media and email lobbying, overwhelmingly urging rejection. A meeting of branch delegates from all over the country decided almost unanimously to reject what they felt represented a betrayal of the sacrifice that members had made by being on strike.

In the end, the reject camp prevailed, perhaps helped by the large demonstration outside UCU headquarters in London, whose chants could be heard by the delegates arguing inside. The UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt, later explained that the negotiators had been tightly constrained by the ACAS process in what and how they were allowed to communicate.

So the strike continues today and tomorrow, with the fourteen further strike days set to hit assessment season, with exam marking and exam boards likely to be a particular target for local branches. This will undoubtedly have a bigger impact on students than just missing a few lectures, possibly even delaying graduations for final-years. Action short of a strike also continues: UCU members are ‘threatening’ to only do the work they are contracted to do, rather than contributing the massive amounts of unpaid overtime that normally keep universities going on a day-to-day basis.

UUK are blaming the dire situation on UCU for walking away from negotiations, while UCU’s line is that the employers could stop the strike at any point by making a fair offer. Students at Lancaster, for now, seem to be largely supportive of their local staff, though whether this solidarity will continue for a further 14 days of disruption remains to be seen.

***

TAUGHTILLA

As reported in subtext 174, UCU have been running a series of ‘teach out’ events during the strike – a different way of engaging with staff and students and anyone else who is interested in what the industrial action is about, as well as a number of other somewhat related topics.

While teach outs resemble the form of the labour that staff have withdrawn from their employer, the sessions do not necessarily follow the expected conventions of university teaching. The inherent radicalism of such a venture comes from the enforced interdisciplinarity of the project: colleagues, students and members of the public may come from any academic background, or not be involved in academia at all. It is teaching for interest’s sake, not for ‘knowledge-transfer’, measuring, testing, or satisfying government ‘key information sets’.

Lancaster UCU, together with a host of other branches, organised an alternative education experience for every day of the strike action. Most of the sessions took place at the Gregson Community Centre and were largely well attended, with many packing the Gregson Centre’s modestly-sized hall to the rafters. The curriculum features a mixture of debates, interactive workshops, informal lectures featuring some outside speakers as well as Lancaster academics, film showings, a couple of musical gigs and away from the Gregson some ‘walk and talk’ happenings. In the final days of the current round of strike action, sessions with a more restorative agenda were planned i.e. yoga and craft making.

All the sessions were open to University staff, students, and other folk from the wider community. There was a strong student presence at some sessions and even some members of the public at some events. However, it was staff from the University that made up the bulk of the attendees.

Many of the sessions focussed on the question: ‘what kind of university do we want?’ Yes, pensions were discussed, but within a wider understanding of the changing nature of the sector. Attendees remarked that they felt particularly empowered by speaking with other members of the University who they would not normally meet at work. This prompted a lot of talk about the future and how the this strong feeling of solidarity could be maintained after the dispute.

Readers may have ideas on how this ‘new space’ that the striking community has built can be maintained, and what its purpose would be once work resumes. subtext would welcome contributions on this fascinating development at Lancaster, and would be happy to play a part in future conversations.

***

RADICAL OR MERELY YOUNGER? A REVIEW

It seems appropriate that on Monday 12 March, midway through Lancaster’s longest period of industrial action in decades, UCU’s teach out at the Gregson played host to an event that seemed to shout, ‘Call that radical? Ha!’ Marion McClintock, Honorary University Archivist and former Academic Registrar at Lancaster, and Alison Lloyd Williams of Global Link’s Documenting Dissent project were our guides as they took us through Lancaster’s radical past, both on and off campus.

According to Mrs McClintock, Lancaster University in its early days was characterised by very conservative Heads of Department, many of whom were ex-military, alongside younger, more radical staff, who pioneered Lancaster’s distinctive degree programmes: Religious Studies (not Theology), Independent Studies, Creative Writing, Environmental Studies, Peace Studies, Marketing, and Systems Engineering. Students were given the chance to ‘grapple with subjects they’d not studied before.’ Above all, Lancaster was shaped by its first Vice-Chancellor, Charles Carter, who actively encouraged this interdisciplinary approach. We were a university that ‘was taking a fresh look at society, was taking nothing for granted and was questioning norms.’

