Trade unions holding back sector, says leaked report

To do more with less, how about cutting out a few upper and middle management positions, especially in HR departments. The front lines of teaching and research need to be supported. We don't need more whipcrackers.

'Workload models no longer fit new styles of service delivery'... particularly when the 'new styles of service delivery' envisaged by the HR department, in our institution at least, don't appear to include either academics or students. It is the HR departments across the sector, and not the unions or the academics, who appear to be becoming increasingly alienated from the real 'business' of education. Isn't it time that HR departments were encouraged to review their real function, and the consequent appropriateness of their own workload models, within Higher Education Institutions? The words 'higher' and 'education' should provide a clue as to where to start.

Shaving off top layers is not enough. The unions are often the culprits. They don't glow in glory-the current pay demand is an example.

Further to the last comment, I would like to clarify for you that there has been no "pay demand" from Unite, merely a rejection of what can only be described as a derisory offer.

If last September 5% was the rate of inflation and 2.5% above what we were expecting then now if inflation is -2%?? How can .5% be a derisory offer!! Over three years I have had almost 13% in pay rises, not including increments!! Time for a reality check I feel. No one has asked the opinions of the university workforce just the unions that we pay our hard earned money to have decided this. The public sector is in to much of a comfort zone as people that join us from the private sector tell us, that will be zero when the next tory government will anihilate that comfort zone it was almost destroyed last time they were in, maybe we should get in the real world and be glad we have jobs unlike many of our colleagues out there!!!!

It was not only the level of pay offer that Unite members voted against ,it was the refusal of the UCEA to negotiate on anything other than pay.

...as should the terms 'resources' and 'human'. There does seem to be some confusion as to role and function of Human Resources (formerly 'personnel'), in that academic staff and students seem to have gradually become some kind of support to their function - units of inconvenience that get in the way of the smooth running of HR departments - rather than the fundamental reason for their existence. The key question here concerns the nature, and core element/function, of education (the REAL 'business' of HE), and how this should be most appropriately supported and resourced.

Look beyond the situation of % points now, the price rises are predicted and in places already happening. 0.5% to someone at the top of grade without any incrediments to come is a poor joke, likewise to those in the bottom of the scales. But then we are just another resource, to be used, abused and discarded like any other, whilst those that run the business far removed from any actual teaching and research have no idea how organic universities are but would rather redefine them as business units to be controlled like any other... "I am not a number, I am a person" I may be a resourse, but I am also a person, as the older personnel departments tended to realise!

I like that "fearful and conservative" bit - I'm always hearing that stodgy old employees are afraid of change. That's just drivel and sloppy thinking - what people don't like is "imposed change" for which read "invasion". I've a better idea to leverage quality and all that - stringently weed out sloppy thinking - how about an exam? - anyone who professes to be authoritative on policy decisions who doesn't know what 'proof' means - out with em. as for holding back institutions - hmm - so better ability to get rid of staff is in... whose interests exactly - obviously, those staff who are hoping to stay, presumably by being in the business of getting rid of others. So, we'll be left with universities entirely populated by central admin and so on. But hang on - without staff, won't the universities want to get rid of HR? I rather think of HR as managing resources in the same way that, say, an abbattoir employee manages cattle.

The bosses' enforcers don't like trade unions? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

I agree with much of the statements made in this article - but don't ascribe these difficulties to Union activity at all - in fact though the headline is 'unions' the substance is 'poor management' which I wholly agree with. In fact it has been unions who have consistently pushed the sector to be more accountable on decision-making, that have held poor management to account for decisions and blocked some of the outstandingly naive decisions made in the name of cost-cutting. The Hay report I would guess measures the experience of Hay professionals IN THEIR DEALINGS WITH THE HR FUNCTIONS of Universities, not with staff. Sure unions will have been on the panel, but usually resisting the twists put on gradings by management. I work in the first organisation I have ever worked in where managers talking to their staff at least once a year had to be imposed centrally, because managers were often NEVER appraising staff NEVER setting goals for staff NOT developing them NOT measuring time taken to do work and resources needed before planning, and gaguing performance on guesswork and rumour. The salaries of the people to blame? Over £55K. When this was discovered, and the extent to which it was a problem was revealed did managers get disciplined? No. Had the unions been pushing for better management practices for decades? Yes. Good management of unions is a great way to get direct and constructive feedback for improvement, but naive managers will use a confrontational approach (that in my institution includes lying classed as 'information I have sourced' to exaggerate union non-cooperation) and get a confrontational approach back.

