- Silver Book Pay Thaw Index
| Update Wednesday
18 February
2004 FURTHER EDUCATION COLLEGES REFUSE TO PAY UP – FURTHER EDUCATION’S DIRTY THIRTY Following the recent pay settlement between the main Further Education unions and the employers representative body, the Association of Colleges, a two-year pay deal was created which gave colleges the freedom to pay or not pay a recommended increase to Further Education Lecturers in 2004 and 2005. At the time the deal was announced, LEAF warned that the deal would lead to further fragmentation of the pay structure in the sector, since colleges had been encouraged by the AOC to decide what they could afford. This despite clear messages from the DFES that sufficient money had been made available to fund all recommended pay increases (See previous bulletin on this website for further discussion and analysis of this issue).
CAN PAY, WON'T PAY According to reports published in the TES (13 February 2004), around 30% of Further Education colleges have not paid the pay increase due at this point in the deal in full, par or at all. This practice, which is condoned and even supported by the AOC itself, is wholly unacceptable, and has to be fought. However, we are bound to say that the present pay negotiation arrangements that are supported by the main unions, which preserve the right of individual colleges to determine their own arrangements, are at the root of the problem. We have repeatedly said that in the absence of a determination to reinstate binding collective agreements on pay and conditions, this problem will recur year on year. That is why the pay issue is bound up with conditions of service and the position of the national collective agreement –- the Silver Book. Without a national agreement on terms and conditions, it is not possible to achieve a national pay structure – or parity with schoolteachers! Its obvious, but it still needs to be hammered home to every Lecturer, branch union representative and national official!
CAN THE COLLEGES PAY? Of course they can! The refusal of the Dirty Thirty to pay up is almost certainly part of a strategic move on their part, with the collusion of the AOC, to break up any move towards the re-establishment of a national framework for pay and conditions. The AOC clearly wants a fragmented structure to remain, at least in part to preserve its own position as advisor to colleges on pay, conditions and human resources matters. Recently published figures show an increasing number of college principals now receiving pay packages in excess of 100K per annum. Hot on the heels of the principals are the officer corps of vice principals, human resources managers, curriculum leaders and the rest, with comfortable pay packages. It is the Lecturers – the poor bloody infantry – who pay for this corporate excess with poor pay and conditions and the bad faith that is visited on them by colleges who refuse to fund their pay increases.
IT’S TIME TO NAME, SHAME AND BLAME THE CULPRITS! The Dirty Thirty of colleges includes the following, which NATFHE is now in dispute with: Bishop Auckland, Bournemouth and Poole, Bradford, Cambridge Regional College, City College Birmingham, City Lit Institute, City of Westminster College. Hertfordshire Regional College, Lowestoft College, Oxford and Cherwell College, Peoples College Nottingham, the Pershore Group of Agricultural Colleges, Rother Valley College Rotherham, Royal Forest of Deal, Shresbury College, Stourbridge College, West Herts College and Thurrock and Basildon.
ARE THERE ANY MORE? WE WANT TO KNOW? E-mail us now on leafunion@hotmail.com if your college is not paying up in full, part or at all.
WHAT ELSE CAN YOU DO? Let us know, and we will press these recalcitrant colleges for a detailed explanation for their behaviour. We will seek to examine their accounts, remuneration policies and cash flow. We will offer them solutions, which will enable them to make sufficient funds available to pay their staff in full. If they do not respond or take our advice, we will expose their mismanagement of LSC funds. NATFHE is planning action in the above colleges on 26 February 2004. We will do everything we can to support NATFHE’s case, although LEAF is not enjoined in this dispute.
A LONG TERM SOLUTION CAN ONLY BE ACHIEVED UNDER LEAF’S POLICIES. In 2005, the present pay deal expires. Notice should now be given that no further agreements will be concluded on the basis of the present arrangements. It is actually better to take this stand now than to stumble into another round of national negotiations, which leave colleges free to interpret any outcomes as they please. Unless a binding agreement is concluded, the unions should not negotiate further with the AOC. It is the colleges which receive the funds. It is for the colleges to pay. –EXPOSE THE MORE THAN DIRTY THIRTY WHO WILL NOT PAY –A BINDING AGREEMENT ON PAY AND CONDITIONS IN 2005 –PARITY WITH SCHOOL TEACHERS IN PAY AND CONDITIONS BY SEPTEMBER 2005
Update Thursday
4 December
2003 SCHOOLTEACHERS PAY SETTLEMENT VINDICATES LEAF STANCE ON FURTHER EDUCATION PAY Since our last commentary on Lecturers’ pay a few weeks ago, the School Teachers’ Pay Review Body has made its recommendations for schoolteachers’ pay for 2004 and 2005. This has resulted in a pay increase of 2.5% from April 2004 and a further 2.9% from April 2005, with a further increase in September 2005, bringing in a new September pay review date for schoolteachers. Unlike in Further Education, the recommendations, once accepted, become binding on all employers of schoolteachers, who are bound by the terms of the collective agreements.
SCHOOLTEACHERS STILL ENJOY SILVER BOOK CONDITIONS OF SERVICE This means that in April 2004 and in April and September 2005, schoolteachers in England and Wales will receive the rises. Not a king’s ransom, but definitely money going into their pay packets from those dates. The schoolteachers’ representatives have protested at the settlement, and LEAF supports the teachers’ unions in their work on behalf of their members. It may be that next year’s settlement is a below-inflation award if, as seems likely, inflation comes in at near 3%. The teachers’ unions have pointed out that this would represent at best a pay freeze in real terms next year. However, teachers still enjoy conditions of service roughly equivalent to the Silver Book. The Burgundy Book sets limits on the working week, the working year, and preserves holiday entitlements. Schoolteachers enjoy much superior conditions compared to Further Education Lecturers. Only the small number of martyred Silver Book Lecturers are on remotely similar conditions. One small difference is that they can earn only £20, 538 per annum (22K in London). Now that is a real pay freeze and measure of the difference in treatment.
