Joint National Committee for Higher Education Staff
Trade union side
national claim 2011
Submitted 18 April 2011
NEW JNCHES TU SIDE
V7 PROPOSALS 2011/12 CLAIM
INTRODUCTION
This claim is submitted as the joint claim of the higher education trade union for 2011/12.
The claim is submitted against an unprecedentedly challenging environment. The
combination of rising costs, restrictive public sector pay policy and funding uncertainty for the
higher education sector result in an extremely difficult situation.
The reality for many staff is that following a virtual two year pay freeze in the sector, they
have suffered real terms pay cuts. With the prospect of increases in both national insurance
and pension contributions many staff will see take home pay fall below 2008 levels.
One of the key aims of this claim is that staff in the sector should suffer no further falls in
their income following this pay round. We accept that times are difficult, but do not accept
that staff should be paying the costs.
RPI inflation as of March 2011 stood at a near 20 year high of 5.5%, with economic
commentators predicting no short term falls in inflation. In addition to increased costs,
national insurance contributions are set to rise by 1% in April 2011 and the Hutton
Commission has identified that pension contributions for staff in the sector will increase. The
current employer’s proposals for USS would increase staff contributions as well as reduce
pension benefits. The results will be l cuts in take home pay for staff unless there is a
significant increase in pay in 2011/12.
The rising costs of living particularly affect lower paid staff. The increase in VAT from
January 2011 and the higher increases in the cost of essentials such as food and energy
costs have a disproportionate impact upon the lowest paid. This is why the trade unions are
seeking a lump sum element with the 2011/12 claim to recognise the impact on low paid
staff.
The claim also seeks to address a number of outstanding issues relating to the
implementation of the Framework Agreement, including implantation of the
recommendations of the New JNCHES Working Group on Equality.
THE NATIONAL JOINT UNION CLAIM
Pay
1. with reference to RPI, an increase on all pay points to ensure that there is no realterms pay cut, or a lump-sum, whichever the greater, underpinning for the low paid;
2. an increase in London weighting for 2011-12 and the establishment of a working
group to consider the development of high cost area supplements;
Equality
3. positive proposals from the employers to implement the eight-point plan that resulted
from the 2009/10 Equality Working Group;
2
4. joint work on a range of best practice guides on family-friendly issues;
5. assimilation to the national pay spine of hourly-paid staff and positive moves to
ensure that all hourly-paid staff are employed on appropriate full-time or fractional
contracts;
Updating the national framework agreement
6. removal of the bottom two pay points of the national pay spine and its extension at
the top to create additional points beyond point 51;
7. positive proposals from the employers to develop a nationally-agreed system of
remuneration of external examiners;
8. continuation of negotiations to produce a joint training agreement and the
establishment of a technical group to address issues relating to career pathways and
progression, roles and professional development for distinct occupational groups.
Important note: it should be noted that at the point of submission UCU and EIS are still in
dispute over elements of the 2010/11 claim, including the lack of progress over the
development of jointly-agreed proposals on redundancy avoidance. All unions continue to
support the need for national proposals to improve job security.
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
Inflation
In the current academic year, RPI inflation (the RPI figure used in this claim is the all-items
figure) has averaged at 4.8% over the period August 2010 to February 2011. It is forecast to
be at 5.0% on average between March and July 2011. By contrast the pay offer by UCEA for
2010/11 was 0.4%, indicating a real terms pay cut over the period of around 4.5%.
Inflation forecasts - Monthly forecasts
IDS publishes monthly RPI forecasts by City economists. The latest indicate for the 2011-12
pay year an average rate of RPI of 4.2%. If recent inflation forecasts are anything to go by,
then these forecasts are likely to be an underestimate of actual inflation figures once they
are published. The latest Treasury forecast for RPI in the 4th quarter of 2011 is 4.5%.
All-items RPI forecast, average
2011
2012
January
4.5%
3.9%
February
4.6%
3.7%
March
5.1%
3.6%
April
4.9%
3.6%
3
All-items RPI forecast, average
2011
2012
May
5.0%
3.5%
June
5.1%
3.5%
July
5.0%
3.5%
August
5.0%
3.5%
September
5.2%
3.4%
October
5.1%
3.4%
November
4.9%
3.4%
December
4.6%
3.4%
Source: IDS Pay Report 1070, April 2011
Quarterly forecasts
All-items RPI forecast
2011
2012
1st quarter
4.5%
3.7%
2nd quarter
5.0%
3.5%
3rd quarter
5.0%
3.5%
4th quarter
5.1%
3.4%
Source: Average of independent forecasters, IDS Pay Report 1070, April 2011
Treasury RPI forecast
4th quarter
2011
4.5%
2012
3.2%
Source: HM Treasury’s average of independent forecasts, March 2011 http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/201103forecomp.pdf
London weighting / allowance (LW / LA)
Data on recent levels of London weighting and/or London allowance in the public sector show staff in
higher education, particularly staff in the pre-92 sector still receiving £2,134, on considerably lower
levels of London weighting and/or allowance than staff in government departments and local
authorities (where Inner London payments were concerned), the NHS, the police and school
teachers.
