Work of the PAY FORUM and STEERING GROUP
at Goldsmiths College

Paper drawn up and presented to the FORUM
by Goldsmiths Association of University Teachers (GAUT)



Framework and the Local Scene   Practicalities   Learning from Others    Key Propositions

    Setting the scene

  1. The financial condition of the British Higher Education (HE) system is parlous. Between 1989 and 1997 funding per HE student fell by over a third (36%); teaching salaries depreciated by 40% and the investment backlog in the HE sector rose to over £5 billion. A change of government in 1997 led to a modest rise in spending on the sector but student numbers also continued to rise. The result has been little or no progress in abating the financial crisis afflicting most - if not all - UK HE institutions. Goldsmiths, a relative late comer to the HE top table, lacks endowment funds (or their like) and is particularly hard pressed financially. GAUT recognises that the financial fundamentals throughout the sector - and especially at Goldsmiths – are deeply worrying for students, academic staff and all those who support academic endeavour.

  2. Despite the fact that the British HE system advanced from being an elite system in the 1960s to a mass education system (and arguably Britain’s most successful export) by the mid 1990s, funding has failed to keep up.In 2000 UK spending on tertiary education as a whole was just 1% of GDP; the OECD average was 1.7% while the US figure was 2.7%.  Britain has an impoverished HE system – when judged by any sensible international measure – and its HE system rewards staff (both academic and non-academic) poorly. 

  3. All those who are committed to the future of Britain’s HE system know that the agreement arrived at between the Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) and the AUT earlier this year can only serve as a temporary and unsatisfactory sticking plaster for poor HE pay and inadequate funding. This statement reflects the fact that HE budgets in Britain are falling further and further behind the amounts needed to attract, retain and motivate university staff in what are increasingly competitive regional, national and international labour markets.  Substantial additional funds are essential if Britain’s universities are to be equipped to preserve let alone build on the excellence they have achieved in both teaching and research. University of London Goldsmiths College is facing even greater financial challenges than many competitor institutions because it has to meet especially high UK costs – pre-eminently staff costs – because of its geographical location

    4. Framework agreement and the local scene

  4. In April this year AUT members voted to accept a pay deal based on a national Framework Agreement (FA) for British universities, a staged pay increase and a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on the implementation of the FA and the pay increases linked to it. The MoU was decisive in breaking a log jam that had built up, during lengthy and often frustrating negotiations, over the implementation of a common grading scheme and a common pay spine for pre and post 1992 HE institutions. The MoU established clear principles – accepted by both UCEA (Universities and Colleges Employers Association) and AUT. The principles have now been incorporated in the initial paper tabled, modified and accepted here at Goldsmiths College by the whole of the membership of the College’s Pay Forum as a basis for the local implementation of the FA. It is important to spell out the principles:
    1. Contribution thresholds in the pay scales for academic and academic-related staff are to be set no lower than the present non-discretionary maxima for equivalent grades.
    2. Academic and academic related staff will have a normal expectation of progression to the contribution threshold for their grade.
    3. Incremental progression to the contribution threshold will take no longer than under current equivalent arrangements.

    The Importance of the Memorandum of Understanding

  5. GAUT believes that it should be clear to all concerned that the MoU makes no sense unless it is linked directly to a grading model. GAUT regards it as fundamental, for the successful implementation of the FA at Goldsmiths, that all staff can rest assured, before detailed talks to implement the new pay scheme begin, that there is a shared understanding of the grading model to be used. If staff lack a clear notion of how grades relate to the agreed national pay spine they will be ‘buying’ what can only be described as a ‘pig in a poke’. However, it needs to be stressed that GAUT accepts that agreeing a grading model for Goldsmiths is not the same as determining precisely how a given individual/post/role will be placed within it.

    6. Grading Models

  6. The new national pay spine has 51 points onto which 5 grades have been mapped for academic and academic related staff. This is the case for both the FA commended grading model and the AUT grading model. The AUT’s preferred grading model locates the minimum pay point for the least well paid academic and academic related staff members at scale point 27. The non-discretionary maxima for grade one staff (this includes AC1 and some RA and ALC & OR staff), under the AUT grading model, is set at spine point 32. The non-discretionary maxima for grade two staff (staff currently described by such labels as Lecturer A and certain RA and ALC & OR staff) is set at spine point 36, with the starting point for this grade being spine point 33. The minima and non-discretionary maxima for staff in grade three (covering Lecturer B, RII and ALC & OR3) are set at spine point 37 and spine point 43. For staff at grade 4 (AC4, RIII and ALC & OR5) the minima and non discretionary maxima are respectively 45 and 49. The minima for grade 5 (ALC6 and professorial) staff is set at spine point 50.top

    7. Agreement on Need for Pay Improvement

  7. AUT and UCEA agreed the Framework for pay modernisation on the understanding that it would provide a platform for the long term improvement of salaries across the HE sector in order to address the historic decline in the relative value of the earnings of staff employed in the sector. It would therefore make no sense for our members to agree to a process that could result in a reduction (albeit after a period of pay protection) in the generality of academic and academic-related salaries. Such an outcome is surely unthinkable and wholly undesirable.