AOC CHIEF LETS CAT OUT OF THE BAG! THE INCREASES WILL NOT ALL BE PAID The recent settlement was sold to Lecturers on a false comparison of schoolteachers’ pay now, with potential Lecturers’ pay in August 2005. Ignoring the disparity in conditions (why should it be ignored?), and the fact that Lecturers’ settlements are not guaranteed, whereas schoolteachers’ increases are, an attempt was made to suggest that parity with schoolteachers had almost been achieved. Any brief comparison of teachers’ pay scales (even now) with those of Lecturers, will demonstrate the falsity of this claim. So why make the claim? The answer can be gleaned from a careful examination of the discussions and documents exchanged by the two sides in the recent negotiations.
IS HALF AN AOC SIXPENCE BETTER THAN HALF A THRUPPENCE? The AOC made it clear that unless their final offer, which was only a recommendation anyway, was accepted by the unions, then it would be withdrawn. Both the AOC and NATFHE have made this clear in their statements. Since NATFHE had pledged to achieve parity by 2004 (It’s Parity Time – remember?), it became important to seek to justify this offer in terms of a comparison. Now, Ivor Jones, Director of AOC Policy, writing in the Times Educational Supplement two weeks ago (Further Education Focus), has clarified further the terms of the final discussions. He has said that not all Colleges will pay the recommended increases, and that the parties to the agreement all understood this. Some simply could not afford to! So there you have it. A national settlement that isn't!
WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT THIS SITUATION? Our criticisms of the settlement must be seen in the context they are meant - one of support for all attempts to improve the lot of Further Education Lecturers. The pay settlement explicitly excluded Silver Book Lecturers, despite an earlier commitment to ensure that they received the full increase. We understand that it did not task the AOC greatly to extract this agreement from the unions. After all, Silver Book Lecturers are a small (and irritant) minority these days, are they not? The unions’ task is to look after the interests of the majority, is it not? In fact, this small point is the key to unlocking progress for all staff in the sector. The Silver Book is the benchmark against which all conditions of service elements must be judged in the sector.
DO YOU THINK LEAF WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THIS SITUATION TO FESTER? LEAF is now locked in negotiation with the European Commission about the breaches of EU Law protecting conditions following a transfer, on behalf of every Further Education Lecturer. Across the Country, LEAF is challenging the employers right to discriminate, oppress, bully and exploit Lecturers. We take up individual cases and pursue our national agenda. The employers are aware of what we want, and we have a message for them: we are going to win our argument regarding terms and conditions of service and pay in Further Education.
WANTED: A NEW PAY AND CONDITIONS NATIONAL COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT LEAF’s position on this critical matter is now accepted by all the major unions in the sector, although LEAF stood alone for many years in advocating an end to the incorporation practice of individual contracts and pay scales. But being alone in a view does not mean one is wrong! We were right about that, and we are right in our argument with the EU Commission. If a binding collective agreement is good enough for schoolteachers, local government staff, health service staff and others, it’s good enough for us.
GIVE LEAF A CHANCE AND WE'LL ‘STICK IT UP ’EM’ The employers are terrified of LEAF gaining majority support among lecturing staff. For good reason. LEAF would never give an inch in negotiations on pay and conditions which disadvantaged Lecturers vis a vis other groups. For us, the issue of pay and conditions would never be separated. In negotiation and bargaining, the employers would soon find themselves confronted (for the first time) with an opponent that they could not beat. They would very quickly be outfought, out-thought and out of the game. With your support we will take the arguments back to them.
THERE WILL BE NO WHITE FLAG UPON OUR DOOR! We want the pay and conditions framework to be re-drawn in the sector. We are demanding the reinstatement of the national collective agreement across the sector. We want all Lecturers who have been affected to be compensated for their ordeal. And, we mean to achieve this. LEAF will return to the employers with demands on these matters following our campaign in Europe. This campaign will receive further publicity soon, and we will ask you to play your part. So, support LEAF and ask your colleagues to do so. Remember, you can only be beaten if you accept defeat.
Update Monday
10 November
2003 LECTURER'S PAY –– IT'S NOT SORTED ! The news that a recent ballot of Lecturers has resulted in an acceptance of the employers’ recommended settlement, brings to a conclusion the current pay negotiations between the main unions and the employers organisation, the Association of Colleges. Even explaining this requires virtually every statement to be qualified, since the settlement is merely a recommendation, which is for individual colleges to implement if they agree. This form of national bargaining does not result in a binding agreement, but merely forms a recommendation to colleges. No sanctions from the AOC are ever imposed on colleges which, for whatever reason, fail to implement the deal fully, partly or at all. That’s it’s fundamental weakness. It inevitably leads to greater fragmentation in an already fractured bargaining sector.