It is worth noting that London and the south east region were the highest earning parts of the UK,
according to the government’s ASHE data for 2010. Median gross weekly earnings for full-time
workers in London at April 2010 were £642, and £524 for the south east, compared with a UK
4
average of £499. The next highest earning region was east, at £489 a week, with Northern Ireland the
lowest earning region, on £441 (IDS Pay Report 1066, Feb 2011, p 13-15).
Employee group
Location
Allowance
Effective
date
Notes
£
DEFRA
London differential
2,518 to 5,820
1.7.09
Difference depends on grade
DWP
Inner London
3,490 to 5,280
1.7.09
Difference depends on grade
Outer London
2,340 to 4,310
Specified SE zone
1,840 to 3,830
Inner London differential
3,500
Outer London differential
1,750
Inner London
3,372
Outer London
1,672
Inner London
2,907*
Outer London
1,906*
Fringe
751
Inner London
3,283
Outer London
2,122
Fringe
822
Higher education:
pre-92
London*
HSE
Local authorities
DoH
Environment
Agency
FE lecturers
Higher education:
post-92
NHS
Police
Probation Service
1.8.10
1.7.09
1.8.09
AoC no longer sets LA. Colleges
vary. * figure derived by applying
every AoC-recommended increase
to basic salary since 2002
1.8.09
Uprated on the basis of pay awards
since 2006 under Framework
Agreement
2,134
1.7.92
A number of HEIs are reviewing
London weighting; some have
increased their rate, & some have
consolidated LW into basic pay.
Since 2006, LW should be uprated
by pay rises. *Including Royal
Holloway.
London
3,992
1.10.10
Inner London
3,299
1.4.09
Outer London
1,775
Inner fringe
798
Outer fringe
555
Inner London
4,046 to 6,217
Outer London
3,414 to 4,351
Outer London: 15% of salary
Fringe
933 to 1,616
Fringe: 5% of salary
London weighting
2,277
Weighting pensionable; allowance
not. * for staff in post from 1.9.94
London allowance
4,338*
London
3,850
1.4.10
Inner London: 20% of salary
1.4.10
5
Employee group
Location
Allowance
Effective
date
Notes
£
6th form college
teachers
Teachers
Inner London
3,589
Outer London
2,392
Fringe
947
Inner London
5,412 to 8,244
Outer London
3,529 to 3,677
Fringe
1,038 to 1,039
1.4.10
1.9.10
Pay differential for lowest (M1) and
highest (U3) grades. Even higher
rates for ‘Excellent teachers’
IDS HR Study 930, November 2010
EQUALITY
The JNCHES Equality Working Group Overview Report highlighted statistics on the gender
pay gap. For instance the overall HE full time gender Pay Gap is 17.3% based on median
hourly earnings. There was a welcome 1.3% fall on the previous year – but the figure is still
significantly higher than the rest of the UK workforce which shows a gap of 10.2%
There are some explanatory structural issues, such as pre-dominance of male Vice
chancellors, professors and head of departments compared to other heads of other
educational establishments and the pre-dominance of female roles in secretarial, admin and
customer services. However this shows worrying career limitations and stereotyping which
we believe does a dis-service to the sector.
There is also evidence that the gender pay gap for full-time higher education teaching staff is
narrowing. Data from the government’s Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings shows the pay
gap narrowing since 2007, while Higher Education Statistics Agency data show the gap
narrowing fairly consistently over the past decade. However, the gap for full-time staff still
shows female academic pay about 13% behind male pay, which is considerably higher than
the +/-5% benchmark used by UCEA to indicate areas of concern in terms of equal pay.
While pay gaps in particular academic groups have tended to be smaller than the overall
gap, these are still, for example for professors, higher than the +/-5% benchmark.
