e Beaver reports: at the picket line

Professor David Lewis and Associate Professor Tim Hildebrandt, who were picketing in front of the NAB, echoed the UCU’s demands, especially in terms of pay and equality. The UCU is demanding a minimum pay increase of £3349 for all members.According to Professor Hildebrandt, in real terms, LSE staff are currently dealing with a loss in income, due to high inflation.

Professor Lewis drew particular attention to the pension issue, noting that ‘‘a pension is not just a gift you receive at the end of your working life. Rather, it is something you work towards for years.’’

Both emphasised that they were striking to ensure that others can enter into the profession under “fair and non-exploitative conditions.’’ Steven*, an Assistant Professor, noted that at the current rate, he will not be able to afford to retire.

Shakuntala Banaji, Professor of Media, Culture and Social Change, told The Beaver that the Universities Superannuation Scheme (the pensions scheme used by higher education staff) “predicted that there was going to be a shortfall in the pension pot, based on mistaken figures”. This is why employers have imposed cuts. However, according to Professor Banaji, “they have had a £5 billion profit and they are still saying they are going to cut pensions.”

In addition to pension cuts, junior staff members are also disproportionately affected by casualisation.

Dr. Dave Ashby and Lawrence*, an LSE100 fellow and an LSE100 Professor, respectively, lamented the casualisation of higher education. Lawrence said that management are “chopping up roles”: “When a permanent member of a teaching staff retires, the role is divided into three part-time temporary positions.” This “uberification” of universities preys upon vocational educators, for the sake of profit.

LSE 100 fellows, Mark* and Dr. Nina Vindum Rasmussen were among those striking outside the library. Mark told The Beaver that the impact of increased workloads is what affects him most - describing his current responsibilities as ‘‘exhausting.’’ Dr. Ashby spoke about how he offers unpaid additional office hours around assessment time because he wants to “provide as much help as he can.”

According to Dr. Vindum Rasmussen, the workload and precarious working conditions mean that, despite her love for academia, it ‘‘just doesn’t feel sustainable in some ways […] Even if it’s very specific issues we’re fighting [for] on the picket line today, it feels like it is a much, much bigger fight.’’

Dr. Lukas Slothuus, a visiting fellow at the Department of Government, was also picketing in front of the Centre Building on Wednesday. Dr. Slothuus made suggestions as to what LSE management could do. He said that, whilst payment and pensions agreements are decided by national negotiators, ‘‘LSE can put pressure on the national bodies to make those changes.” He suggested that the LSE management could ‘‘abolish those short-term and fixed-term contracts […] they have the power to do that. They could just say ‘we will not hire anyone on less than a three year contract’ or ‘we will phase out insecure contracts’’’.

Dr. Slothuus recognised the inconvenience and the disruption that the strike caused for students. He commented, ‘‘If there was some other strategy that didn't affect students that we could take,

Amadea Hofmann Contributor

Photographed by Rayyan Furreedun

While strike action has dominated public discourse, the focus has largely remained on rallies and teach-outs. Few are aware of how action may escalate in the new year, potentially resulting in a marking and assessment boycott. The Beaver spoke to UCU President Janet Farrar for an inside look into what is at stake, the failings of LSE leadership, and the 2023 escalation strategy if current negotiations are unsuccessful.

“Nobody wants to take strike action,” Farrar said. “It is the hardest thing, especially when you care about students as much as we do as members … we are doing it as an absolute last resort.” committed lecturer (…) or a shiny building, I’m pretty sure I know what students would prefer.”

At LSE, the student body voted in favour of the LSE Student Union lobbying LSE to accept UCU demands.

The perceived mismatch of priorities has caused LSE leadership – and particularly Shafik – to face strong criticism. Farrar said that university directors are “on the most ridiculous salaries that you’ve ever heard,” quoting Shafik’s £507,000 pay in 2019-2020, while there are staff members “who are highly casualised, who are using food banks, who are burning out with stress, who are experiencing race, disability, and gender pay gaps for work of equal value.” afraid to say, a very small part of these discussions.” we would totally take it. But I think it's really important for students to recognise that the ones who have the power to resolve this dispute are not staff […] The management could resolve this right away. They could […] just acknowledge that actually they don't need to cut the pensions. They could give us a pay rise and then they could end this disruption.”

Due to the national nature of the dispute, the Directorate claimed that “a variety of institutions all negotiating within the pay framework” with different financial constraints, makes it difficult to reach a compromise.

The Beaver asked strikers for their views on the possibility for change. Lawrence suggested that it may be possible for “things to deteriorate even further and to reach critical bottom for change to happen but … something has to give”. Professor Banaji said that LSE UCU negotiated with LSE’s management so that when “they cut [our] pay for strike days this goes into a student hardship fund, which not all institutions agreed to do ''.

Professor Banaji also said that “students and teachers together are much stronger.” This sentiment was echoed by Lawrence* who said that “upping student and staff solidarity” would be of huge significance. Dr.Ashby also stressed that it's the “students and staff who make the university”; that we need to jointly combat this “commodification of education” as he doesn’t want to “go into the classroom to sell a product.”

A way to effect change is to demand transparency on how our fees are distributed from management.

Staff spoken to by The Beaver said that we have their full support in requesting fee refunds because of a “loss of experience”, as they are also striking to improve our quality of education. It is the unity between students and teachers which the UCU believes will have a powerful effect on leadership.

The Beaver found that striking staff in general are pleased with the level of support shown so far by the student body as it is only with this solidarity that the LSE will listen to them. The UCU has said that disruption can be avoided if employers act fast and make improved offers. If they don't, strike action will escalate in the New Year alongside a marking and assessment boycott.