SILVER BOOK LECTURERS FROZEN OUT FOR ELEVENTH YEAR However, LEAF fully supports NATFHE’s determination to ensure that the pay deal, which lasts until August 2005, is implemented in every college. With one caveat. We also demand that the pay increase is given to all Lecturers, and not restricted to those on the new contracts. It seems that NATFHE has agreed with the employers that the pay increase is not to be paid to the remaining Silver Book Lecturers, in what will be the eleventh year of blatant and unlawful discrimination of teaching staff who sought European Community Law protection. Although NATFHE had earlier said that it wanted to have the increase paid to Silver Book Lecturers (who were 100% of the Lecturing staff until new contracts were introduced), it quickly caved in on this demand. Not clever and not good for the long term interests of the profession. It represents a concession to the official (and unlawful) view that these Lecturers should not be treated fairly. How is it possible in the same breath to go on and demand parity with schoolteachers if you accept that Further Education Lecturers on similar conditions to schoolteachers (as LEAF has outlined), should be institutionally discriminated against because they happen to work in the Further Education sector? It doesn’t scan and it betrays a fundamental weakness.
THE PARITY'S OVER ! LEAF does not believe that the settlement (which was notably weakly supported by the Lecturers able to vote), will lead to a long term solution to poor pay in the sector. Parity has definitely not been achieved this year, and will be even further away by August 2005 when schoolteachers’ pay will have been reviewed twice more since this settlement. Only a fool or a mystic would believe that schoolteachers pay will have stood still during that time. One should never try to delude others, but deluding oneself is a sure-fire route to fantasy land.
WANTED: A NATIONAL PAY AND CONDITIONS AGREEMENT The problems of Lecturers’ pay and terms can only be addressed by the conclusion of a new national pay and conditions agreement, which is binding on all the parties concerned. This is LEAF’s avowed aim, and we believe that the conditions for achieving this have not been better at any time since the disastrous and ill-advised transfer of the sector in 1993. At a time when teachers in schools, who still benefit from national terms and conditions which are in most respects identical to the Silver Book, are receiving substantial pay increases as well as standing to benefit from a workload agreement designed to create a better work-life balance, Further Education Lecturers are going in the opposite direction. That is, more hours, fewer holidays, increased responsibility and less pay. The Governments 14-19 initiative has put Further Education at the centre of the drive to improve the uptake of relevant vocational education for school pupils for whom the GCSE/A Level route is not appropriate. Apart from the issues we have with school pupils in Further Education, we also have the prospect of Further Education Lecturers teaching in school settings, or teaching 14-16 year olds in colleges, and being paid less well under poorer terms than their colleagues in schools. That is why LEAF’s campaigns are of critical importance to every Lecturer. Whatever anyone else may tell you, our opponents in the college employers and Government fear and respect LEAF. Only we have the vision and commitment to bring the sector back from the 19th century, where it has been sent, to the 21st, where it should be.
NATIONAL COUNCIL ELECTIONS LEAF is holding elections this year in order to elect a ten-person National Council for the period 2004-2005. Members are invited to put their names forward, supported by a proposer and seconder. This can be sent by post to LEAF, 126, St. Augustines Avenue, Thorpe Bay, Essex, SS1 3JF or by E-mail to Leafunion@hotmail.com Please send nominations in by the 15th December 2003. National Council meetings are held periodically and you may be asked to attend up to four meetings a year, mainly on Saturdays.
CASE WORK SUCCESSES LEAF is involved in casework on behalf of members on a continuing basis.
PAY SETTLEMENT PROPOSALS––A STATEMENT PAY AGREEMENT LEAVES LECTURERS IN THE SLOW LANE AGAIN ONLY LEAF’S APPROACH CAN END THE TWO-TIER WORKFORCE IN TEACHING Details of the agreement reached between the AOC and NATFHE and its fellow negotiators have been published. The deal, which covers two years from August 2003, has been described as a ‘breakthrough’ and has even been claimed by NATFHE to ‘compare favourably with the present schoolteachers’ scale’ (NATFHE statement on website, 29 July 2003) While LEAF welcomes any increases in pay for hard-pressed Lecturers, we do not agree with these grand claims. We will explain exactly why below, and also why our alternative approach to pay and conditions issues is the only way that Lecturers can regain genuine comparability with schoolteachers. Lecturers will have noticed that the earlier commitment to parity by 2004 (‘It’s Parity Time’ ––remember?), has been quietly dropped. This is because it cannot be achieved by means of this deal.
What Does the Pay Award Give? If it is paid by your college (more on that later), the ‘recommended’ pay offer may give 3% on salaries and allowances from 1 August 2003, and a further 3% from 1 August 2004. With the creation of a new 8 Point Scale, that will be a guide for colleges up to August 2005. An ‘unqualified’ scale from £16,002 to £19,116 will also exist. By 1 August 2004, qualified Lecturers at the top of the existing scale can progress to £28,938 (Point 7 on the new scale). Progression to the next Point 8 is not automatic, and will depend on meeting as yet unexplained criteria relating to ‘recruitment, retention and motivation.’ Although NATFHE has said that it expects all Lecturers on Point 14, or the equivalent, to move to the new scale, it is quite clear that this has not been agreed by the employers–– (far less the individual colleges, which have a veto on all of this anyway) ––who have made it plain that progress will be discretionary.
Does the Pay award bring parity with schoolteachers? This is the crunch question, since it was the yardstick which the unions involved in these negotiations had declared would measure success. Colleagues will recall that in 2000–– NATFHE declared that it wished to bring parity with schoolteachers in (at that time) four years time–– by 2004. This clear aim has been restated many times since then.
