Rebutting the employers' claims

This document came about due to various claims and arguments made by the Universities and Colleges Employers Association during the current dispute with the AUT. This document is intended to rebut some of their statements about our position and the problems inherent in the proposed Framework Agreement on higher education pay structures.

It salls into two parts:

1. AUT responses to UCEA position about AUT claims
2. AUT responses to other UCEA arguments
• Proposed HE pay framework agreement - the facts

1. AUT responses to UCEA claims

This section is based on a statement published by the Universities and Colleges Employers Agency. We have added in our detailed responses to each UCEA claim.

UCEA document:

In recent weeks the AUT has made a number of inaccurate claims based on misleading information. The following rebuttals seek to set the record straight:

AUT claim ­ The employers have refused to negotiate.

UCEA’s position ­ The Framework Agreement was the result of two years of detailed negotiations with representatives of all HE trades unions, including the President and officers of the AUT. Since it was negotiated in July, employers’ representatives have had frequent meetings with the AUT making clear their willingness to address concerns raised by the union but not to renegotiate fundamental parts of the Framework. The Framework Agreement has now been formally ratified by all four unions representing support staff (Unison, Amicus, TGWU and GMB), and has been endorsed in principle by 75% of those voting in a ballot of NATFHE members.

AUT’s response - As already stated we have sought every opportunity to negotiate with the employers since the pay structures were first presented in July. As the employers acknowledge here, they would not renegotiate the pay structures and rejected all suggestions we made about how our concerns could be addressed. All the employers offered was the sort of ‘clarification’ that is provided in this paper. This culminated at the JNCHES meeting in December when the employers asked AUT to leave negotiations.

AUT claim ­ The Framework Agreement means the end of national bargaining.

UCEA’s position ­ On the contrary, the Framework is intended as a means of retaining national bargaining whilst providing for elements of local flexibility to meet the varying needs and circumstances of over 160 HE institutions. It provides for a single nationally-negotiated pay spine and specifies the principles and parameters within which the detail of pay structures can be negotiated locally. The alternative could be wholly local negotiation of pay ­ especially given the pressures on universities and colleges to meet HEFCE’s criteria for access to their share of the £220m Rewarding and Developing Staff initiative (rising to £287m in 2005-06).

AUT’s response - This argument is entirely contradictory. How can an agreement that allows the local negotiation of pay structures protect national bargaining? Nottingham university has recently introduced pay structures for academic related staff that they say are within the spirit of the Framework Agreement. The only similarity is the 51 point single pay spine. In their new pay structure there are:

• different start and end points of grades
• contribution thresholds set lower down each scale, with more performance points
• greater cumulative career earnings losses than those in the national model
• non transparent, arbitrary use of market supplements

Is this the employers’ definition of the protection of national bargaining?

AUT claim ­ The Framework Agreement means imposition of local pay arrangements which will be worse than current provisions.

UCEA’s position ­ The Framework specifically requires: that new pay structures and progression arrangements are negotiated in partnership with recognised trades unions; and that present pay agreements remain in force until new arrangements are so negotiated.

AUT’s response - The Framework Agreement requires implementation of the pay structures (or a variant or alternative) between August 2004 and August 2006. The need to work in partnership with recognised unions hasn’t stopped the University of Nottingham introducing the pay structure described above despite the opposition of AUT.

AUT claim ­ The pay offer amounts to a real terms pay freeze.

UCEA’s position ­ The increases of at least 3.44% from August 2003 and 3% from August 2004, with an additional 1.2% when staff move to the new national pay spine, are significantly above the increase in RPI over the last year and the expected increase over the coming year. They are also more than has been offered to other groups in the public sector. For instance, pay for schoolteachers was increased by 2.9% from April 2003 and will rise by a further 2.5% from April 2004. As an added guarantee, HE employers have offered the prospect of increasing the 2004 rise so as to match inflation in the unlikely event of that exceeding 3%.