Higher education teaching professionals’ pay (ASHE) 1999-2010
April
Female (F)
Male (M)
F as % M
GP gap*
£
£
1999
27,427
33,699
81.4%
18.6%
2000
29,578
34,787
85.0%
15.0%
2001
29,838
35,964
83.0%
17.0%
6
2002
30,455
37,839
80.5%
19.5%
2003
32,436
39,348
82.4%
17.6%
2004
33,438
39,882
83.8%
16.2%
2005
35,804
43,707
81.9%
18.1%
2006
37,333
44,138
84.6%
15.4%
2007
37,365
45,857
81.5%
18.5%
2008
38,128
46,474
82.0%
18.0%
2009
41,556
49,060
84.7%
15.3%
2010
43,475
49,986
87.0%
13.0%
*the extent to which female pay lags behind male pay; based on ASHE published data, and likely to include a small percentage of teaching professionals not actually
employed in the HE sector; Full-time gross mean average annual pay; % calculations UCU; Source: ONS ASHE Table 14.7a - unavailable before 1999
UK academic staff ; gender pay gap ( HESA)
End of academic
year*
Female
Male
total
GP gap#
£
£
£
1995-6
23,100
27,019
25,873
14.5%
1996-7
24,248
28,452
27,188
14.8%
1997-8
25,140
29,448
28,113
14.6%
1998-9
26,158
30,920
29,407
15.4%
1999-2000
27,240
32,274
30,628
15.6%
2000-1
28,361
33,535
31,802
15.4%
2001-2
29,083
34,307
32,510
15.2%
2002-3
30,473
35,802
33,931
14.9%
2003-4
32,320
37,639
35,773
14.13%
2004-5
32,975
38,544
36,534
14.4%
2005-6
35,250
41,053
38,933
14.14%
2006-7
37,367
43,314
41,128
13.73%
2007-8
39,547
45,809
43,486
13.67%
2008-9
42,721
48,962
46,607
12.7%
2009-10
43,162
49,382
46,998
12.6%
*Pay at 31 July at the end of the year in question, eg 31.7.09 for 2008-9, unless contract ended earlier in the year
7
#the extent to which female pay lags behind male pay
Full-time gross mean average annual pay
Includes teaching-only, research-only and teaching-and-research academics, as well as clinical academics, excludes London weighting from 2003-4 & bonus payments
Source: HESA staff record, series; % calculation: UCU
UK professorial academic staff: gender pay gap (HESA)
F as % M
GP gap in favour of
males#
£56,944
93.7%
6.3%
£59,696
£59,127
94.0%
6.0%
£58,987
£63,241
£62,538
93.3%
6.7%
2006-7
£62,261
£67,134
£66,282
92.7%
7.3%
2007-8
£65,568
£70,854
£69,870
92.5%
7.5%
2008-9
£70,670
£75,174
£74,341
94.0%
6.0%
2009-10
£71,612
£76,110
£75,256
94.1%
5.9%
Female
Male
total
£
£
£
2003-4
£53,878
£57,486
2004-5
£56,105
2005-6
End of academic year*
*Pay at 31 July at the end of the year in question, eg 31.7.09 for 2008-9, unless contract ended earlier in the year
#the extent to which female pay lags behind male pay
Full-time gross mean average annual pay
Includes teaching-only, research-only and teaching-and-research academics, as well as clinical academics, excludes London weighting from 2003-4 & bonus payments
Source: HESA staff record, series; % calculation: UCU
Equalities Working Group recommendations
The trade union side believes that New JNCHES should facilitate further work to implements the
eight-point plan recommended the Equality Working Group which was established as part of the
2009/10 settlement.
1. Improve data collection for other protected characteristics focusing on those for which it
is believed there may be pay inequity.
2. Make the outcome of equal pay reviews widely available through publication on the open
access area of the institution’s web site.
3. Provide the evidence base for the objective justification of pay gaps.
4. Implement a comprehensive action plan to address the issues identified within a defined
timescale.
8
5. Involve trade unions at each stage of the equal pay review.
6. Involve those with appropriate level of expertise in equality and diversity.
7. Make full use of the JNCHES Guidance for Higher Education Institutions on Equal Pay
Reviews (2007).
8. Institutions that have not already conducted an equal pay review are strongly
encouraged to do so at the earliest
UPDATING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT
Staff costs
It is worth noting that staff costs have been falling as a proportion of total expenditure since
the start of the start of the new century, (2000 – 1), and were 56.6% in 2009-10.
UK HEIs: Staff costs as % total expenditure
Staff costs as % total expenditure
%
2000-1
58.4
2001-2
58.0
2002-3
58.5
2003-4
58.5
2004-5
58.4
2005-6
57.8
2006-7
57.8
2007-8
57.4
2008-9
56.8
2009-10
56.6
Source: HESA, Resources of Higher Education Institutions, HESA HE Finance Plus, series; % calculation UCU
External examiners
Universities UK’s Review of external examining arrangements, recognises the importance to
the sector of external examination. However, the report does not go far enough in accepting
the vital role played by external examiners in the current quality assurance system. The
9
system remains under-funded, under-rewarded and under-recognised. There is a need to
improve levels of institutional support and recognition, including better pay rates and more
transparent promotion procedures.
10