"In fact it has been unions who have consistently pushed the sector to be more accountable on decision-making, that have held poor management to account for decisions and blocked some of the outstandingly naive decisions made in the name of cost-cutting." This is precisely why HR departments don't like unions. People in management want to do away with accountability - this is what "agility in decision-making" means, and it's what those stuffy old statutes, ordinances and governance requirements prevent (or do if anyone is able to enforce them). Poor governance and management is a huge problem in the HE sector, but HR departments are a major part of the problem, not the solution.

Really guys, don't you think this is just one of those filler articles because there isn't much else around. Some of it is consultants gibberish - "workload models", some of it is blindingly obvious - "lacking agility in decision making", and some of it just plain laughable - "how trade unions influence the business of Higher Education". What is most interesting is how you have all responded. Pretty negative views of HR in particular and management in general. I have to assume that this latter criticism includes academic staff as managers since they play a key role as Pro Vice Chancellors, Deans and Heads of Department. While some of you might find it difficult to believe, both the managers and the HR staff do work in the same institution as academic staff and, one would like to think, are working to the same objectives. But then again.....

Doesn't it make you wish for the time when the personnel department looked after the payroll? HR people are not academics. They know nothing about science or any other form of scholarship. Academic policy should not be their concern. It is not within their area of expertise. It is a classic case those who know not that they know not.

In the institution where I have worked for over 20 years I have seen the number of what was then personnel rise form 6 covering the whole university to 35 now it is HR ,meanwhile the number of academic ,useful adminstrative and technical saff has dropped.It seems that every time there is a restructuring it needs more HR staff and when it is all over. Well we had better keep them as there will be another restructuring round the corner!

For 'a fearful culture' read a refusal amongst people who can still think for themselves to bend to the will of the 'modernisers'.

Trades Unions in HE are weak and poorly run. They are incredibly ineffective at dealing with their members problems, and (apart from the annual boycott Israel row) are unable to capture the attention of many prospective members. This is important, because it is just the time that they are needed. I'm too busy embracing change and going open plan to worry about all of this! Fiat Lux, baby.

In part, HR's antiquated and hidebound recruitment processes are part of the problem. Their advertising methods have poor recruitment ‘reach’, their application forms are appalling, their selection methods crude, and the whole interview process is often primitive and "box-ticking".

What university HR departments don't seem to realise is that universities aren't businesses. They're not there to make a profit, they're there to provide HE and research at a price below realistic market levels, something the UK is particularly good at. And part of academics' payoff is the flexibilty and self-determination of our working practices. The system of charters, statutes, ordinances and regulations is there precisely to guard against short-term business-driven thinking.

Perhaps the HR Directors should ask themselves from what exactly "the trade unions" are holding the universities back. My own experience as Branch chair for eight or nine years is that HR is trying to turn us from a university into a degree (and now also research) factory. "Agility in decision-making" seems to be required because managers do not plan ahead and then try to make it up with little regard to contractual and practical constraints. The unions then become a pain in the proverbial because they try to keep managers within agreed limits - how dare they?

The fault is not with the trade unions but with universities' management culture and the ease with which VCs can be paid extortionate salaries. Yes, these people are academics but things have changed considerably, in particular student fees and expectations, since they were faced with preparation, delivery and responsibility for modules. Local branch committee members work extremely hard on top of their day jobs to try to get justice since common sense rarely plays a part with HR staff.

there is an argumentt to the effect that the trade union is a problem for hack managerialism? Don`t make me laugh...

The UCU branch at the former-poly I worked for seems to think that its main duty is to get academic staff doing as little as possible while retaining nice, permanent jobs. As a result, the "university" has the most undisciplined and unprofessional academic staff in the UK.

UCU and UCEA are as bad as each other, I wouldn't cross the street to piss on them if their hair was on fire. One lot thinks it's running Walmart, the other thinks it's refighting the Miners' Strike [and is somehow going to win this time]. Between the two, the notion of responsible professional autonomy is being ground to dust.

To post-92: How true what you say. The UCU is looking after themselves and they stand in the way of every reform.. Even in the troubled post-92s they contributed to their fair share for the problems they have now. To Dave: UCU is refighting the great strike and the miner strikes since then. They have shop stewards worse in terms of their character than any member of the management. Professionalism and responsibiilty are the last Characteritics they have.