AUT’s response - We have already dealt in detail with the pay rises that are on offer. But we find it incredible, and very insulting, that this Framework for academic and related staff is favourably compared with pay and grading for teachers. When considering the pay award for schoolteachers, the employers fail to mention:

• There are no strings attached to these pay increases for teachers. The 2004 increase is staged so will increase to 3.25% from September 2004.
• Increments for teachers on the main pay scale are between 7-8% of salary, compared to the 3% increments on offer for academic and related staff.
• The top spine point for advanced skills teachers in England and Wales from 1 April 2004 will be £48,657. This compares with the standard maximum for senior lecturers of £40,394 from 1 August 2004.
• The scale maximum for advanced skills teachers in England and Wales has risen from £30,441 in 1993 to £48,657 from 1 April 2004 – a rise of 60%.

AUT claim - The Framework Agreement will break the link between academic and academic-related staff.

UCEA’s position ­ The Framework explicitly requires common grading across all staff groups, relative to evaluated job weights; which, inter alia, means common grade structures for academic and academic-related staff. This will strengthen the links between grading for the two groups, prospectively eliminating the present AR4 grade which has no academic counterpart.

AUT’s response - The employers seem to misunderstand deliberately our use of the word link. We are not only referring to common grading. We are referring to the concept of the academic team, and to AUT’s bargaining arrangements. The employers to date have refused to include academic related staff in the exercise to produce national grading descriptions. Under their proposals academic related staff would be included in the same grading structures as all other groups of staff, separated from AUT’s academic members, and their pay and grading would be determined locally.

AUT claim ­ The Framework Agreement may lead to 1 in 6 staff being downgraded ­ as confirmed by job evaluation of academic-related staff at one university.

UCEA’s position ­ The actual outcome of the job evaluation exercise at the university concerned was that over 1 in 6 (17.8%) of the academic staff have been upgraded, whilst only 1 in 36 (2.8%) have had their post downgraded but continue in those posts with protected pay.

AUT’s response - We accept that the outcome of the job evaluation exercise was an improvement on job evaluation scores as originally published. But this was after individuals used the appeals procedure. We stand by the claim which was that under a JE exercise 1 in 6 jobs were under threat of downgrading. This shows the potential scenarios local activists will be facing if so much of this is left to the ‘local flexibility’ the employers keep referring to.

AUT claim ­ UCEA’s estimates of the cost of implementing the Framework Agreement mean that only 5% of staff will benefit.

UCEA’s position ­ All staff will benefit from the 7.7% increase in pay rates. Some will gain additionally from regrading following job evaluation. The cost of implementing these pay restructuring elements of the Framework is estimated to be between 3% and 5% of the total paybill. If this was directed to only 5% of staff, those individuals would virtually double their salaries!! The real expectation is that a much wider proportion of staff will benefit.

AUT’s response - All staff will see pay increases of 3.44% and 3%. Some will see other small increases on assimilation in the first year. For the majority, anything gained on assimilation will be lost in career earnings due to the smaller increments on the new spine (see detail below). The 3-5% cost estimated by the employers is as a result of job evaluation. Given the employers cannot demonstrate where academic related staff will be placed in the new structure, and many of their assumptions regarding academic staff are inaccurate, we would like to know how these figures are calculated. We again ask for the evidence for these claims.

AUT claim ­ Porters, plumbers and cleaners will be graded higher than lecturers, as shown by a pilot job evaluation exercise at one university.

UCEA’s position ­ This is manifest nonsense. All job evaluation exercises undertaken to date have found lecturers to have a significantly higher job weight than manual staff. The claim seems to have originated from a “typo” in the initial draft of a table reporting findings from HERA pilots at 12 universities in early 2002 ­ an error that was quickly corrected.

AUT’s response - All job evaluation exercises have shown a huge divergence of scores for the same job across different institutions. This leads to very real fears that under local job evaluation schemes staff will be paid according to where they work not what they do. This is why we think it is so important that national grade descriptions are agreed alongside a national pay scale. We do not oppose the use of job evaluation alongside this type of national grading arrangement. We have worked closely with institutions and with ECC (the HERA consortium) to demonstrate how this can work to achieve equal pay. What we oppose is the local variation and flexibility the employers continually refer to throughout this paper.

AUT claim ­ The Framework Agreement will significantly reduce career earnings: for academic staff by £4,300 over 10 years; and for academic-related and research staff by £17,300 over 9 years.