Publications of the time, like John O’Gauntlet and Carolynne, reflected this mood and encouraged debate on drugs, sex and gay rights, although some of their editorial choices, such as pin-up girls in Carolynne, seem archaic today.

Among the many disputes of the early years were ‘the mixed bedrooms argument of 1968’, the David Craig affair (see subtexts 8 and 9) and the 1975 rent strike which lasted over 12 months. Student involvement in these disputes was strong.

Lancaster’s college system played an important role in Lancaster’s free-thinking tradition; Sir Noel Hall, one of the university’s founders, was formerly Principal of Brasenose College, Oxford and had insisted that the colleges must form an integral part of Lancaster’s governance.

Why are things not like that any more? Lancaster’s rising research reputation in the 1980s meant that staff and students no longer had as much time to spend on innovative teaching or political discussion, and even Prof Carter was subject to the same pressures as everyone else.

Ms Lloyd Williams gave a history of the Documenting Dissent project, which was inspired by Lancaster Castle and its status as a symbol of state power and the location of Lancashire’s most important court. Many dissenters, including several chartists, had been tried there.

Lancaster is particularly significant in LGBT history, given the number of people prosecuted for homosexuality at the Castle, but more happily due to the significant presence during the 1970s of the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) on campus, and the Campaign for Homosexual Equality (CHE) in town. Lancaster University pioneered women’s studies and radical feminism, while the very first CHE Conference took place in Morecambe.

More recently, the case of the George Fox Six, where six students and ex-students disrupted a conference in George Fox Lecture Theatre 1 and were promptly prosecuted for aggravated trespass, shows both that the dissenting tradition is still there … but that the university is no longer as tolerant as it was. The Documenting Dissent website includes an account of the affair, including an interview with Matthew Wilson, one of the six.

Contributions from the floor included comments from several people who have been encouraging the radical tradition at Lancaster for decades, including city councillor Andrew Kay, who remembered long campus debates on ‘this house will not give a platform for racist and fascist speakers’ and ‘this house is glad to be gay’, and former city councillor Tony Pinkney, who thought two years stood out in particular – 1886, when William Morris’s talk in the town led to the founding of the Socialist League, and 1999, when Lancaster elected its first ever group of Green Party councillors.

The Documenting Dissent project’s website is at: http://www.documentingdissent.org.uk/

***

DEMOCRACY IS THRIVING … ELSEWHERE

There have been many Vice-Chancellorial U-turns on USS and risk recently, but the most notable ones have come from the VCs at Oxford and Cambridge, both on 7 March. Given that the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge were all treated as separate institutions in Universities UK’s September 2017 survey of attitudes to institutional risk, this is a major shift.

Why the change? Of course, we are happy to accept that both VCs will have reached their decisions sincerely. But Oxford’s VC, Prof Richardson, has probably been helped by the meeting of Oxford’s Congregation on 6 March, at which a resolution seeking to overturn Oxford’s existing stance on pensions was first blocked controversially, and then discussed outside, where it passed 442 to 2.

Likewise, Cambridge’s VC, Prof Toope, doubtless had his mind sharpened by the impending ballot of Cambridge’s Regent House, on a motion submitted by 501 members, which seeks to amend Cambridge’s official view on USS.

For readers not familiar with how Oxford and Cambridge work, the Oxford Congregation and Cambridge Regent House are the supreme governing bodies of those institutions, made up of all academic staff. They can, and occasionally do, overrule the University Council.

True democracy in action! But wait. Surely these forms of governance must violate the Committee of University Chairs’ Higher Education Code of Governance, the document which our Chief Administrative Officer in particular is very fond of (see subtext 174 and other subtexts passim)?

Well … yes. But they seem to be doing OK, all things considered.

Now that our Court has met for the final time, and our Senate has willingly handed its power to amend statutes over to our Council, perhaps we should start advocating something similar here? After all, our VC’s usual answer when challenged about centralising power is ‘the Warwick clincher’ – they do it at Warwick so it must therefore be a good thing – so perhaps we should start playing ‘the Oxford gambit’ in response.