I always thought that academics who criticise colleagues are the most unprofessional. The above comments confirm my profession's beliefs.

while it's not fair to tar all people working in HR with the same brush the views expresed in the leaked report are consistent with the advancement of its strategic interests as a professional group. similar views are expressed by university administrator groups, civil servants, business and industry, and politicians. their aims are quite simple and understandable because with all the cash sloshing around the HE sector they want a slice of it in order to strengthen their positions at the expense of others. the same thing happens in any sector, public or private. there are 2 main problem for academics. firstly, costs are not transparent and can easily be ratcheted up without much restraint. seeing that non-academics simply work to trouser the surplus. secondly, academics themselves. it's very easy for entryists to exploit the rather schoolboy/girlish academic rivalry and competitiveness in order to recruit individual academics to their projects. for example, if you're not research active then get in the teaching and learning business. in fact it's quite comical to see academics recruiting non-academic forces to maintain or improve their positions even if it is they who are in fact being recruited.

The offer presented to UCU members was not 0.5% but 0.3%, which worked out to £6 a month on my salary. It seems hardly worth spending time thinking about. Regardless of what we got in previous years - which was a mess-up on the employers side - none of us in UCU actually wanted a 3 year pay deal and we certainly didn't want an offer linked to RPI but it was forced upon us - we deserve fair pay progression that takes into account our professional position. Personally, if the amounts UCEA are willing to offer are so small, I would prefer a flat rate increase of say £70 per year for every member of staff, which works out to slightly less than £6 a month but would mean lower paid staff have a proportioanlly higher rate of increase.

Academics criticise everyone else under the sun. Why should their colleagues be exempt?

I don't know what the status of the Hay workshop was, but I would guess that it would be an occasion for a specific professional group to get a few things off their chests and do some mutual back-rubbing. A bit like an academic seminar, or a UCU sector conference. It would be interesting to see the document, though. Mostly what matters is whether or not people really give a shit - not whether they occasionally think in slogans, can be influenced by professional loyalties and attitudes, or sometimes get a bit detached from the facts. The wider the conversation, the more likely we are to be able to save the good ideas, and the good people, from the flights of fancy. The HE sector is in increasing disarray, and right now a lot of big noises that should know better are more interested in fighting over the carcass than in saving the patient. Current structures and attitudes allow cynical HR directors, institutional managers, and union officials to make careers out of dysfunctional confrontation. What is remarkable is not that some of them do this, but that not all of them do. Maybe some of these were at that workshop.

Post-Post-92:UCU are colleagues? Since when these elite shop stewards treated fellow academics as colleagues? They use academics as fodder for their political fight with the management. UCU and Management the twin villains.

Well, I think they're right - the universities are being held back by the unions, the academics, european law, all sorts. Go on, give them enough rope

This is exactly (I mean exactly) the kind of managerial babble we get 20,000km away, which makes me think the contents must be doing the think thank circuits. It doesn't make sense, but that's not the point. It's meant to build up momentum for certain interest groups the way this kind of nonsense always is—and it's worked. The article above discusses the HR report almost as if it's some kind of science. It's such a pity this is given the proverbial "seat at the table".

Of course, we shouldn't criticise our colleagues. They are perfect, always right, and we are all going to heaven.

We should not criticise our UCU shop stewards. They are first among equals any criticsim will deposit the poor academic in a crock infested swamp

It is disturbing to see that some individuals have a low opinion of the union movement. Granted, UCU has its problems but there is little doubt that they will be needed mightily in the coming days. U.K. HE is going to by caught in a grisly whirlwind courtesy of Chameleon Cameron and Weasal-brain Willets. Prepare for more cuts, more redundancies, more vicious power-lusty VCs, more stony-faced and mealy-mouthed HR people, more 'faculty managers' (read failed academics who love to spoil other people's parties), more competition from Lowest CD outfits (Willets has promised it), and more sidelining of real research that doesn't fit in with 'national priorities'. Bring on retirement.

I have to say that I do love my HR department. They have treated me with the utmost respect over the last ten years. They encouraged me to reduce my hours, organised my early retirement and even kindly arranged to calculate my salary reduction. They also made me see reason when I thought foolishly about talking to my union about what was happening to me. They showed me the error of my ways and how important it was to make way for the next generation. I spend most of my time now with my owl, kenneth, and do try to keep up with developments in my field.

