Dear University lecturers - get back to work

[Rovinghawk]

BuzzBravado said:

That's "tomorrows" problem. Are you suggesting we should stay where we are for fear it pulls down the private market?

I'm suggesting consider all factors when deciding your future.

[Ali G]

BuzzBravado said:

Ali G said:

Just keep the top universities and lecturers and go MOOC - that way more students are taught better and more money for lecturers.

Obviously not going to happen though - too many vested interests.

You have completed overlooked the other side of university business which is research. MOOC's only applicable to the teaching side. You get rid of Universities just because of an online teaching solution then where do you get research done. Where i work UoE they are constantly breaking new ground with research that everyone benefits from.

Not sure that I have though.

Consider economies of scale, reduced capex and overheads with greater income, then it is quite conceivable that there could be even more research opportunities with the added benefit of creating super hothouse environments through proximity (larger multi-disciplinary establishments)

[BuzzBravado]

RH, Yeah i'm with you on that. Its potentially a slippery slope for many. I'm also not denying that i "had" a really good pension, and should count myself lucky. I'm aware that we should be exposed to change, and it will happen. I'm just explaining my own situation, as a way of showing what could easily happen to the Industry as a whole.

I think HE is under appreciated by many on here. It isn't just minted teachers living in dreamland. A LOT of good stuff comes from HE, specifically the research side that i'm on. Lots of spin off companies are born and succeed which itself brings tax income and jobs.

Whats happens will happen though i can understand that.

[BuzzBravado]

Ali G, I think i'm getting what you are saying but can you really see that happening? Research is a long game with sometimes little gain. Its not an area known for safe bets, therefore i don't see as much investment as there is now. Also a lot of research isn't to gain profit either. We are well tied in the CRUK for research for the benefit of the NHS who also buys in. Where would there be private investment for that? Thats just the first example that came to mind, maybe not the best one.

Edited by BuzzBravado on Friday 23 March 16:01

[Ali G]

BuzzBravado said:

Ali G, I think i'm getting what you are saying but can you really see that happening? Research is a long game with sometimes little gain. Its not an area known for safe bets, therefore i don't see as much investment as there is now.

I suspect that there would be a lot of rather grumpy Vice-Chancellor's. Research could be enforceable - and tbh - there are a fair few lecturers who are better suited to research than the actual lecturing. Quite competent at marking 'though.

Just a thought - it's never going to happen!

[Digga]

BuzzBravado said:

I think HE is under appreciated by many on here. It isn't just minted teachers living in dreamland. A LOT of good stuff comes from HE, specifically the research side that i'm on. Lots of spin off companies are born and succeed which itself brings tax income and jobs.

HE is extremely valuable. I'm an engineer by qualification and profession, so you're preaching to the converted.

I'm just not so sure all HE or all graduates are that useful or productive an allocation of public funds.

As for change, the UK has escaped this change lightly. My sister now lives in Greece and her in-laws and friends have variously faced numerous and very significant changes to retirement dates and pension payments. Thankfully, the UK is not Greece, but without financial controls it could move more toward it.

[JagLover]

BuzzBravado said:

I totally agree, but that doesn't change where we are now. I'm currently being told that potentially i cannot afford to retire if i continue to work for the University (who retires on £7k?). So using personal responsibility my only option is to go where they money is better in order to be able to retire. The price for that is a mass exodus of talent from HEI's. As long as the UK understands that HE is still a big moneymaker for the country, however there are other countries eager to take its spot. Another home-based industry gone..

May end up with annuity of less than that, even if I keep paying in for another 20 years at current level.

If you have cleared the mortgage, and have the full state pension as well, it is hardly living on the breadline though is it.

[JagLover]

BuzzBravado said:

Private get paid better than us like for like so i'm assuming they can balance it out. As for state pension i highly doubt it will exist when i'm due to retire in 2051.

On what basis?

As already pointed out outside the public sector this will be the main income for most in retirement, do you seriously belief any party would survive abolishing it?

It is not as if the costs of the state pension are forecast to bankrupt the system either

Following the rise in the retirement age these are current forecast costs.

https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2017/07/19/stat...

FT said:

The UK government currently spends 5.2 per cent of GDP on the state pension.

Without action this would increase to 6.5 per cent of GDP by 2039 to 2040.

The government’s proposed timetable reduces this to 6.1 per cent of GDP

[leef44]

BuzzBravado said:

Private get paid better than us like for like so i'm assuming they can balance it out. As for state pension i highly doubt it will exist when i'm due to retire in 2051.

One would hope that the Government would have the vision to notice this.

Putting HE employees on par with the private market for pension means changing from DB to DC pension schemes is inevitable. But this should be followed through with increasing pay scales to partially compensate for this i.e. there is still a net drop in total remuneration but salaries should go up to an extent.