Comments Off on STRIKE UP YOUR LIFE

Posted in news, special feature

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

SHART ATTACK

Posted on March 1 2018 | Comments Off on SHART ATTACK

DRAFT
FROM: Mike M. Shart, VC, Lune Valley Enterprise University (LuVE-U).
TO: Rosemary Thyme, Education Editor, The Times.

SUBJECT: Your article.

Dear Rosemary,

I am writing to you regarding the coverage in an article you wrote for the Times. In particular, you name me, the Vice-Chancellor of LuVE-U, as one of 11 VCs calling for USSUK to ‘get back around the table with UCUnison.’ I appreciate how the email from my former Director of Publicity / Positivity Amalgamation, Hewlett Venkklinne, might have lead you to your suggestion that I support further discussions between the parties, but I hasten to add that Venkklinne is a disgruntled former employee, who was merely trying to disrupt my leadership by suggesting that I am weak. For example, I never demanded ‘fresh talks’ with lecturers. Needless to say, I did demand this, because Hewlett would only write something I told him to write. But what I actually want is fresh talks in which USSUK reiterates its unwillingness to bow to the demands of the UCUnison, since UCUnison clearly didn’t hear us the first time. Furthermore, you suggest that I have called for negotiators to get ‘back round the table.’ And you’re right, I do. I want negotiators to get back round the table with their students, so that they can continue to teach them like I’m paying them to do.

I haven’t read the rest of the article because it’s behind a paywall, but I can assure you that whatever Hewlett says to you is untrue because he no longer works here, and as such you should ignore it.

Best,
MMS.

***

FROM: Mike M. Shart, VC, Lune Valley Enterprise University (LuVE-U)
TO: Hewlett.Venkklinne123@blueyonder.co.uk
SUBJECT: FWD Your article.

Hewlett,

Could you let me know if the above is alright to send to the Times, please? Thanks.

Comments Off on SHART ATTACK

Posted in shart attack

Tagged , ,

LETTERS

Posted on March 1 2018 | Comments Off on LETTERS

Dear subtext,

Mr. Fleming’s letter (subtext 173) is factually inaccurate, and shows complete disregard for the strength of staff feeling on this issue at his alma mater, which had the highest turnout in the ballot in England and third highest in the UK, with over 88% endorsing strike action. I would like to respond to each of the points made in the letter in turn.

1. UCU has a strong mandate for industrial action, given by its members through an average turnout of more than 58% across all 68 institutions that were balloted (a record), with 88% voting for strike action and 93% for action short of a strike. Membership is at record levels, with over a 100 members joining UCU at LU in the last two-three weeks alone. The only thing that seems to be over the top is UUK’s intransigence to negotiations, given a number of VCs across the sector, including institutions like Loughborough, Glasgow, Warwick, Birkbeck, Goldsmiths, Strathclyde, London School of Tropical Hygiene and Medicine and others are publicly calling for a resumption of national talks.

2. While previous pension arrangements are indeed protected, under proposed changes the future pension arrangements will not be protected from 2019. Proposed changes mean our pensions will move from the current defined benefit scheme (which guarantees the rate of pension received in retirement), to a defined contribution scheme (fixing the rate of pay contributing to pension). Crucially, when the chief executive of USS was asked when he visited Lancaster how USS would protect members from the vagaries of the financial markets and that put members pensions at considerable risk, no answer was forthcoming.

3. We are not working in the private sector – our pensions are just a small recompense for our very modest salaries. Modest in relation to the private sector, with very little movement between grades over the lifetime of work, and with the ‘initial investment’ of time and effort spent in gaining qualifications to work in a University that many in the private sector are not required to make. It seems disingenuous to make any comparisons with the private sector, and hardworking academic and related staff would find any comparisons with employer contributions to a pension scheme in the private sector particularly odious. Those who work in the education sector do so because they have a special set of values, of public good and not individual benefit. Our lifetime contributions to our pensions are being put at risk of markets, with it being left to the individuals to decide what they want to do with their pension pot upon retirement. Do we think vultures would be circling? We only have to see what has happened at British Steel recently.