The answer to this question is an emphatic ‘NO!’ LEAF has commented regularly on its dislike of spin and misleading information designed to persuade. This was evident recently in the Government’s ‘guarantees’ to teachers relating to the proposals to bring about deteriorations in their pension entitlements. It is unfortunate if such techniques are used by teacher unions. The pay settlement has been claimed to compare favourably with that of schoolteachers. LEAF is not convinced. In a piece of spin that Alistair Campbell would have been proud of, NATFHE says: “NATFHE is disappointed that the percentage increase in 2003 (3%) is not larger but the new pay scale introduced from 2004 compares favourably with the present schoolteachers’ scale” (NATFHE statement 29 July 2003) This is clearly an absurd statement. Teachers’ pay is reviewed every April. In April 2004, and April 2005, teachers’ pay will be reviewed. It is not meaningful or helpful to compare Lecturers’ pay in 2005 with teachers’ pay now. LEAF hopes that these criticisms will be taken in the spirit they are offered, one of support. We must counter every attempt by the employers to misinform or mislead. Following the same practice opens us up to charges of hypocrisy. To carry out a meaningful comparability exercise, it would be necessary to look at the entire package of teachers’ pay and conditions, and compare them with those of Lecturers, including pay, allowances, hours of work, responsibility and career progression opportunities. If one were to attempt this, then it is necessary to compare like for like. That is why LEAF never ignores the Silver Book, as the essential benchmark of national conditions of service. Schoolteachers, who work to similar conditions (known as the ‘Burgundy Book’) have retained their limits on hours of work, holidays, days of work (190 like the Silver Book) and all of their collective agreements rights. A schoolteacher can without any management responsibilities earn over 33k on these conditions (39k in London), and can earn extra payments for responsibilities which are routinely carried out by Further Education Lecturers. Most teachers progress rapidly up the scale, and any teacher willing to take on a routine responsibility can earn 35k within five or six years from a start in the profession. Many earn much more for a relatively straightforward commitment. That is why Further Education corporations are experiencing ‘recruitment and retention difficulties’ in the words of the AOC. We would describe the situation more honestly as a crisis. A Further Education Lecturer, where on similar conditions to a schoolteacher, can only earn up to a maximum of £20, 538 at the top of the scale (22k in London)! No...The pay offer maintains Further Education as the Cinderella service, with no prospect––if the offer is accepted ––of any change in the foreseeable future. It is understood that the award will not be paid to Silver Book Lecturers. Once again, NATFHE’s silence on this speaks volumes. There is one area, though, where pay in Further Education does compare favourably with the school sector. You’ve guessed it–– Principals’ and Senior Staff pay, which on average, comfortably outstrips that of head teachers. Ponder on that one.
The Award does not even have to be paid by the colleges There is also an air of unreality about the whole process itself. National bargaining as it presently exists in Further Education can only ever result in a ‘recommendation’ to colleges to pay any increases that have been ‘agreed’. Many colleges routinely refuse to pay all or some of the increase. This has resulted in a kaleidoscope of pay and conditions agreements in different colleges, with no mechanism for bringing the colleges into harmony. Such a situation has caused the career structure of the sector to collapse. Motivated teachers are leaving Further Education in droves for the careers and higher pay on offer in schools and elsewhere. If 40% of colleges have not paid last year’s award, what chance is there of persuading them to sign up this year?
Conclusion : A Radically different approach is needed We in LEAF have occasionally been accused of looking backwards. Such a criticism is profoundly wrong. We want, and will seek to achieve parity for Lecturers in pay, conditions of service, prospects and pensions with the best that is currently available. However, it is important to recognise that the issue of a binding national agreement on pay and conditions of service, and the ending of the so-called independence of action of colleges, is the key to progress. We would welcome any views on our analysis of the situation in Further Education, from whatever source.
You are encouraged to print off and distribute this article to your colleagues. Please do. Better still, join LEAF and assist in our campaign for justice in the Further Education sector. LEAF has many initiatives going at present, all aimed at exposing the injustice that characterises employment practice in this sector. We remain confident that our view will prevail. Help us to achieve these aims!
BETTER PAY AND ALLOWANCES, NOT LOCALISED PAY, IS THE ANSWER TO TEACHER SHORTAGE In a recent editorial comment, the Times Educational Supplement ('Scales Tipped Wrong Way', 7 June 2002), has advocated breaking up national pay settlements, and ipso facto, national pay rates for all teachers. According to the TES, 'national pay scales are not just unfair and impractical, they are also a threat to the quality of education in some regions.' This preposterous assertion is backed up by a piece of information spin that Alistair ('bog standard comprehensive') Campbell would have been proud of. Apparently, one Andrew Oswald of Warwick University has 'found' that OFSTED inspections results show a clear gradient of quality from low (Inner London), through to 'better' in Outer London, and 'best' in the regions 'where the cost of living is progressively lower'. So there you have it! The point is proven, isn't it? No. Head teachers and local education authorities are reporting teacher shortages of teachers around the country. If the regions are sucking teachers from London, what is sucking them from the regions? And where are they going? If any teacher in a school thinks that localised pay is a good idea, ask them to look at what has happened to their colleagues in Further Education, where the 'experiment' in locally determined pay (and conditions) is in its tenth year. The result, needless to say, has been a disaster that will cost serious sums of money to put right. The practical implications of the TES proposals becoming reality would be that employers would have to repudiate the national collective agreement. The TES 'solution' is really saying that teachers in the provinces could subsidise pay increases to their colleagues in the South East. If such a move were introduced, it would result in huge problems for schools in those areas. In fact, as every serious commentator understands, the higher cost of living in London and the South East is almost wholly accounted for by the hugely inflated cost of housing. Differential pay will not remedy this question, and may even exacerbate the problem elsewhere by reducing mobility. The obvious and equitable answer to the problem is to increase the pay of all teachers sharply, and to review London allowances urgently. A figure in the region of £6000 will not solve the problem but it would be a start. Allowances must also be introduced for other high cost areas. Half-baked solutions such as that proposed by the TES will simply not do.