UCEA’s position ­ Projections of likely career earnings depend on assumptions about the detail of how pay structures will be applied at each university and about the starting pay and promotion and progression prospects for individuals. Over a decade such projections are very sensitive to small changes in these assumptions. The AUT’s calculations are based on generally pessimistic assumptions which would not apply to the vast majority of staff. For example:

• The AUT’s projections for academic staff assume that new lecturers start at the bottom of the present Lecturer A grade or its future counterpart. In fact, most new lecturers start higher up the scale and can be expected to do so in future;

AUT’s response - The employers have made increments smaller and added an additional incremental point to the Lecturer A scale in their grading model. They have added an additional two increments to the equivalent of Lecturer B. This is the reason why lecturers will earn £4,338 less over 10 years. We have assumed that all these incremental points will be used by universities, otherwise why are they there in the employers commended grading structure? If they will agree to take these points out we would be very interested to talk to them about this.

UCEA’s position ­ The AUT assumes that new academic-related staff will be promoted to a bigger job in a higher grade after 8 years. At present such promotions normally occur within 3 years, and on that basis these staff would gain between £6,300 and £8,900 under the Framework rather than lose £17,300 as claimed by the AUT.

AUT’s response - At present academic related staff progress automatically from A/L/C 1 to A/L/C 2. A/L/C 1 has three incremental points. Under the model grading structure the equivalent grade (grade 6) has 8 increments and there is no guarantee of promotion to the next grade. We have arrived at our £17,300 figure by assuming this promotion (it would be very much worse if staff remain on grade 6). Again we would ask, if the employers’ intention is that staff will be promoted after 3 years, why have they created a new grade with 8 increments? We would be very interested in negotiating these sorts of guarantees for academic related staff.

UCEA’s position ­ Importantly, the Framework Agreement requires that the details of pay structures and progression arrangements are developed at each university in partnership with the recognised trades unions. Is it likely that local AUT representatives will agree to new pay arrangements detrimental to their members?

AUT’s response - AUT at Nottingham did not agree to the way in which the university interpreted and implemented the new single pay spine. At Nottingham the career earnings losses are even worse than those under the new national model.

UCEA’s position ­ There are a myriad ways in which the detail of such local agreements could differ from the AUT’s assumptions to avoid the loss of earnings claimed by the union. For instance (without any other change in the AUT’s pessimistic assumptions):

• Setting the contribution threshold one point lower than in the model illustrated in the Framework (a proposal which the AUT rejected last July) would turn the claimed loss of earnings for new lecturers into a gain of £2,100.

  AUT’s response - The employers seem to accept here that local agreements will be needed to avoid these losses in earnings. We don’t understand how lowering the top point of the scale available through automatic increments addresses career earnings. Our figures on career earnings ignore all contribution and discretionary points. But again, if the employers have improvements to their own model which they wish to suggest, we are more than happy to negotiate.

AUT claim - Research, approved by HESA, shows that locally-determined pay for academics is lower, particularly for female staff.

UCEA’s position ­ This research by AUT ­ which HESA denies approving ­ compared data on earnings by grade under present national pay scales with data which they claim to be comparable except that the pay rates were determined by individual HEIs. Detailed analysis shows that the latter dataset includes, for at least some universities: professors (whose pay is set locally above a nationally-negotiated minimum); part-time hourly-paid lecturers; lecturers on national FE scales; academics whose HEI has consolidated London weighting payments; academics on former FE64 contracts in Scotland; lecturers in nursing and other health studies on national NHS pay scales; lecturers in pre-92 universities who retain post-92 pay rates following HEI mergers; as well as staff at the very few HEIs which do have locally-determined pay scales for lecturers generally. It seems unlikely that comparisons with such a miscellany will produce meaningful conclusions.

AUT’s response - The information in this paper was based on raw data supplied to the AUT by HESA. A draft version of the paper was supplied to HESA prior to publication. Following comments made by HESA, the amended paper was published this year. Care was taken to ensure the accuracy of the analysis. For example, only those professors whose pay is specified by HESA as locally determined were included in the 'locally determined' category. Other professors, ie those with a nationally determined pay minimum, were separately classified by the AUT as 'national minimum only'. Also, employees at pre- and post-92 institutions, and the former Scottish centrally funded institutions, whose pay did not correlate with an official grade, were included in the 'other scales' category, not the 'locally determined' category. These AUT findings regarding local and national pay confirm the findings of a report we published in December 2000.