4. UCU has proposed a range of models that illustrate how defined benefits can be maintained by modest increases in contributions (for e.g. 1% for the employees if employers decide to accept the September valuation), lowering of accrual from 1/75th to 1/80th, and willingness to negotiate on salary thresholds. UUK have rejected all proposals outright saying they will only accept a defined contribution scheme.

Sunil Banga

UCU Exec, Pensions Officer

***

Dear subtext,

I have been trying to understand the reasons for the current pensions dispute, and have found this talk by Carlo Morelli, an economics lecturer at Dundee University really useful:

Most interesting in the talk to me was that the changes appear likely to make the resulting scheme very unattractive to potential new members, causing the very shortfalls in money that Universities UK claim to want to prevent. Over time, USS could fall apart, and each University is legally required to act as guarantor to the current scheme. As I understand it, the danger is therefore not limited to staff pensions, but in the worst case could even affect each university, because each would be required to fund their ex-staff’s existing final salary defined pensions. I am left wondering whether Universities UK are doing a good job of representing the interest of UK universities.

Mike Cowie

***

Dear subtext,

I was disappointed to see, in your most recent mailout, the claim that SCAN’s UA92 debate column was ‘its first mention of the Gary Neville University since the story broke a year ago.’

This is incorrect. The debate column was published on October 23 2017. We first reported on the Gary Neville University in March 2017 (tinyurl.com/yaw4q7go). We published a second article on October 5 2017 [tinyurl.com/ydftypme].

A Google search for ‘SCAN Gary Neville’ would have produced these articles as the first two results. Alternatively, the SCAN editorial team are happy to search our archives if you need clarification of our coverage in future.

Best,

Michael Mander

SCAN Associate Editor

***

Dear subtext,

I would like to issue a complaint regarding your recent article entitled ‘Alt Wrong’. The article is blatantly libellous on numerous accounts, among which are your claims that we are somehow affiliated with the ‘alt right’, that we are ‘fascists’, ‘national socialists’, in favour of ‘pure blooded ancestry’, and further that we were ‘verbally aggressive towards colleagues’ leading us to be ‘ejected by security staff’. There are many other examples of these outright falsities, and the fact that subtext never reached out to our society for comment only reinforces the impression that you did not intend to fairly represent our society, only to defame it. We have numerous eye-witness accounts that can corroborate this.

While you may argue that the article never mentions our society by name, you made explicit reference to us, such that the article incited opposition to the society which may have escalated to violence were it not for the measures put in place by the University. The University felt the need to hire security and have a member of the police present to ensure that peace was kept, which demonstrates the threat that arose directly from the misrepresentations present in your article. Given these threats, I would ask that my name is not posted on your site, due to the false perception of our society that exists both on and off campus.

Your newsletter claims to be one in favour of free speech ‘without fear of backlash’, yet here our impression is that you are presenting things that did not happen as fact, in order to manufacture backlash with the intent of de-platforming our society.

We request that you remove this inflammatory article and issue an apology, in the interests of preventing further undue backlash and promoting intellectual diversity on campus.

Name withheld on request.

[As the writer acknowledges, subtext did not name the organisation they claim to represent – Eds.]

Comments Off on LETTERS

Posted in letters

Tagged , , , , , ,

PREVARICATION NEWSFLASH

Posted on February 22 2018 | Comments Off on PREVARICATION NEWSFLASH

On the eve of pensions strike, Lancaster UCU members were cheered by a report in that day’s Times that VC Mark Smith had joined ten other university leaders in calling for a return to national negotiations. This represented a fundamental change in his position but, alas, it proved to be fake news. A couple of hours later he was asked about his change of heart and he denied the story emphatically. He did not see any value in calling for a resumption of talks because the two sides were too far apart. And anyway, Lancaster could not afford what UCU was asking for.

See subtext 174, out next Thursday, 1st March, for a full report.

Comments Off on PREVARICATION NEWSFLASH

Posted in newsflash

Tagged , ,

LETTERS

Posted on February 15 2018 | Comments Off on LETTERS

Dear subtext,

As a current member of USS (but not of any union), I must say that UCU’s reaction to the proposed changes to USS seems rather over the top.