LECTURER’S PAY FALLS BELOW MANUAL WORKER LEVELS Another milestone was achieved by the Association of Colleges, LSC and Government recently. The pay of Further Education Lecturers has slipped so far behind other professional groups that we are in the realm of manual pay rates. In fact the top quarter of manual workers earn more than the average for Further Education Lecturers (excluding College ‘managers’ with whom we are not concerned here), whose pay levels are stuck in the early to mid twenty-thousand range. Many thousands earn much less than this. Silver Book Lecturers on the Collective Agreement are now in the ninth year of a deliberate pay freeze. Recently, some Lecturers again took strike action to highlight the plight of the profession. But it is only the certainty of a serious defeat which will persuade the employers and UK Government to pay up. This is a matter we have been working on for six years.The settlement imposed by the 1992 FHE Act has to be repealed. The message: "incorporation isn't working’ has to be raised at every opportunity. The ruinous ‘alliance‘ with the Association of Colleges, chief defender of the ‘independent’ Colleges, has to be ended. If the haemorrhage of Lecturers from Further Education (highlighted recently in the TES) is to be halted and reversed, it will require massive funds investing in a new Further Education settlement. We believe that more and more staff are coming to see LEAF’s consistent advocacy of binding national collective agreements in a locally managed provision as the only realistic way forward.
PAY CASE LISTED FOR A HEARING AT LAST The important case of Ashton v. Mid-Cheshire College, which was originally listed to be heard in December 2001 but adjourned on the ground that the Principal was unwell, has been re-listed for a four day hearing. The case will be heard at Liverpool Pier Head Tribunal between the 10th & 13th of September 2002. Mr. Ashton was employed on the terms of the Silver Book collective agreement. The case will raise a number of matters connected to and leading to Mr. Ashton’s constructive dismissal. Amongst these matters is the claim that the College effectively breached Mr.Ashton’s contract, by failing to provide a bona-fide pay review and freezing his pay from 1994. LEAF regard this case as an important Test Case in its own right and one that complements the action we have asked the European Commission to bring against the United Kingdom. More news will follow in regard of the latter very shortly.
Update Tuesday
15 January 2002 PRINCIPAL’S PAY ‘LAGS BEHIND’ SAY ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES We kid you not! Over the past ten years, since the run up to incorporation of colleges in 1992, college principals have enjoyed unparalleled increases in their salaries and perks. Freed from the shackles of LEA pay scales, principals enjoyed pay increases averaging 40% in just three years from 1992 –1995. In a quid pro quo, they acted as the Government’s shock troops during that period, launching an assault on Lecturer’s pay, conditions of service, morale and professional integrity. In ten years, Lecturers pay has increased just 15%- the lowest in the entire public sector. For Silver Book staff the increase has been 0% (nil), a scandal that LEAF is at this moment attempting to bring to the consideration of the nation’s courts. Lecturers have college principals, among others, to thank for this lamentable state of affairs.
Principals want more The publication of the TES survey of college chiefs pay (11 Jan 2002), shows 20 principals earning over £100k, and numerous of them in the £90-100k bracket. But principals are not happy! They think that they are underpaid. In support of this assertion, the TES article cites a study by David Hart of the HAHT, purporting to demonstrate that in terms of budget size, employee numbers, management demands and the know-how and qualifications (stop laughing – this is a serious point) needed to do the job, over 100 principals should be paid £115k per annum. Vice Principals reading this will be comforted by the study’s conclusion over 100 of them should also receive the magic £100k. Before you damage your computer in frustration and anger at all this, read on a little. Ivor Jones, director of employment policy at the AOC (salary package not known) has some words of sympathy for us lesser mortals. ‘The problem at all levels- support staff, Lecturers, managers and principals – is not a lack of willingness to pay, but the huge financial constraints the sector is under.’ So that’s it then! Er, sorry Ivor, but your analysis falls short of an adequate explanation by a volume or two. You and your fellow impecunious college leaders could set an example to everyone by ensuring that the miserly pay increases agreed for Lecturers are actually paid. Have any principals failed to receive a pay increase recommended by their corporations?
Only we can solve the
problems of Lecturer pay disparity It ought to be crystal clear to every Lecturer working in the sector that the mess that is FE in 2002 has been brought about by the very people and organisations that are now apparently concerned about the ‘huge financial constraints the sector is under’. Nor can mere tinkering at the edges bring about a fundamental improvement. We in LEAF have always held to this view, and we have a clear policy and strategy to transform the sector, putting students and teachers at the heart of the learning process. This is not the message that the AOC, Learning and Skills Council or Government want you to hear. But we are unconcerned about that. This is our website, paid for by Lecturers and existing to articulate our concerns. Their concern is now to defend the indefensible. Ours is to bring about lasting improvement
Further Education –
the Railtrack of the Education System Principals have done very well out of incorporation. Senior managers and other apparachniks have also prospered. All of this has taken place against a background of decline in the quality of the learning experience. The Government, DFES, AOC , Learning and Skills Council all appear to be in agreement that a quality provision can be provided by an underpaid, exhausted, frightened and demoralised workforce. It cannot continue, and LEAF is here, working every day towards our goal of changing this reality.
