Fixed-term contracts

5.1 University teaching unions, in particular, have expressed concern over the increasing proportion of staff employed on fixed-term contracts (FTCs). Whilst common practice for research staff – largely, but not wholly, for funding reasons – they are alleged to be spreading to teaching staff as well. As Table 5.1a shows, the survey found well over a quarter of all staff, and nearly all research staff, to have fixed-term contracts. The employment of most research staff on fixed-term contracts explains the high share of younger staff on fixed-term contracts. What, however, is also to be noted is that as many as one in ten of those on lecturing grades have fixed-term contracts. The share of fixed-term contracts was much higher in ‘pre-1992’ universities than in ‘1992’ universities, and this held even after taking into account the much lower share of researchers in the ‘1992’ university academic workforce (Table 5.1b).

5.3 Table 5.2 shows that half of all academics had some experience of working on a fixed-term contract. What is noticeable is the way in which the proportion decreases with age. Either this confirms that such an employment form has become more prevalent over time, and/or it suggests that a high proportion of younger staff (on fixed-term contracts) drop out of the sector relatively early in their careers.

Mobility and external experience

5.5 Although most higher education institutions now bear the name ‘university’, the distinction between the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ persists. The survey sought to measure ‘cross-fertilisation’ by looking at whether academics in one type of university had experience of working in the other (Table 5.3).

5.7 Switches between type of university are an obvious item of interest but so, too, is mobility within the sector as a whole, and between the sector and the outside world. A third of academics had started their career in higher education by the age of 25 and as many as six out of ten had done so at or before age 28 – the age by which one might have expected to complete a full postgraduate training, given starting university studies more or less straight after secondary school. Only one in five had started a higher education career after the age of 33.

5.8 Table 5.4 shows that half of all academics had been employed in only a single institution. Mobility within the sector was, as expected, related to age, and since moving is a way of gaining promotion, it was more frequently found amongst staff in professorial grades.

5.9 Almost all staff had spent their entire career in higher education without interruption. Only one in ten had taken a break of longer than three months, and, of these, the vast majority had spent the time in either the private sector or the public/voluntary sector (excluding education) – each sector accounting for about 40 per cent of those who had an interruption. Further studies were the next most important reason for an interruption – but accounted for under one in ten ‘interrupters’. Very few interruptions were the consequence of time being taken out for domestic responsibilities – reflecting, perhaps, the availability of maternity leave and crèche facilities at employing institutions, or the lack of interest (female) academics have in having children or breaking their careers for them, or the disposition granted by many academic jobs to staff to allocate their time such that work and domestic responsibilities can be successfully combined.

5.10 Although not shown in Table 5.4, those academics who started their in career in higher education at or before the age of 28, and, thus, who might have been more likely to seek to compensate for lack of prior external experience by taking a career break, were no more likely to have interrupted their careers than later starters.

5.11 About one in six staff had experience of working at a foreign university, and again the probability of having done so increased with age and seniority. ‘Pre-1992’ university staff were also much more likely to have worked in a university outside the UK than were ‘1992’ university staff.

5.12 ‘Private sector experience’ might be considered at a premium in a ‘modern’ higher education sector dedicated to ‘enhancing the country’s economic performance’. Table 5.4 shows that fewer than one in 20 could point to such experience, at least since they had started in the higher education sector. Only research-grade staff had a significantly higher level of such external experience. There were, as to be expected, differences in the extent of private sector experience by subject area (Table 5.5).

Pay and pay negotiation

5.14 Much of the fieldwork for this survey was conducted in the weeks immediately following a one-day national strike by all types of university staff in protest at a failure to achieve a satisfactory settlement for the year that was already underway. This, not surprisingly, not only made the conduct of the survey as a whole a sensitive business, it also made questions about pay, whether prompted or unprompted, particularly poignant.

5.15 The survey sought to establish academics’ views about what payment systems ought to be rewarding – whereby what they thought should be rewarded could be understood as a proxy for the elements of their job which they valued most highly – and what the current system appeared to them to be rewarding in practice.¹¹ The findings, and the disjunction between wishes and reality, are shown in Table 5.6.

5.17 All academics felt that current payment systems put too much emphasis on management and on income generation, and much too much emphasis on length of service.

5.18 Dissatisfaction with the outcomes of current systems of pay determination in higher education has led to discussion of alternative procedures for settling remuneration. A number of the proposals currently under debate were put to respondents to elicit their preferred options. These alternatives included negotiations between staff (and their representatives) and employer at the level of the individual institution; the establishment of a review body similar to those operating for primary and secondary teachers, judges and nurses; national collective bargaining (effectively, the present system); and various combinations of these.

5.19 Table 5.7 shows that the most popular means of pay determination would be a review body, or a review body supplemented by local negotiations. Over two-thirds of academics supported solution on these lines.

5.20 Younger staff were more likely to favour settling pay at the local, or individual, level. Whilst only nine per cent supported individual negotiations, this finding might reflect either a ‘generation effect’ – younger people might be more self-confident and aggressive than older people – or a ‘cohort effect’ – younger staff matured under ‘Thatcherism’ and have adopted more individualistic values than previous cohorts. Staff from ‘1992’ universities were more likely to favour national collective bargaining than staff from ‘pre-1992’ universities – this reflecting different traditions and cultures. However, even amongst ‘1992’ university staff, the disparity of views of, on the one hand, individuals – who support review bodies – and, on the other hand, the unions professing to represent them – which insist upon the maintenance of national collective bargaining – is remarkable.

Disillusionment and early leaving

5.21 In an effort to measure academic staff’s commitment to the higher education system, and their morale, the survey asked respondents to state whether they thought it was likely that they would stay in the sector until they reached retirement age. Overall, rather over a quarter thought it was unlikely they would. Since the views of other professional groups, or, indeed, of any other group of workers, is not to hand, it is not possible to comment upon the meaning of this absolute percentage. Equally, it is not possible to tell how many would actually realise their intent, or meant it seriously rather than used their responses as an opportunity to express dissatisfaction. Lastly, it is by no means certain that all who actively wish to leave would find an acceptable alternative occupation, or maintain an income adequate to satisfy their needs, and thus how many would be able to leave. Nevertheless, differences between groups of staff – by age, grade, and type of institution – are of interest and have some meaning.

5.22 Table 5.8 shows a declining interest, acceptance, or wish to leave early as age increases. Clearly, this was related to the prevalence of younger academics amongst research-grade staff, most of whom, as has been shown, were on fixed-term contracts and, thus, had less certainty of being able to stay.

5.24 The most important reason offered for wishing to leave, by those who thought that they would probably, or very likely, leave the sector before retirement age, was that pay was not good enough. Younger staff, in particular, mentioned this. A much smaller proportion complained about overall lack of resources, although, surprisingly, this was seen as a greater demotivator by staff in ‘pre-1992’ than in ‘1992’ universities.¹² This is shown in Table 5.10.

5.26 Job insecurity, not unexpectedly, was a major concern. One in five mentioned it. Again, there was a strong relationship between job insecurity, or the absence of sufficient professional opportunities, and age. Research-grade staff, in particular, felt that they would be leaving the sector as a consequence of the lack of jobs.

5.27 Complaints about student numbers, and about the quality of students, were only infrequently expressed as the main reason for leaving the sector early, but where they were advanced, it was particularly by older, and more senior, staff.

5.28 Too much administration appeared to be a problem for senior staff, with 15 per cent of professors giving this as the main reason for leaving before retirement. Staff from ‘1992’ universities (12%), and older staff, especially older lecturers, had come to find their job no longer stimulating and wanted, for this reason, to leave the sector.¹³