Under the proposed changes, benefits already accrued will not change – all that will change is that benefits accrued from 2019 onward. The scheme would move to entirely defined contribution, rather than defined benefit. This is in line with standard practice in the private sector. In addition, the proposal would include an option for employee contributions of 4%, alongside the 85 already offered, making it far more appealing for to staff such as myself on lower salaries.

In contrast UCU’s proposal would see employee contributions increase above the current 8% (hardly a low level to begin with), which would likely price many lower paid staff out of the scheme.

While I believe there is a middle ground between UUK’s proposed reduction to benefits and UCU’s proposed increase in contributions, UCU’s response to UUK’s proposal being chosen over theirs seems to be melodramatic. To call for 14 days of strike action over a change which would simply bring the scheme in line with the private sector norm, and to do so before the consultation period on the new scheme has even opened, looks to me like UCU striking for the sake of it.

Yours sincerely,

Jack Fleming

(History, 2010)

***

Dear subtext,

It is totally unnecessary for the university to require us to ‘double-teach’ lectures, as you report in subtext 172. The lecture can simply be recorded and placed on Moodle. A single optional session can then be organised for those students who wish to ask questions. When I previously wrote to subtext, a couple of years back, in support of the LUSU campaign for the video recording of all lectures, pointing out in the process that this was an opportunity for us all to lecture less, my views were not exactly warmly received. One of those who replied was, if I recall rightly, ‘appalled’ at my suggestion. Perhaps now, faced with the prospect of coming in on a Saturday morning to repeat the Friday afternoon lecture, staff will become more appreciative of the technological alternatives. There are, of course, some things that must be delivered fact-to-face – laboratory/computer practicals being the obvious example. Some of these I do currently double-teach, but in my experience I generally have a flood of students for the early session, and then a sparse group for the late show. Students don’t seem to like double-teaching any more than we do. So let’s not have any talk of double-lecturing – let’s just get out the cameras, apply our non-reflective moisturizer, and get into the 21st century.

Sincerely,

Derek Gatherer

BLS (FHM)

Comments Off on LETTERS

Posted in letters

Tagged , , , , ,

subtext 172 – ‘panic in granadaland’

Posted on February 1 2018 | Comments Off on subtext 172 – ‘panic in granadaland’

Fortnightly during term time.

Letters, contributions, & comments: subtext-editors@lancaster.ac.uk

Back issues & subscription details: http://wp.lancs.ac.uk/subtext/about/

In this issue: editorial, strike, more strike, pile ’em high and sell ’em cheap, UA92, court report, bomb shelter news, letters.

*****************************************************

EDITORIAL

Imagine the situation. You’ve just been named ‘University of the Year’. Yes, we know it’s a marketing gimmick. But they’re not going to trash their reputation by giving you the thing if they don’t think you’re pretty good, are they? And you’ve just got a ‘Gold’ rating in the national assessment of teaching quality. Again, yes, we know it’s a flawed measure. But you’re pretty keen to keep hold of it, aren’t you?

Given all this, what’s your headline strategy for the next few years? What’s that? ‘Go all out for an increase in numbers, with no investment in facilities to match, get the staff to double teach their courses, and make them teach on a Saturday,’ you say? Well, congratulations! You’re just the person we’re looking for to drive our ‘dash for growth’ proposals forward.

Oh, just one more thing. Do you have a private pension plan? You see, I’m not sure you’re going to like our plans for the company scheme…

Comments Off on subtext 172 – ‘panic in granadaland’

Posted in editorial

Tagged , , , ,

STRIKE!

Posted on February 1 2018 | Comments Off on STRIKE!

The dates have been announced, and it’s the biggest strike in UCU history. Fourteen days of action in four consecutive weeks, taking place at Lancaster and 60 other universities: Thursday to Friday in Week 16, Monday to Wednesday in Week 17, Monday to Thursday in Week 18 and Monday to Friday in Week 19. Many courses will be disrupted; for modules set to run in Weeks 16-20 where teaching staff are taking action, it is difficult to see how the course can continue at all.

Our VC has subtly changed his position in recent weeks. Whereas before Christmas the message from D Floor was one of cautious sympathy, the line now seems to be ‘nothing I can do about it, mate!’ Reportedly (see our Court report below) the larger, older universities are not going to tolerate having larger pension liabilities appearing on their balance sheets, for fear this might affect their ability to raise funds.