One final comment

The most worrying aspect of this UCEA paper is the number of times it relies on the argument that local variations, or entirely new alternatives, to the proposed grading structure can be negotiated at local level. In many ways the employers have ceased trying to defend the grading structure that they are commending. And yet they dispute our fears that signing up to this Framework will mean an end to national bargaining.

2. AUT responses to UCEA argumments

Numbered/bulleted paragraphs are points made by UCEA, paragraphs in italics are AUT responses.

1.     The Framework Agreement is the result of 2 years of national negotiations involving representatives of all HE trades unions, including the AUT president and officers – it did not appear overnight.

AUT has engaged fully with the employers in the negotiations over the past 2 years. However, the most contentious of their proposals, the commended grading structure, was only tabled in July. Between July and December we sought every opportunity to negotiate – all suggested improvements were rejected.

2. The 2 year pay offer from August 2003 provides an average 7.7% uplift, and potentially more for many AUT members.

The offer guarantees increases of 3.44% in 2003 and 3% in 2004. The further 1.2% average increase available depends on your place on the pay spine and the outcome of local job evaluation exercises. The employers figures only relate to initial transfer to the pay spine and do not take account of significant career earnings losses for many staff.

3. The AUT position is at odds with that of other HE trades unions. Over 50% of HE staff have already fully accepted the Framework and want to work in partnership to achieve positive change. Additionally, NATFHE members voted overwhelmingly for conditional acceptance of the Framework.

Both the other academic unions – NATFHE and EIS – have real concerns about the proposals. NATFHE have said that if their concerns are not met, a ballot for industrial action will follow. It is this course of action that was supported in the NATFHE ballot.

4. The Framework aims to unify pay arrangements across the sector and address equal pay concerns. It specifies a single national pay spine for all staff and requires common grading across staff groups.

AUT supports the principle of harmonisation of grading and we want to see equal pay concerns addressed urgently. But we will not agree to a national pay spine that lengthens grades and reduces career earnings for our members.

5. The AUT appears to be balloting all members (except heads of institutions and clinical academic staff) on industrial action. Some, such as professors, will be largely unaffected by the Framework Agreement. Others, such as those in post-92 HEIs will be untouched by the concerns AUT has raised (which are not shared by NATFHE as regards its members).

Of course professors will be affected by these proposals. Although the Bett Report recommended that the minimum salary for professors should have been £46,500 by 2002, the new spine has a commended professorial minimum of £44,947 with effect from 1 August 2004. Professorial salaries, as with all other academic staff, still fall way behind comparators.

Staff in post 1992 universities will of course be affected by the concerns we have raised regarding the ability of employers to implement local grading structures based on local job evaluation schemes. NATFHE has raised many difficulties with the proposals including the application of contribution pay and market supplements. Without agreement on these our sister union will also ballot members for industrial action.

6. New pay structures will be underpinned by job evaluation – which all modern employers and trades unions believe is the best means of securing equal pay for work of equal value.

AUT has done a great deal of work to show how nationally agreed grading structures can be used alongside local job evaluation schemes in order to secure equal pay for work of equal value. What the employers propose though is for different institutions to introduce entirely different grading structures.

7. The Framework Agreement includes an illustrative ‘model’ pay structure, but makes clear that variants and alternatives can be negotiated in partnership locally to meet the varying needs and circumstances of different universities and colleges.

This is exactly the point we make above, and one of our principal objections to the Framework Agreement. What is the point of negotiating a national model which can be changed completely at local level? AUT members are recruited from national labour markets. They should have their pay structures negotiated and agreed nationally and be secure that these pay structures will remain as negotiated.

8. The Framework sets out important national parameters, but it is in the detailed application at institution level that AUT concerns about particular aspects of the ‘model’ can be addressed. A number of universities have offered to work with the AUT to prove that it’s fears are unfounded.

We are happy to work with the employers through the UCEA to address the very serious concerns we have raised. This needs to be done at national level, as with the project to produce academic profiles, not through a number of local projects that would result in a number of variants to the model.

9. The Technical Group set up to develop a library of academic role profiles has the capacity to recommend changes to the ‘model’ if there is evidence suggesting the need for this. By declaring a dispute and ruling themselves out of the Technical Group, AUT is missing the opportunity to influence further change.