The only way the education minister will even have the impetus to look at this if someone/ some organisation campaigns. Lo and behold, a strike is organised. So overall, this would say that the strike is justified.

[sidicks]

leef44 said:

One would hope that the Government would have the vision to notice this.

Putting HE employees on par with the private market for pension means changing from DB to DC pension schemes is inevitable. But this should be followed through with increasing pay scales to partially compensate for this i.e. there is still a net drop in total remuneration but salaries should go up to an extent.

The only way the education minister will even have the impetus to look at this if someone/ some organisation campaigns. Lo and behold, a strike is organised. So overall, this would say that the strike is justified.

Where is the evidence that pay scales would need to increase to compensate? Credibly in the private sector, the DC schemes were much less expensive than the DB schemes they replaced - that was the point, the DB schemes were too expensive.

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 29th March 07:41

[travel is dangerous]

the evidence is that the value of our work has not changed, the cost of the fees charged has not changed. i.e. our total remuneration should be maintained, not decreased.

[sidicks]

travel is dangerous said:

the evidence is that the value of our work has not changed, the cost of the fees charged has not changed. i.e. our total remuneration should be maintained, not decreased.

No, the cost has changed significantly. That’s the point.

The evidence is that in the past the total remuneration has significantly increased due to the much higher cost of the DB pension, but you tend to try and pretend that never happened.

Providing a level pension costs roughly 50% more than it did 10-years ago. No idea why you'd try and deny that.

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 29th March 11:28

[travel is dangerous]

just as a customer doesn't concern themselves with the cost of the goods they are buying (i.e. the profit of the vendor), why should an employee concern themselves with the cost of their fee/ssalary/remuneration?

[sidicks]

travel is dangerous said:

just as a customer doesn't concern themselves with the cost of the goods they are buying (i.e. the profit of the vendor), why should an employee concern themselves with the cost of their fee/ssalary/remuneration?

1. I think a customer certainly does concern themselves with the cost of the goods they are buying

2. Maybe if you did understand the costs a bit better, you wouldn’t keep making nonsense statements about the issue and repeatedly have to try and move the goalposts to justify these pensions!

[travel is dangerous]

sidicks said:

travel is dangerous said:

just as a customer doesn't concern themselves with the cost of the goods they are buying (i.e. the profit of the vendor), why should an employee concern themselves with the cost of their fee/ssalary/remuneration?

1. I think a customer certainly does concern themselves with the cost of the goods they are buying

2. Maybe if you did understand the costs a bit better, you wouldn’t keep making nonsense statements about the issue and repeatedly have to try and move the goalposts to justify these pensions!

1. you worry about the cost, rather than the price, of stuff that you purchase in shops? why?

2. Having several arguments for the same thing is not moving goalposts.

[lauda]

travel is dangerous said:

1. you worry about the cost, rather than the price, of stuff that you purchase in shops? why?

Because the two are inextricably linked. If the cost of the underlying product has gone up, I expect the price to increase too. Have you ever wondered why the cost of petrol keeps changing?

[sidicks]

travel is dangerous said:

1. you worry about the cost, rather than the price, of stuff that you purchase in shops? why?

The cost of something from the point of view of a consumer is the price paid.

travel is dangerous said:

2. Having several arguments for the same thing is not moving goalposts.

No, you’ve repeatedly tried to move the goalposts when your previous arguments have been shown to be nonsense.

First it was the claim that the fund can pay pensions out of its income (doesn’t even need capital growth), then it was denial about the deficit in the fund, then it was a weird claim about the size of the pension which could be bought with the contributions in a DC arrangement and in your recent posts above it was denial that the costs of providing these pensions has massively increased (and hence total remuneration has also increased).

Probably best to stick to the ‘because we are worth it’ argument, as it’s much harder to refute with evidence.

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 29th March 12:51

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 29th March 12:52

[Rovinghawk]

travel is dangerous said:

the evidence is that the value of our work has not changed, the cost of the fees charged has not changed. i.e. our total remuneration should be maintained, not decreased.

Your expected longevity has increased- your anticipated time in receipt of pension has increased. To maintain the same remuneration the annual pension cost would need to be reduced.

Lecturers aren't necessarily the best critical thinkers from what I can see.

[sidicks]

Rovinghawk said:

Your expected longevity has increased- your anticipated time in receipt of pension has increased. To maintain the same remuneration the annual pension cost would need to be reduced.

Lecturers aren't necessarily the best critical thinkers from what I can see.

Over the last 10 years, the cost of providing the pensions has (roughly) increased by 50% (and let’s not forget that most private sector DB schemes had already closed well before that point due to the increasing costs), so no idea why they would choose to deny that.