Despite these supportive noises from management, Lancaster UCU members voted overwhelmingly to strike, on a turnout that was the third highest in the UK, and the highest in England.

Lancaster UCU has stressed its wish to ensure that no-one is prevented from taking action due to financial hardship, and has re-established its local strike fund, but the prospect of losing 14 days’ pay is likely to lead to difficult decisions for many staff.

subtext readers on grades 6 and above who are not presently members of UCU can join at any point and take strike action – recruitment is reportedly very healthy. HR has actually informed HoDs that UCU membership has ‘significantly increased since the strike was called’. Interesting that such a call for action has resulted in such a significant increase in membership, and somewhat curious that HR felt the need to tell HoDs.

Nobody at present thinks this one is going to be resolved any time soon.

Comments Off on STRIKE!

Posted in news

Tagged , , ,

COURT: THE FINAL

Posted on February 1 2018 | Comments Off on COURT: THE FINAL

Unloved by the people organising it, but defended by the people attending it, the final meeting of Lancaster University’s Court on Saturday 27 January 2018 in George Fox Lecture Theatre 1 ended up being very long, occasionally lively, and rather enjoyable.

By subtext’s count, 116 members turned up, with 53 sending apologies. The student numbers had increased from 2017, while the numbers travelling from outside the region seemed to be slightly down – why make the effort when you don’t feel wanted?

As is fitting for any good meeting of Court, there was a rambunctious, intense, and highly explosive political demonstration outside the building – well, four UCU activists politely handing out leaflets about their pensions, and chatting with Court members about the current dispute. There had earlier been disagreement with the organisers over where UCU should stand – just inside the foyer of George Fox, or outside in the rain? The dispute was resolved, not entirely amicably, when the Director of Governance and Strategic Planning called on six members of security staff to stand around near the front of the foyer. When questioned, they reassured the activists that they had definitely not been called to escort them outside! So that’s all right then. A great way to defuse tensions in advance of a major industrial dispute.

Into the meeting at 10am, and an opening address from the Chancellor, on his 60th birthday. ‘Welcome to the university of the year!’ began Mr Milburn, in what seemed like a mostly improvised speech. He was particularly proud of his recent trip to Accra, where he had conferred degrees on the first cohort of LU Ghana graduates.

Onwards to the Court Effectiveness Review, and leading the case for abolition were the independent reviewer, David Allen, and lay member of Council, Robin Johnson. Mr Allen, a friendly soul, was upbeat about his proposal to dissolve Court, noting that 65 Court members had commented on his consultation paper and he’d carried out over 20 interviews last summer. ‘Universities are private corporations,’ he noted, ‘but they are accountable to the public.’ Court should be disestablished in favour of an annual public meeting. Mr Johnson addressed Court as if it were a much-loved employee who, with much regret, Mr Johnson was now going to make redundant. Court was analogue. The world was now digital. It was nothing personal. And the recent appointment of a PVC for Engagement, Dame Sue Black, showed that Lancaster cared about its stakeholders.

A spirited discussion followed, albeit one where no-one was allowed to vote. Opposing the changes, and the procedures that led to them, were Cat Smith MP, Lord Judd, former Chair of Court Stanley Henig, alumnus Richard Morrice, city councillors Lucy Atkinson (Labour) and Charles Edwards (Conservative), and Management Accountants representative Richard Kenworthy. The only person in the audience cheerleading for the proposals was alumnus Don Porter, while LUSU President Josh Woolf and city council leader Eileen Blamire stayed diplomatically uncommitted. The strongest speech against came from former Chair of Court Gordon Johnson. ‘History and tradition play an important role in the life of this institution,’ he noted, adding that he’d not responded to Mr Allen’s consultation because ‘the direction of travel had been set some time before.’ And that, it seems, is that.