AUT contributed substantially to the work of the Technical Group. By asking AUT to leave negotiations in December, it is the employers that have prevented this work from continuing.

10. The ‘model’ in the Agreement is just that, it is not the only way forward and the AUT has every right to pursue a variant with individual HEIs if it judges that would be preferable for its members.

How many times do we have to say this? We are seeking improvements to the national commended grading structure, and agreement that it is this grading structure that will be used for academic and related staff. Why is the UCEA defending their commended structure when they are predicting, indeed encouraging, so many variants to it?

PROPOSED HE PAY FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT - THE FACTS

Benefits for academic and related staff

Pay increases totalling at least 6.5% by August 2004, with a further 1.2% on average where universities and colleges can introduce the new pay spine by that date.

The employers are offering a two year pay increase just above inflation in order to accept a massive and detrimental change to terms and conditions.

Additional increases for some staff resulting from regradings associated with the introduction of new pay structures, which collectively are likely to increase average earnings by another 3%-5%.

Yes, some staff will be re-graded and some will be down-graded. Given the level of flexibility allowed for in the Framework, including designing completely new grading structures, it is very difficult to predict where members will be placed on the new spine. We would like to see the employers’ evidence for their 3-5% claim.

New pay progression opportunities for many staff (especially in post-92 HEIs), with higher grade maxima related to contribution.

The employers have already published in the national press the pay rises available from contribution points (these are repeated in the tables below). They don’t point out that these contribution points are not guaranteed, the levels could be changed locally and that for some pre 1992 staff the new grade maxima is set lower than the existing discretionary points (lecturer B/academic 3). We also know that the discretionary points in pre 1992 that these contribution points are designed to replace are applied in a discriminatory way at present.

Active steps to deliver equal pay for work of equal value, via the introduction of new pay structures which are rooted in job evaluation and have common grading across different staff groups.

The delivery of equal pay for work of equal value is a key objective for this union. We just don’t believe this Framework will deliver.

Retention of a national framework for pay determination in HE, with a single national pay spine but scope for locally negotiated flexibility to meet the varying circumstances of universities and colleges.

Sorry to keep repeating ourselves. It’s the locally negotiated flexibility that is so very worrying. At least the employers are now being completely open about the potential impact of this Framework.

Detailed implementation of new pay arrangements to be negotiated in partnership between HE institutions and their recognised trades unions.

If the employers always intended to leave this to local negotiation with so much flexibility, why have we spent two years negotiating in good faith over national arrangements?

Pay increases for academic staff

If universities implement the model pay structure in Appendix C of the Framework Agreement (without locally agreed variations) from August 2004, pay for academic staff who are confirmed in broadly equivalent grades* will increase as follows:

Pre-92 universities

Post-92 universities and colleges

We are not sure whether the employers are struggling to interpret their own proposals or being deliberately misleading but these tables are full of inaccuracies:

• The first column quotes salaries from July 2003. These are salaries from 1 August 2002. These salary increases are two year increases, not 13 month increases.
• The employers continue to quote pay rises attributable to contribution points for Lecturer A (pre 92) or Lecturer (post 92). We have already pointed out that these increases could not happen under the terms of the Framework. Contribution points at the top of these entry grades are completely inappropriate. The Framework provides for automatic progression to the next grade, as happens at present.
• The top point for the equivalent grade for Lecturer A in pre 92 or Lecturer in post 92 is £28009. This is correctly quoted in the pre 1992 table but is incorrect in the post 1992 table.
• The contribution maximum for the new academic 3 grade (equivalent to Lecturer B) is £39,935 not £41,133 as quoted in the table. This gives a two year pay increase of just 6.1%.
• The employers figures for contribution points for post 1992 assume someone currently on the top point of either Senior Lecturer or Principal Lecturer will be automatically assimilated to the top contribution point (an award of 2 or 3 points in one year). Even if a contribution point were to be awarded (and this is in no way guaranteed) it is far more likely it would be one point in a year.
• Anyway, given the number of references the employers make above about local variations, even with these mistakes corrected, how confident can anyone be about the pay increases quoted here?
• It’s very interesting that no similar figures are quoted for academic related staff. That’s because the employers don’t know either. Under these proposals the determination of academic related pay and grading will all be left to local level.