Ten Years of Frozen
Pay –enough is enough! On pay we say this. No principal should be paid more than three times the pay of a Lecturer at the top of the main grade Lecturers’ pay scale. Since we are not (unlike the AOC) in the business of arguing for pay freezes or reduction for others employed in the sector, this means that Lecturers’ pay has to rise sharply, quickly. There can be no further
acceptance of low pay increases, no pay increases,
qualified pay increases or conditional pay increases. We think you should be angry about the present situation. But let’s resolve to make a change for the better that is permanent. Our work is dedicated to restoring Lecturer’s pay, status and conditions of service. We believe very firmly that we will achieve these aims and we want your support and active membership.......... ..........Today.
Update Monday
3 December 2001 TPI DEBACLE SHOWS
WHY LOCAL CONTRACTS CAN NEVER WORK! LEAF has received many complaints about College Corporations around the country using discriminatory practices in order to avoid paying the TPI increases to Further Education Lecturers. All of these complaints are being followed up, and we will strive to ensure that the same criteria are used to award the payments in all colleges. We have recently learned
that some colleges are even using time off through
sickness as a bar to staff receiving TPI money. We
understand that the examples we know of, the employer
takes no account of whether you have been certified
as sick by your general practitioner. The only circumstance
they take into account is emergency admission to hospital. Employers' who apply such
criteria may fall foul of the Disability Discrimination
Act [1995]. Under the "Act" it is unlawful
for an employer to discriminate against a disabled
person in the opportunities that he affords him for
promotion, a transfer, training or receiving any other
benefit. A person has a disability for the purposes
of the Act if he has a physical or mental impairment
that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect
on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. The TPI funds amount to a third of that given to schoolteachers to drive further divisions among staff, and merely confirms LEAF's view that the only way of bringing pay and conditions back to an acceptable level is through the mechanism of a binding national bargaining framework. Our actions are underpinned by this belief. That's why we keep 'going
on' about the 'Silver Book', As one critic put it,
we will continue to 'go on' about these matters until
we are successful ,and we currently have a range of
strategies designed to get us there. Please do spread the word about LEAF's work. We hope soon to be able to bring news of our progress.
Update Friday
16 November 2001 ASHTON -V- MID-CHESHIRE
COLLEGE The case of Ashton
v Mid-Cheshire College is to be heard at the
Liverpool Tribunal between the 17th and 20th of December
2001. Mr. Ashton who is a member of LEAF, will claim
constructive dismissal, sex discrimination and breaches
to his Silver Book contract. One of the contractual breaches
cited by LEAF’s lawyers is the failure to provide
a bona-fide pay review. In keeping with the experiences
of Silver Book Lecturers throughout the United Kingdom,
Mr. Ashton was refused annual cost of living pay increases. This is the first case to
claim that a Further Education corporation has breached
the contract of a member of staff on Silver Book conditions
by its failure to provide a bona-fide pay review.
Needless to say, the Tribunal’s decision on this
matter could have important implications for those
Further Education Lecturers whose post-incorporation
contracts continued to be governed by the Silver Book
collective agreement, and who were denied pay increases
in the years that followed. The hearing will commence at 10 am. on Monday 17th December 2001. For the benefit of those
members who may wish to attend the hearing, the address
is as follows: The Employment Tribunal
Update Sunday
14 October 2001 DERISORY PAY OFFER
RECOMMENDED BY NATFHE LEAVES FE PAY FURTHER ADRIFT The recommended settlement
of this year’s pay round (in England only!) means
that, if accepted by NATFHE members, an amount of
money equal to 0.3% will be added to the pay scales
for the final four months of the year. This is equivalent
to about a third of an annualised amount of less than
£70p.a. (before tax) extra, about 20p a week,
will find its way into the pay packet of a Lecturer
on a notional £20k p.a. In Wales, a smaller
settlement has been offered and rejected by NATFHE.
Presumably, a similar increased ‘offer’
will convince NATFHE’s negotiators to fold their
cards! In arguing for support for
the recommendation to accept, Paul Mackney has claimed
that the settlement moves towards bridging the gap
with schoolteachers. Absurd claims such as this do
nothing to advance our grievances, and will tend only
to create further despair in the minds of Lecturers,
and reinforce the contempt with which NATFHE is viewed
by the employers. Needless to say, the claims
for parity of treatment for Silver Book Lecturers
have been brusquely swept aside, with NATFHE’s
agreement. LEAF is firmly of the view
that it alone is acting in the professional interests
of Further Education Lecturers at the present time.
We view the key to the future as the securing of a
National Pay and Conditions Agreement that is binding
on employers as the only way in which pay disparity
can be remedied. The experience of pay negotiations
and settlements in recent years merely reinforces
this point. We urge all Lecturers to get involved in our campaign to get the European Commission to take the UK Government to task over its treatment of Lecturers in the sector. You can find more details, including action you can take, on this website.