The Pro-Chancellor, Lord Liddle, was next. Today’s discussion would be reported to Council, although Council had already approved the first reading of the proposals to abolish Court, when it met yesterday. The Pro-Chancellor seemed receptive to suggestions for how to make the annual public meeting work, however, and in particular he ‘wouldn’t like a meeting to which the local MP couldn’t attend,’ suggesting that next year’s replacement will remain a Saturday event. Tributes were paid to former Council members John Hadfield and James Carr, who died during 2017, and departing Director of Facilities Mark Swindlehurst, who was sat at the back.

‘I want myself and my fellow officers to be remembered as real changemakers,’ announced Josh Woolf. The LUSU President’s report was certainly entertaining and will be remembered for its montage of outdated brands, including Marathon and Opal Fruits wrappers, over which he suggested that however well-loved Court was, maybe we needed to move on. No retro sweets for Sarah Randall-Paley, however. The days when the Director of Finance would battle with the LUSU President for the most extravagant presentation at Court are long gone, perhaps reflecting the increasingly secure nature of Lancaster’s finances. The biggest bombshell in this year’s financial report was the announcement of a preferred new measure of financial health, the Adjusted Net Operating Cashflow (ANOC).

The Vice-Chancellor rolled up to the rostrum shortly after 12: ‘Good afternoon, everyone!’ There was clearly concern about the timing of Court’s successor, and it needs a name ‘that reflects the nature of what we’re trying to achieve.’ He paid tribute to Mr Hadfield and Mr Carr, and thanked Mr Swindlehurst, while wondering why he was still here: ‘the job’s gone, mate!’

The VC focused on the new regulatory landscape, following the approval of the Higher Education and Research Act. It was very complicated, he didn’t yet know what it would mean, and neither did the new Secretary of State or the new Minister for Higher Education. Our big challenge would be ‘retention’, where we perform poorly against our competitors, but on the plus side we have a Gold rating in the TEF.

subtext readers will want to know that, yes, the VC mentioned UA92, ‘in case I was asked a question on it.’ Top table are still in the final stages of seeing whether it hangs together. Is the VC aware that all of UA92’s publicity says that Lancaster has fully committed to it?

Pensions were the ‘big elephant in the room’ – significant and ongoing industrial action was likely. Would the proposed changes affect the recruitment of academic staff? ‘Only time will tell,’ he said. It might affect international recruitment, but probably not from the UK. What can the VC do to resolve the dispute? Not much. ‘Our level of deficit pales into insignificance compared to the big beasts. Those people don’t want that on their balance sheets.’ Last autumn, the VC had been relatively hopeful, but then the pensions regulator sent a letter to trustees which almost closed all options. ‘It will be a very disruptive term,’ he concluded, and ‘students will be in the middle.’

The final words at the final Court went to the Chancellor, just after 1pm. He thanked members for ‘sharing my birthday with me’ and praised the quality of debate, suggesting that other chambers could learn from us.

And so the Court ended for good, as members joined the queue for soup served in coffee mugs. Did someone forget to order any bowls?

Comments Off on COURT: THE FINAL

Posted in official meetings

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

subtext 170 – ‘A frontier without borders, a subtext without regulatory alignment’

Posted on December 7 2017 | Comments Off on subtext 170 – ‘A frontier without borders, a subtext without regulatory alignment’

Fortnightly during term time.

Letters, contributions, & comments: subtext-editors@lancaster.ac.uk

Back issues & subscription details: www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext

In this issue: editorial, the vc’s pay, deliverology, plug, court, qa at ua, plenty of pvcs, signs, more signs, damp, lost and found, spirit of 84, end of term message, shart, mark thomas review, letters

*****************************************************

EDITORIAL

UCU members have received ballot papers to vote on proposals for strike action to defend USS pensions. We have been here before (see, for example, subtext 82). What makes this one any different? Well, aside from the refrain of ‘won’t get fooled again’ which should be ringing in the ears of everyone as they cast their votes, this is the first strike ballot called by UCU since the Trade Union Act 2016 came into force. The ballot will not be valid unless 50% of the UCU membership participates.

Consider the likely consequences if the 50% threshold is not met. ‘If they can’t get half their membership to vote on an issue like their own pensions,’ the country’s VCs will think, ‘can they get half their membership to vote on anything at all?’ Probably not. Slightly perversely, this means that a vote for ‘No’ on a high turnout would do more for the future bargaining strength of our unions than an overwhelming vote for ‘Yes’ on a turnout of 49%.

