One of my initial points was the I wanted to see some sources. You provided something, after the fact, in #47. But, just prior to that, your remark in #46 lent itself to the idea that you were ducking out of that responsisbility. So, note that I didn’t say you refused to respond positivley. You’re doing something similar in #53, by attemtpting to turn the tables. But this won’t work, because I never made emphatic claims abot numbers. I have couched all of my remarks in subjective qualifiers. So I don’t need to provide evidence. I took that approach becasuse I don’t have the evidence, and don’t pretend that I know. I made that quite clear.

As for the pay settlement, I note the increase for cleaners, but last I heard, they were not tasked with academic duties. I applaud the efforts to raise their wages, along with efforts of the Living Wage campaign, but I don’t see this as helping lower tier academics. I’m ambivalent about the settlement.

That said, I take your point. Perhaps the union would have succeeded if they’d taken the approach you suggest. That’s a point to keep in mind for the next time.

Your reply is that you “still think that the strategy of an across-the-board settlement is more likely to occur than anything more equitable”. You haven’t done more than assert this claim. Where’s your evidence to back it up? Or do you think the burden of proof rests entirely on the other side?

The settlement that was actually reached yesterday happened to be one that offered a greater percentage increase in pay to the least well off rather than an equal percentage increase across the board. Those who got more were cleaners, porters, security staff and other non-academic university workers. But I don’t see why, in light of this settlement, you still deny the feasibility of a greater percentage increase to those at the bottom of the academic scale and a correspondingly lesser increase to those higher up. I think this is the settlement that we would have ended up with if the union had demanded it, which, to their great discredit, they didn’t.

apologies for any confusion.

Chris @#49. “the union’s demands are no good for the very people that etat is concerned about. Giving more across the board to those already in permanent positions is going to worsen the opportunities of those on temporary contracts and will ensure than many jobs that would have been permanent lectureships are converted into temporary serfdoms.”

This sounds plausible. But if we come back to the question of what’s realistic in terms of proposals and actually-delivered settlements, I still think that the strategy of an across-the-board settlement is more likely to occur than anything more equitable.

Given that the broader point of your original point is that it’s difficult to support the demand, my response is still that it’s probably the best chance for any sort of improvement.

I accept that I’m off point in any number of other ways, but with this one I think I’m on form.

But your argument is only really valid, if it is a straight choice between the pay of academics, or more money to the poor. This seems unlikely given the evidence of the last nine years.

“entry-level permanent lecturers can expect to start at about £30,000”

Except an entry level lecturer will usually be somebody who has completed an extra four years of education, followed by several years of poorly paid temporary employment (typically with each new post in a new city/university). They’re not exactly handing out those permanent lectureships at most places. At what age are people achieving such a post? mid 30s? That’s hardly entry level.

If the employers cared about this, and offered us 19% at the bottom end, and 13% at the top, they may well find that we vote for it.

By the way, lots of UK universities are not that keen on local bargaining: the implementation of the framework agreement has strained many personnel departments.

people at the next rank up (senior lecturer or reader) begin at about £40,000 (= roughly $75,000 USD), and the minimum salary for a professor is about £50,000 (= roughly $95,000 USD),

…I was basing the former on a rounding down of the £41,133 salary at the bottom of Grade 9 under the new salary scale and the latter on a rounding up of the £47,685 salary at the bottom of Grade 10.

See here for the new salary scale: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/hr/salary_scales/final_grades.php

Let’s have some references for these figures … My hunch … is that this £30K entry level academic is a rare beast in the academic kingdom.

I would be more inclined to believe figures for a lot of academic workers are slightly higher than a postgrad stipend, e.g. £15K-20K p/a for full time, short term work.

Okay: “The current minimum starting salary for a university lecturer is £24,352, but most start significantly higher up the scale.” http://www.ucea.ac.uk/Documents/12_pay/figures.pdf

The £30,000 figure to which I referred is a bit higher than the lowest point for a Lecturer B and a bit lower than the lowest point for a Grade 8 appointment under the new salary scale. Others can correct me if I’m mistaken, but I believe that that’s what an entry-level permanent lecturer can expect to earn.

and while you’re at it, let’s have some numbers of postgrads and postdocs who have been seeking academic jobs of any sort relative to the numbers of permanent full-timer lectureships available. Let’s also find out what the jobs they’ve been settling for are paying, and whether there’s any security in those jobs.

Yes, sir or mam, I’ll get right to it. I’ll have this on your desk first thing in the morning. Wait a second. Am I your servant?

“I believe that, under the current salary scale that has recently been introduced, entry-level permanent lecturers can expect to start at about £30,000 (= roughly $55,000 USD)”(Otsuka, @#38 )

Let’s have some references for these figures, and while you’re at it, let’s have some numbers of postgrads and postdocs who have been seeking academic jobs of any sort relative to the numbers of permanent full-timer lectureships available. Let’s also find out what the jobs they’ve been settling for are paying, and whether there’s any security in those jobs.

I would like my hunch to be proven wrong by a significant margin. My hunch – based on things like the number of postdocs I’ve seen come and go in the last 3 years, and the number of postgrads who left their field of choice after a year without a job offer – is that this £30K entry level academic is a rare beast in the academic kingdom.

I would be more inclined to believe figures for a lot of academic workers are slightly higher than a postgrad stipend, e.g. £15K-20K p/a for full time, short term work. And that the bulk of academic jobs for recent entrants, and some not-so-new hires, are not the lecturer/reader positions, but something more hardscrabble. Somebody prove me wrong.

And remember this is for the entry-level job while the earnings figures include people with experience at their jobs.

I guess I’ll leave it to any passing modal logician to pass comment on that as a general proposition. But since my point is about an alternative allocation of the same pot of money (the UK HE budget), it doesn’t seem absurd to me.

Any argument based on some improbable thing possibly happening is not a valid argument.