If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Union dispute disrupting graduations
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Bearing in mind the high proportion of students who use these boards, I'm extremely surprised that no one has made a thread about this. I don't know how many of you are affected by this. It's about the university lecturers pay dispute.
My opinions about this are well-known, and they're ones many have disagreed with. I've said in the past that lecturers who refuse to mark work should be sacked. It's an opinion I stand by. I also believe that this is a perfect example of why trade union powers need to be curbed. They have shown themselves clearly incapable of using powers properly, and are simply keeping this dispute going to further their own selfish, despicable agenda. The Press Association has done a little survery which suggests students at 39% of universities are being affected by this disgraceful state of affairs. >> Details >>
Industrial action has led to unmarked coursework and disrupted exams at Aberdeen, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Keele, Liverpool, Manchester Metropolitan University, Plymouth and several other universities. (this is just a small list I've compiled from several press reports)
Normally, I would get very angry when the Government interferes in disputes. I think in this exceptional case that they will have to. New Labour must order the unions to accept the highly generous 12.6% pay increase offer on the table, and then legislate to ensure this dispute is never, ever repeated. But will it happen? New Labour is still too dependent on trade unions for its funding. We have trade unions using students as a political football, and a government incapable of doing anything about it.
There's no doubt many will disagree with what I'm saying here, but I'm prepared to defend it. If you don't agree, what do you suggest is a good way to end this shameful dispute?
My opinions about this are well-known, and they're ones many have disagreed with. I've said in the past that lecturers who refuse to mark work should be sacked. It's an opinion I stand by. I also believe that this is a perfect example of why trade union powers need to be curbed. They have shown themselves clearly incapable of using powers properly, and are simply keeping this dispute going to further their own selfish, despicable agenda. The Press Association has done a little survery which suggests students at 39% of universities are being affected by this disgraceful state of affairs. >> Details >>
Industrial action has led to unmarked coursework and disrupted exams at Aberdeen, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Keele, Liverpool, Manchester Metropolitan University, Plymouth and several other universities. (this is just a small list I've compiled from several press reports)
Normally, I would get very angry when the Government interferes in disputes. I think in this exceptional case that they will have to. New Labour must order the unions to accept the highly generous 12.6% pay increase offer on the table, and then legislate to ensure this dispute is never, ever repeated. But will it happen? New Labour is still too dependent on trade unions for its funding. We have trade unions using students as a political football, and a government incapable of doing anything about it.
There's no doubt many will disagree with what I'm saying here, but I'm prepared to defend it. If you don't agree, what do you suggest is a good way to end this shameful dispute?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Perhaps another question is why did they feel that they needed to take such drastic steps or is there a suggestion that actually they went into negotiations with this planned action in mind?
It's a PR nightmare for them, because no matter how bad the University approach has been, it's the Unions who will [rightly] take the blame for the timing of the action and I am not sure that they realised that when they went to their members.
That said, how else could they make an impact?
They asked to debate the pay issue with the Universities in October, this isnt a cynical time to call the strike if they've been doing it for ages already.
The universities have plainly left it right to the last minute in an effort to make the unions back down.
Its not 12% really, because its 12% over three years.
They were promised a chunk of the extra money going to universities because of the top up fees and now they are being conned out of it.
SG; - Are you basically saying that with all governmental workers the government should be able to set their pay and they should have no negotiating power at all?
So you accept its too low, but they should just put up with it?
I'm far from the most union friendly person, 9 times out of 10 I think they are unjustified (esp the Tube) but this is actually more important than just pay. If they dont win our universities are going to go down hill and fast.
They been debating since October, but chose to strike during exam time. Why not September? January?
Of course it was cynical and it isn't doing their cause much good. The NUS are much more likely to be an ally at any other time of the year, instead they've just pissed them off.
Why should they accept something which is not acceptable? I think that they should return to work for now, but not having accepted the offer. They should walk out again on the first day of term in September...
I obviously am being stupid, because you saying that they should be forced to accept a pay offer which they dont like sounds a lot like the government setting the wages for employees and the employees having no say in it to me.
Perhaps you could point out where I've gone wrong with it?
Would we or any media be debating it if they called a strike over the summer?
I accept its a fairly ugly thing to do, but its needed.
:yes:
It's cynical, but if that's the only way to raise the profile. Now that they've achieved that, they should return to work until September which gives time for the Unis to come up with another offer. There is no reason why it cannot be backdated....
So you are saying that government workers should have no say in their pay then?
Who decides 'greedy'? The government?
I'm trying to clarify, you said that the Union should be forced to take this pay offer, and I'm trying to work out what this means for all other government employees.
When should the government say they are being greedy and force a pay agreement on them?
They are?
...and 12% over three years is generous is it?
This is one thing I find baffling. How come Labour was so keen to pick a fight on the fire fighters a few years ago, but aren't so keen to pick a fight now? What has changed so much in that time period?
So the government should force people back to work, and postpone the dispute, till when?
And if they cant agree at a later date will you remove their right to strike again?
This is a bit different from your opening comments about forcing the unions to take the pay offer.
I'll ask again, what happens if they cant agree later on, will you remove their right to strike again? And if so for how long?
Your position seems to be mellowing, first its 'sod the union force them to have the pay offer or sack them' now its 'lets debate, they are under paid'.