    8. Equal Pay for Equal Work

  8. Nevertheless it is widely recognised - and it is certainly accepted by AUT members - that there are anomalies and serious inequities in the payment of university staff and that these can and should be identified and corrected. Because of this GAUT accepts that a very important part of the FA is the establishment of a strong and effective partnership between HE unions (including the AUT) and university employers. We are committed to the introduction of equal pay for work of equal value throughout the HE sector. GAUT is committed to doing its best to help make a mutually acceptable process for job evaluation and role analysis work at Goldsmiths. We understand the employer’s preferred approach to job evaluation and role analysis relies upon the use of the Higher Education Roles Analysis, otherwise known as HERA. GAUT has accepted the advice of expert staff based at AUT’s national HQ; they have informed us that, wherever and whenever possible, HERA – which entails use of a methodology that is broadly acceptable to AUT - should be used in conjunction with national role profiles.

    9. Practicalities of Job Evaluation

  9. At Goldsmiths it is our understanding that there is a genuine desire, wherever possible, to adopt a ‘light touch approach’ to job evaluation and role analysis  in order to make it possible to move as quickly as we can to full assimilation of existing posts to a new grading structure that is consistent with the FA and MoU. While speed is of the essence GAUT wants to make it clear that it accepts that the process must be and must be seen to be fair, so that unjustified and anomalous pay differentials are identified and can be corrected.

  10. Several GAUT members have said that they are prepared to become personally involved in the process of job evaluation and role analysis (providing agreement can be reached on
    (i) a practicable timetable
    (ii) adequate staff preparation and
    (iiii) funding for the work entailed.
    GAUT members have already been undergoing training in preparation for the use of HERA at Goldsmiths. Discussions about the precise arrangements for compensating individuals, who invest their time in the work of the Pay Forum/Pay Steering Group and in the implementation of HERA, as well as their departments, have begun. GAUT believes that it will be necessary to compensate departments within College, that need to find replacements for staff members who are seconded/involved in HERA and the implementation of the FA; GAUT is keen to see such work proceed rapidly. GAUT is particularly keen to resolve all outstanding issues to do with facilities time and secondment and believes that specific time limited secondments may offer the best way forward, when deciding how to meet the knock on costs of involving staff from outside of the Personnel Department in role analyses.

  11. It is clear that the work entailed in applying HERA will be substantial. One estimate, currently being discussed by GAUT Executive members, assumes that up to 100 role analysis interviews will be required involving a commitment of at least 4 hours per interview. Assuming at least two role analysts are required for each HERA interview (one to conduct the interview and the other to write it up) the commitment of time and effort across the College will be substantial. Assuming four two person teams are used it will be necessary to organise and support at least 800 hours of staff activity in addition to 200 hours of staff time on the part of interviewees (more than 24 person weeks in total) to complete a likely schedule of HERA role assessments at Goldsmiths. There is no escaping the conclusion that the opportunity costs for Goldsmiths of using HERA will be considerable. GAUT doubts that it will be possible to analyse up to 100 benchmark roles in just three months and believes that it is imperative to discuss, in detail and as soon as practicable, the timetable as well as the scale of human resources that the College’s Personnel Department and the Pay Forum/Steering Group envisages using in order to undertake what should be regarded as mission critical HERA work.top

    12. London Weighting

  12. Progress, at Goldsmiths, in reaching agreement on the local implementation of the FA has been limited to date. One of the principal reasons for this lack of progress has been a collective failure to make headway in relation to the dispute over London weighting. Modernisation of London weighting has provoked a good deal of resistance at Goldsmiths. Other London institutions have been able to move forward – if only very modestly. All members of the Forum should be aware that as long ago as 1999 the Bett Report recognised that:

    13. “The significantly higher costs of living and working in the capital will affect recruitment and retention if staff employed at universities and HE colleges in London are not paid a premium broadly equivalent to that offered by other employers.”

  13. The sense of unfairness expressed by many staff at Goldsmiths at not having had a LW increase in more than ten years has been exacerbated by developments at post-92 institutions in London and at a substantial number of pre-92 institutions (with which Goldsmiths normally seeks to compare itself). GAUT believes that it essential for Goldsmiths College – at the very least - to find a way of matching improvements in the LWA paid at institutions with which it wishes to compare itself.

    14. Learning from others

  14. Goldsmiths is a relatively small institution and GAUT urges all participants in the Pay Forum/Steering Group to avoid, whenever and wherever possible, reinventing the wheel. While we appreciate that each set of institutional circumstances are special and possibly unique there is a substantial amount of information available from other institutions about how best to develop and proceed with the partnership approach that the FA and MoU undoubtedly calls for. We should commit ourselves to learning from others and adapting successful strategies for implementing the FA and applying the MoU to local circumstances.