Update Saturday
11 August 2001 OFFICIAL: SILVER BOOK
LECTURERS ENTITLED TO TPI We have received a great number of enquiries as to whether or not Silver Book staff will benefit from the Teachers’ Pay Initiative. Indeed, we have clear evidence that certain principals have expressed the intention that they will do all they can to deprive this group of staff of any benefits under TPI. However, on the 17th July 2001,in a written answer to a question on the continuing denial of pay to Silver Book staff, Margaret Hodge gave this response: Further Education Lecturers: Mr. McNamara: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action she plans to take in respect of Further Education Colleges which do not award annual pay increases to Silver Book Contract Lecturers. [4415] Margaret
Hodge: Further Education Colleges are self-governing
institutions. The implementation of annual pay awards
is a matter for employers and their staff, and is not
a matter on which it is appropriate for the Government
to intervene. Nevertheless, I can reiterate the reply
given by my Hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning
on 9 July 2001, Official Report, column 388W, that the
additional moneys allocated to FE colleges under the
Teaching Pay Initiative are intended to
be fairly distributed among all eligible staff. [Hansard - written answers - column 136 - 17 July 2001] If you have problems with your College on this or any other matter, we want to know about it.
Update Wednesday
18 July 2001 OFFENSIVE ON SILVER BOOK PAY FREEZE UNDER WAY LEAF’s lawyers
have lodged two important tribunal applications on behalf
of our members. The cases “include” the claim
that there has been a breach of the implied term that
the employers would pay cost of living salary increases.
In both instances, the members involved were employed
on the terms of the Silver Book. In regard of
Claim One, our member was forced to tender her
resignation due to the persistently unreasonable decision
not to award cost of living pay increases, and the expectation
that she should take on more work than she could physically
cope with. In these proceedings the Applicant
claims: a] Compensation for constructive
dismissal. b] Damages for breach of contract
for losses in pay increases from 1994 - 2001, including
the effect of the loss of salary upon the Applicant’s
pension as the Teachers Pensions scheme is a final salary
scheme. c] Disability discrimination.
In regard of Claim
Two, our member was forced to resign because
of the conduct of a manager, which had the effect of
making the Applicant ill, and the failure of the Principal
to address the problem and provide a satisfactory solution. In these proceedings the Applicant
claims: a] Compensation for constructive
dismissal and damages. b] Compensation for sex discrimination
under Sections 1 and 41 of the Sex Discrimination Act
1975. c] Damages for breach of contract
in relation to the failure to make reasonable pay increases
between 1995 and 2001.
If either of the Applicants
succeed on the breach of contract matter relating to
the employer’s failure to make pay increases to
Silver Book staff, these cases will lead the way forward
to widespread claims in regard of breaches of this type
involving others who have received similar treatment
while employed on the terms of the Silver Book. We do not as yet have a hearing date, but we will notify members as soon as the cases are listed for a hearing.
Update Saturday
14 July 2001 PUBLIC SECTOR WORKERS VOTE TO ACCEPT PAY RISES OF UP TO 42% (PLEASE NOTE: RESTRICTED TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT) Lecturers’ pay
negotiations are going nowhere again, as the college
employers refuse to even talk about NATFHE’s claim
for an interim pay increase of £3000 for all Further
Education Lecturers, to redress years of underpay. No
such problem exists for our MPs. No doubt taking their
lead from the New Labour Cabinet, which took pay increases
of 40% following the June election, MPs have decided
to follow suit. Last week, members voted themselves a basic pay increase of 10%, accommodation allowance increases of 42%, and office costs allowances of 50% more. In doing so, they threw out the recommendations of their pay review body, which had suggested smaller increases. It will be recalled that following a similar ‘pay review’ exercise in 1996, MPs awarded themselves a 26% salary increase. It is not clear that any increases
in ’productivity’ have been secured or are
promised, in exchange for the increased burden placed
on the taxpayer. We in LEAF were not surprised to hear this news. Having secured a second term of office after one of the most downbeat elections in living memory, New Labour is shortly to publish and ‘debate’ a White Paper which will discuss measures aimed at increasing the ‘efficiency’ of workers in the public sector. They are likely to face trenchant and prolonged criticism, and become collectively more unpopular. They can comfort themselves though, that they at least can expect to end the next four or five years much richer than they are now. The same will not be the case
for the six or so million public sector workers whose
pay and conditions of service, hours of work and prospects,
are likely to deteriorate sharply, if Labour’s
apparent plans are realised. Significantly, during the debate in Parliament on MPs pay, a proposal by Chris Mullin MP, to link members’ pay rises to those given to teachers and nurses, was decisively thrown out. You should not hold out any hopes, though, that the reverse argument (that teachers and nurses pay increases should be linked to those of MPs) will find favour with our parliamentarians! Of course, housing costs have risen, particularly in London, where our pampered representatives have to keep homes. But is it only they who have these costs, of all those paid from the public purse?
Update Sunday
8 July 2001 TEACHER’S PAY INITIATIVE
IN FURTHER EDUCATION The Teacher’s Pay Initiative
(TPI) funds have now been allocated to Colleges, for
distribution, after consultation with the recognised
unions. LEAF has made known its views on TPI and other
aspects of Further Education Teachers’ pay. The TPI monies are earmarked
for payment to teachers. In this sense they can be distinguished
from the FEFC/LSC funding, which use is controlled entirely
by the college governors of Further Education institutions,
and which are commonly ‘top-sliced’ to ensure
that the elephantine management and administration systems
can be maintained in our colleges. TPI money must be paid to teachers. LEAF has already received reports that college governors and principals are attempting to distribute funds to non-teaching managers (a sizeable proportion of ‘academic’ staff in our colleges), or alternatively not pay the increase to some teachers. Others have been reported as saying that TPI increases will not be paid to Silver Book Lecturers, or that TPI money will be the pay increase for this year. None of this is acceptable. We would like your help to ensure that the TPI increases are paid fairly to all teachers in Further Education. Please monitor the situation
at your institution to ensure that:
Update Monday
18 June 2001 CHALLENGE TO SILVER BOOK PAY FREEZE Many thanks to those colleagues
who have responded to our request for information on the
pay freeze imposed on those staff still on the Silver
Book Collective Agreement. All the details have been recorded
and compiled and we are now actively dealing with this
case. If anyone else has information on the pay freeze
and how it has affected them, we are still keen to hear
from them. In particular, we are interested
in any comments made by college senior staff on this subject,
either in memoranda, reports to governors, or letters
to individuals or union branch representatives. We will keep members informed of developments in this area as they happen.