So it is all about the turnout and subtext urges all its readers in the UCU to attend one the UCU’s pension information meetings and then cast their vote – we hope you’ll vote ‘Yes’, but would prefer that you voted ‘No’ rather than not voting at all.

Comments Off on subtext 170 – ‘A frontier without borders, a subtext without regulatory alignment’

Posted in editorial

Tagged , ,

SENATE REPORT

Posted on November 23 2017 | Comments Off on SENATE REPORT

The November session started with a written question to the VC asking if there were any plans to build lecture theatres capable of accommodating larger groups of students. The lack of such space was causing major problems for the larger teaching departments. Replying on behalf of the VC, Deputy VC Andrew Atherton said that indeed there was a plan for just such a facility, for up to 500 students. However, this was only a partial solution to the problem. As student numbers increased in line with the University’s strategic plan, other approaches would need to be adopted to deal with larger cohorts. These could include more flexible timetabling and extending the teaching day to enable more double-teaching. All this, of course, would have to happen without any detriment to the ‘student experience’. Nothing, though, was said about the detriment to the staff experience, a point made by a number of Senators during the ensuing discussion.

On next to the Vice-Chancellor’s report on current issues. There were plenty of positives – the record student intake this year (in contrast to much of the HE sector), becoming University of the Year and moving up to 6th place in the Times league table, the first LU Ghana graduation and the positive impact we’d made in that country. There was also a mention of the launch of UA92 (which he clearly believed was a positive development) and the current consultation on the plans in Manchester. The VC stated that he had been pleasantly surprised by the generally positive reception from local people and that any opposition was more to do with ‘Manchester politics’ than the merits of the plans. (Oh really? See letter from a local resident below – eds).

On the gloomier side, the VC had just received a consultation copy of the draft new regulatory framework for HE. The proposals, he reported, are overly heavy-handed and appear to put into regulation what the government had been unable to achieve in Parliament just before the last general election. Then there was the matter of what he termed ‘the pensions squabble’. The USS Board was seeking to change the pension from a defined-benefit scheme to what was essentially a savings scheme. This was being resisted by UCU and as a result the university was likely to be facing industrial action beginning next February. ‘But we are not the enemy’, protested the VC, who happens to be the current chair of UCEA, the employers’ group which has not opposed these changes. Lancaster staff facing major reductions in their pension benefits, while having to make increased contributions, may beg to differ.

Senate then went on to discuss the Court Effectiveness Review. This was to be an opportunity for Senate to make any final comments to the Review Group before it made its final recommendations. One of the LUSU Senate reps made a strong plea for Court to retain its role in university governance, and for its single annual meeting to be given more support and prominence by the university. He took issue with the Chief Administrative Officer’s briefing document which stated that there was a lack of diversity in the Court membership but did not offer any evidence to support this claim. He pointed out that Court was far more diverse and representative than the membership of University Council or the senior management team. He also questioned whether Court required ‘a considerable amount of resource’ to support its function, as was claimed in the document. The Chief Administrative Officer responded by restating what she had already said in her briefing paper. There were some further contributions in favour of the current Court arrangements but the discussion was effectively ended when the VC declared that his preference was to remove all governance responsibilities from Court and to retain its annual meeting as only ‘a stakeholder event’. So that, we must presume, is that.

There then followed a report on the institutional Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for 2016/17. The VC indicated that overall, we were doing well against targets, though he was concerned that Lancaster is not doing as well as it should in retaining its students. Mental ill-health was identified as a major factor but for too many students there is no information on why they drop out. They simply leave without telling anyone why. Finally, there was that bit of the agenda covering written reports not presumed to warrant discussion. Thankfully, one eagle-eyed senator spotted a hugely important issue that was about to be nodded through without discussion- a reference to the Review of Part 1 which appeared to suggest that proposed changes would now be implemented after consultation with departments. Senate, of course, has yet to discuss and approve these changes. It was agreed that the report would be amended to make this clear. Just goes to show that careful reading of Senate papers is always worthwhile.

Comments Off on SENATE REPORT

Posted in official meetings

Tagged , , , , , , , ,