  15. Some of the wisdom, knowledge and experience accessible to us is available through UCEA. UCEA agreed - in the course of work on the FA - that any institution developing role profiles, including profiles for academic-related staff, could contribute to the role profiles library which it maintains. UCEA has undertaken specifically to serve as a clearing house, not only for information about the defining characteristics of academic roles but also the roles of senior administrative, library and computing staff. It would be foolish not to take advantage of this national role profiles library, providing it is suitably indexed and referenced to job grade and function. It could be of considerable assistance in illuminating and supporting our local use of HERA, in selecting roles for benchmarking and in the process of negotiating and implementing FA grading arrangements in a timely fashion.

  16. We understand that the School of Pharmacy, a relatively small institution like Goldsmiths, has accepted the AUT’s preferred grading model and agreed to backdate increases in pay (linked to the new grading structure it adopted in August, 2004). It would be helpful to know what the key factors have been, assuming our information is correct, in enabling the School to move quickly – by the standards of other institutions – to deliver the FA.

  17. We understand that Bristol University has decided, as part of its FA implementation plans, to dispense with use of the Lecturer A job title and make the current Senior Lecturer grade a normal career expectation for lecturers. Progression from Lecturer B to SL will rest on satisfactory performance, rather than success in a competition for a limited number of SL posts. Bristol’s decision to reduce the number of academic grades will almost certainly be of great interest to staff at Goldsmiths but it is also something that is likely to have significant financial ramifications. It is hard, for that reason, to believe that it would not be in our collective interests to investigate the decision making process at Bristol along with the financial implications of adopting such a policy at Goldsmiths.

  18. The Open University appears to have arrived at an early agreement on job evaluation (JE) and on launching the JE process itself. The OU has decided to use HERA, the same JE scheme that is likely to be adopted Goldsmiths. It may well be helpful to us – if it has not already been done - to find out what level of investment of staff time and institutional resources have been required to operate HERA at the OU and to seek information about the OU’s use of HERA to date.

  19. Other institutions that have made significant progress using the partnership approach – one of these is the University of Loughborough . Loughborough has already moved its staff to a common pay spine – based on the single national pay spine commended as part of the FA. The common pay spine was adopted by Loughborough on August 1st this year. Its adoption at Loughborough appears to be compatible with the financial health of the institution. Interestingly Loughborough has decided to add two discretionary points to the common pay spine so that it can increase rewards to senior academic staff (Readers) -points 52 and 53.
    Some academic and academic-related staff at Loughboroug(depending on the incremental point they had arrived at in 2003/04) received a double increment in order to satisfy the requirements of the MoU. Given that the MoU has been accepted at Goldsmiths the College may be well advised to examine what has been done at Loughborough so that it can identify the circumstances under which existing staff might attract a double increment in moving to a common pay spine complying with the MoU.top

    20. Key propositions and central issues

  20. GAUT believes that there is a great deal of common ground between senior managers and staff working within the HE sector. In order to make a success of the College’s mission – which is to add to and transmit knowledge and culture - the College needs to make the most of its key assets: teachers and researchers and all the other staff who support academic endeavour.  Pay and promotion should reflect the contribution that staff members make to the achieving the College’s goals. There is general agreement that salaries are comparatively low and opportunities for promotion relatively limited.

  21. We believe that the AUT grading model offers the most straightforward way of satisfying the requirements of the FA and the MoU and that it will provide a secure foundation for a pay system that fairly and accurately rewards staff at Goldsmiths College. The grading model is consistent with and can accommodate widely accepted generic role profiles, role profiles for academic and academic-related staff that are reflected in evaluation schemes such as HERA. HERA is intended to capture shared notions of value, contribution and responsibility in a university environment. Confidence in HERA is dependent on staff having confidence in the way in which HERA evaluations are conducted and then reflected in grades and pay. The AUT grading model – taken together with the use of HERA – is consistent with an approach to promotion and the use of discretionary pay increments that is transparent and can take account of performance. The two, taken together, should make it a good deal easier to show the relationship between rewards and contributions, within an existing grade, and increases in pay that follow from promotion to a higher grade.

  22. GAUT attaches particular importance to reaching agreement on a grading structure in advance of detailed work on roles and job families within College. We believe that the process of implementing the FA will be assisted by the use of generic role profiles for both academic and academic-related staff (this includes drawing upon work undertaken at Leeds University). We support the establishment of a Steering Committee to oversee the process at Goldsmiths and are committed to playing a full part in the implementation of the FA. We appreciate that this will require training and a significant commitment of time.

  23. Although we hope the process will proceed smoothly and without dispute we think it would be sensible to anticipate some conflict and disagreements. We therefore recognise the need to invest in a rigorous appeals system that can review disputes over the grading of roles and the assignment of individual members of staff to particular grades.

  24. We recognise that the FA will be judged a failure if it doesn’t lead, within a short space of time, to a system of financial rewards that is more comprehensible and transparent than the present one. We also recognise that it will not be good enough for the Forum/Steering Group to simply meet regularly to discuss the FA. The Forum/Group will need to be able to point to specific achievements and agreements. The Pay Forum/Steering Group should set itself the goal of being able to announce (a) agreement on the adoption of a specific job evaluation scheme and the steps needed to implement it, (b) adoption of a grading model, and (c) a firm timetable for implementation of the FA at Goldsmiths before Christmas 2004. top
GAUT/ER/PB/301004