Update Wednesday
13 June 2001 PAY FREEZE ENDS.....BUT ONLY FOR GOVERNMENT MINISTERS The new New Labour Government
has announced that the 'pay freeze' its ministers have
endured, is to be abandoned. In consequence, pay rises
of between 18 and 40% are to be gratefully accepted by
Tony Blair and his colleagues. In 1996, it will be recalled,
MPs voted themselves a catch-up 26% increase in pay following
a pay review they set up into their own pay. Among those quick off the mark to support the latest increases were the new Home Secretary, David Blunkett, and his Cabinet colleague, Estelle Morris, the new Education Secretary. Asked to justify the increases
at this time, Blunkett retorted: " I don't think we should
be diverted into criticising people who take a pay cut
for four years, for taking the pay they are entitled to."
(12 June) We in LEAF are at least pleased
that Mr. Blunkett recognises thata pay freeze or below
cost of living rise in an inflationary climate represents
a pay cut. All Lecturers in Further Education have seen
their pay cut in real terms under Mr. Blunkett's ( hugely
overrated) stewardship of the DfEE. Silver Book Lecturers,
who always brought on attacks of amnesia when they were
mentioned to Mr. Blunkett or Baroness Blackstone, are
in the seventh year of a government -inspired pay freeze. When LEAF officers raised the matter of FE pay with Bryan (now Lord) Davies, Mr. Blunkett's deputy in 1997, shortly before Labour came to power, we were assured that this (Tory) policy would end after a Labour victory. Mr. Blunkett, in particular, would not allow pay discrimination against teachers in the sector, to continue. So much for the words. We are writing to Mr. Blunkett's successor to request an urgent meeting to discuss the subject of pay cuts. Our view is that the new government will have to listen to our legitimate grievances, and those of others in the public sector, or begin to watch their massive opinion poll lead melt away. If that happens, Messrs. Blair and Blunkett will have only four more years to enjoy their newly enhanced minister's pay packets.
Update Tuesday
5 June 2001 LEAF TO CHALLENGE SILVER BOOK PAY FREEZE IN COURT A challenge to the Silver Book
pay freeze has now been lodged in the court system, backed
by LEAF. The Lecturer involved, a LEAF
member, has received no pay increase since September 1993,
in common with most Silver Book Lecturers. It is likely
that more cases, covering Lecturers in the same situation
around the country, will follow shortly. The freezing of Silver Book
pay by the employers, backed by the Association of Colleges
and both Conservative and Labour Governments in recent
years, was a central pillar of the 'enforcement strategy',
designed to get all Lecturers who had protected conditions
of service, off their collective agreement contract. If you are on the Silver Book, we would like to hear from you now. Your case needs to be stated, and we are ready to deal with it. If you are on one of the 'new' contracts imposed or 'negotiated' locally, you have a vital interest in these events. It is the key to the progress of a pay and conditions settlement for all Lecturers. You have perhaps (perhaps not) benefitted from an annual salary review, but have no national collective agreement. Silver Book staff have not benefited from a pay review, but have a collective agreement contract. The employers have succeeded up until now in keeping those two situations separate. We are now moving to end the pay freeze policy in the interests of all Lecturers. More details will follow.
Update Sunday
6 May 2001 JUDICIAL REVIEW ON PAY LEAF is currently in discussions with its lawyers as to whether it would be more timely and effective to bring a Judicial Review on the employers failure to provide a bona fide pay review for Silver Book staff. A detailed assessment by our lawyers is due in the next few days.
NATFHE have reached an agreement with Halton College to freeze the pay of those staff who are currently on Point 14 of the scale. LEAF wrote to the Principal of Halton College to express its concerns at the agreement. In addition to the economic pressure that the agreement would bring for those affected, we pointed out that staff who are currently on Point 14 are more likely to be approaching retirement age. The impact of a two-year pay freeze would have a significant and long term effects upon their pension entitlements. In reply, the Principal told us he was sorry that we had not been informed, but that the agreement between NATFHE and the College had now been effectively signed, sealed, and delivered.
Update Monday
9 April 2001 PAY DISCRIMINATION We are currently awaiting advice from our lawyers on the continuing denial of cost of living pay increases to lecturers who remain on their transferred terms. Further information will be posted shortly.
Perhaps the Principal of Warrington Collegiate Institute, Hilary Tucker, would like to talk to all the Lecturers at York College still on Silver Book contracts, who HAVE received pay awards this year from their more enlightened college management. However, if she bothered to consult this website, as so many of her colleagues do, she might not make so many inaccurate assumptions. She certainly does not feel the college is "obliged to explain themselves" to Lecturers at Warrington, as she forcibly commented in a recent letter to a LEAF National Council member. Probably just as well. Come on Hilary, explain exactly why you are holding back pay increases from Silver Book staff. Is it something they've done to you personally? And what pay increase did you and your senior management get this year?
|