To Brother Mchubbard: Is this UCU Brotherhood? It is people like you and your Brotherhood friends in the UCU are cameleons. If Cameron is elected and Willets arrive then grow up and come out of your bunker recognise that it is democratic mandate which you and UCU do not believe in. Strike action and go slow will see your sector reduced like the coal mining sector after that stupid strike. No one needs UCU and lefties like you who believe that taxpayers owe you a lot when you demand extortionist percentage pay rise. All academic staff should be given 2 years contracts at a time abolishing this permanency. I bet you are in a post-92 university where the Brotherhood- nod , nod and wink and wink prevails. Wake up , this is 2009 and not 1979 Winter of Discontent. Unions are anachronism

I detect the philistine style of one 'whippet the muppet' in the reply to my post.

Your name invokes the imagery of KKK and OPus Dei put together.

Hello to all, I have just come back from holiday to read all this; all the usual preoccupaitions are here. My experience is that HR allow and therefore encourage bullying and loutishness generally, in pursuit of big grant monies. They will do whatever it takes to defend their institution's accreditations. Of course they blame unions for "It All". It's a diversionary tactic. Of course we all get criticised for not "embracing change" - the change someone else wants; never mind whether things were broken or not and may not have needed fixing Unions for their part eventually give up defense of members who are victimised thoroughly and long enough; anything for a quiet life. [Try looking up the late Tim Field's website.] We all get the sectior we allow and therefore encourage. HR proliferate almost as fast as their polcies, and these are imposed only on one side. Their little favourites walk away laughing - I've seen it done. In an amoral age, there is no appeal to be made to these people, but lack of trust eventually kills excellence off. I feel sorry for anyone entering HE in any staff group now - except HR, who deserve all they get. Note: I sent this with my home email address.

No staff in their right mind should join a union. Unions muddy the water and are mostlt self-serving. Gone are the days of job for life. Short term contracts should be the norm.

All HR staff / union officials are cynically trying to gain the upper hand in order to protect their own interests. HR staff / union officials are only their to serve the interests of management/lefties...etc., etc. I've been a union rep and worked in HR, and most of the people I've worked with have been aiming for the same goal - trying to do their best for the institution. They have differing agendas and priorities, because these are set by two different groups (senior management or the unions members), but for the most part there is common ground. The problems arise when you have certain individuals on either side who are simply intrasigent. Sweeping generalisations may create a good topic for discussion, but they don't help anyone.

Dear Invented Divide (at least I gave my first name), I have seen HR's own policies broken. It's oh so clever to dub that a sweeping generalisation - but only if one refuses to admit that specifics of cases can never be quoted Whenever I have asked for statements of principle, I was told HR could not be "theoretical"; if I changed tack, I was told I could not discuss actual cases - a classic institution Catch 22. Dear anonymous, Yes; you're quite right. Anyone wanting to join a union should be shot; want to fire the gun?

Sounds like classic marxism to me. As the world economy sinks into recession, and profits decline, the solution is to increase the rate of exploitation, and the unions are an obstacle to achieving this. Universities see themselves as degree factories, and the corporate managements will try the same methods as in other industries. Nice topic for a student essay!

To Geoff: Since when the unions opposed universities as degree factories. They know hese degree factories bring more students and staff. The staff are pestered to join the union in the nmae of fighting for their rights, but in reality are fodder and unions are for self-preservation.

I am a member of the Union, joined 2 years as soon as I got a job as a lecturer because 1) it is a very precious civil right to be able to join the union, denied to many people in other countries 2) I trust - and pay - the Union for defending my rights and pay. I would like to say that nobody pestered me to join, it is quite dishonest to suggest this, and nobody else was pestered in my department, as academics- sometime- have brains. What I witnessed in the last 2 years are HR people playing disgusting bureacrats, useless in the least, and UCU members doing a lot of voluntary and generous unpaid jobs, also on my behalf and for my advantage, despite having to deal with an extremely demanding job. I would cut certainly the working time of HR people without a pay cut though - it would be a net gain for the universities. That would leave them with less time to think at ways of pestering academics. On my part, tired of doing 2 jobs at the price of 1- teaching and research - and of increased pay offers of 0.5%, I am quitting the job, and going where rights of workers, flexibility, the right to some rest, life-working balance are substance and not empty words - thanks to the militant boycott of various HR departments all over the UK. Long live to the Bank Holiday!!!

To claire. Union defended individual rights, Ha, Ha, Ha.... "I am quitting the job, and going where rights of workers, flexibility, the right to some rest, life-working balance are substance and not empty words - thanks to the militant boycott of various HR departments all over the UK. Long live to the Bank Holiday!!" Where is this paradise. Militant boycott, Che Guevera's vocabulary. May be you need a holiday in Cuba.