*Names in this article were changed to preserve anonymity.

For Farrar, this dispute is about something more than pay rises; she views the conflict as almost existential. “The amount of insecurity, the huge workloads, and the cuts to the pensions are still pointing to a very broken sector,” she said.

“And that’s why we say – without any kind of apology in this dispute – we are trying to save higher education.”

Farrar argued that while “education is a hugely transformative force,” it has been “turned into a marketised profit-making machine.” The stark realities of the financial strain on staff are difficult to reconcile with the fact that the UK private university sector has seen a £3.4 billion surplus in 2020/21. Ultimately, “this is about priorities, not a lack of money.”

Notably, LSE announced the construction of a new building at 35 Lincoln’s Inn Fields in July 2022 –six months after opening the Marshall Building. At a student Q&A hosted by the LSE Directorate, LSE Director Minouche Shafik remarked that due to the ongoing construction costs, “we have to make profits because we have to pay for all those buildings.”

Farrar criticised universities “engaging in vanity projects,” such as “shiny buildings,” arguing that “if you ask your average student, what they would prefer to have: a

UCU members view Shafik, along with the wider LSE leadership, as having leverage on the national stage that they are refusing to utilise. Farrar claimed that “Vice-Chancellors are really powerful people and if they – even on an individual level – were to say to the UCEA [Universities and Colleges Employers Association] or UUK [Universities United Kingdom],: ‘Tthis is not right and I won’t stand for it,’ they would have to be taken seriously. There are only 150 Vice-Chancellors in the national bargaining unit.”

This sentiment was reiterated by the Chair of LSE UCU Committee, Joanne Taplin-Green: “Where [is LSE] ranked right now? Three or four or something in the country [the Complete University Guide 2023 ranked LSE #3 in the UK] … [LSE is] very prominent and [Shafik] is one of the highest-paid directors as well.”

“She absolutely has a responsibility for advocating for her staff.”

At the student Q&A, The Beaver confronted the LSE Directorate, including Shafik, with concerns of their allegedly limited involvement. The Directorate disputed the claim that LSE has not lobbied with the UCEA and UUK, saying that they “absolutely do feedback to our national negotiating body,” but cannot always make these submissions public.

Shafik also said that “one of the challenges for us with this strike is that it is not a local issue, it is a national issue … so the LSE is, I’m

In response to the £3.4 billion surplus in the UK private university sector, the Directorate argued that LSE is “not a for-profit organisation. We don’t have shareholders or anything like this. Any money that comes into the institution stays within the institution, and essentially gets re-invested either for staff, or for facilities, or for scholarships, or new buildings, and so on.”

Pointing to the difficulties of negotiating on a national level, the Directorate said that “if we moved to a system whereby institutions had a bit more flexibility … going forward … that might help a lot, because then those institutions that can afford to reward staff in different ways would have more autonomy.” But currently, they are resorting to “participating actively in those negotiations and making our point of view known.”

The past lack of successful negotiations is what spurred the UCU to engage in a historic aggregated ballot this year. Farrar explained that the strategy the UCU embarked on was “a completely different approach, balloting everybody and trying to get 50 percent% overall.”

“It was quite a risky strategy in a lot of ways,” Farrar said, admitting that she was faced with “a lot of nay-sayers.” But ultimately, “the “level of anger in the sector mobilised people who might have been quite passive trade union members before.”

Farrar believes that this year’s strikes are different from the ones preceding them, “in the sense that this is 150 universities being brought to a standstill. At the same time, the UCEA have actually asked the Vice-Chancellors for a mandate to renegotiate with us, which they didn’t do last time. So that indicates to me that they are serious about reopening negotiations and ultimately, our door is open. We want to have those negotiations. We want them to be meaningful.”

In terms of what would constitute meaningful and successful negotiations, Farrar said that while there is a degree of flexibility, the UCU’s baseline is “an increase to all spine points on the national pay scale of at least inflation, so of at least RPI [Retail Price Index] plus 2 percent%, or 12 percent%, whichever is higher.”

If strike action does not result in successful negotiations, Farrar disclosed that a marking and assessment boycott is “certainly something that is part of the escalation strategy for the new year.”

The UCU mandate covers both “strike action” and “action short of strike.” It expires in April 2023, meaning that while UCU members would need to be re-balloted for the boycott to affect end-of-year exams, the mandate could affect January exams and summatives for Michaelmas Term.

Farrar’s rationale behind the boycott is that “industrial action is about the biggest impact and biggest disruption.” Students receiving delayed feedback on assessments would lead to widespread outrage and calls for universities to take action.

“In a marketised model, ‘students as customers’ culture is very strong,” Farrar said. “Employers are much more interested in listening to students than they are to staff, rightly or wrongly.”

However, the potential boycott would impede on the promised academic experience for students, which could ultimately threaten their support for the UCU. Student solidarity remains vital in the decisive moments of the dispute. As such, Farrar implored students to remember that the dispute is about “the greater good … and benefiting everyone.”

In order to prevent action from escalating, student action is key in galvanising universities to meet UCU demands. “The best thing students could do right now would be to directly contact whoever their leadership is,” Farrar said. “So that could be via social media … or it could be in a more formalised way, where they write a letter to the Vice-Chancellor to say, ‘this is completely unacceptable and here’s why, here’s our perspective.’”

“Any student voice is powerful.”

Ultimately, the UCU strikes are about “changing the system because higher education is broken for staff and for students. That is literally the crux.”

While UCU strikes have historically resulted in little administrative change, Farrar sees light at the end of the tunnel: “I’m incredibly optimistic about 2023. I do believe that the employers are going to be forced to listen to us this time because we’re too big to ignore, really.”