The management of King’s College London are very proud of their Institute of Psychiatry. As their literature boasts, the School “has an outstanding international reputation in the field of research and in the most recent HEFCE Research Assessment Exercise (2001) was awarded the highest (5*) rating.” Not only that, “[t]he Institute has approximately 550 students and 900 staff and has an annual turnover of approximately £63 million.”[1] So not short of a bob or two then.
Wage slavery? Not any more!
The management of King’s College London are very proud of their Institute of Psychiatry. As their literature boasts, the School “has an outstanding international reputation in the field of research and in the most recent HEFCE Research Assessment Exercise (2001) was awarded the highest (5*) rating.” Not only that, “[t]he Institute has approximately 550 students and 900 staff and has an annual turnover of approximately £63 million.”[1] So not short of a bob or two then.
Workers across all industries are feeling the squeeze as the bosses try to pass on the costs of the recession to them. Some workers are getting below-inflation pay-rises. Others are getting no pay-rise at all. However, most would take for-granted that, if they remain in work, they will be paid something for their labour. Hence my astonishment when shown an application form by a contact of mine in the UCU for a rather unusual post.
The application form begins by giving some details of the post:
“The aim of the programme is to assess the natural course of physical health and substance use in early onset psychosis and to develop programmes to achieve better physical and mental health in people with severe mental illness by improving lifestyle choices and decreasing illicit drug use.
“The post-holder will assist in running a cohort study measuring physical health, mental health and substance use prospectively in people experiencing their first episode of psychosis. In doing this s/he will be part of a team of research psychologists and will work closely with the programme management team which includes academic, psychiatry, psychology, nursing, health economics, statistics and service user representatives.”
So far, so good.
The Duties and responsibilities section of the application form informs the applicant that she or he will have to take responsibility for “[l]iais[ing] with community, ward and management teams to integrate the research within clinical services”, “[c]arry[ing] out the recruitment and follow-up of patients/service users”, “[c]ollaborat[ing] on preparation of papers”, and “[u]ndertak[ing] necessary training for research activities”, amongst other things. This impressive range of responsibilities is matched by the impressive list of required qualifications, including a Behavioural sciences degree to Masters level (they prefer the applicant to have a PhD, relevant clinical qualifications and scientific papers published in journals).
So, what sort of salary could such a well-qualified and experienced candidate command? Well, none actually. The post is voluntary! The college ‘generously’ offers to reimburse expenses!
Universities as businesses
This job advertisement raises a number of wider issues across higher education, the first of which is the extent to which universities are now intimately linked with big business, and even run as businesses. To begin with, businesses are gaining increasing control over university policy and even the curricula taught in universities. In a letter published in the Guardian in 2008, UCU General Secretary Sally Hunt attacks the “raft of market-based approaches to higher education funding and policy” that “is changing the university experience from one where students are encouraged to learn, to one where they are encouraged to cough up and get out the other side as quickly as possible”[2]. This was in response to government plans, reported in the Times, to “forge stronger links between higher education and industry”, meaning “[b]usinesses will be expected to work with universities to design new vocational degree courses”[3].
More disturbing still is the massive level of ‘investment’ universities make in the private sector, particularly the arms industry. The Campaign Against the Arms Trade and Study War No More surveyed the investment in arms companies by Britain’s leading universities. Their findings were interesting:
· “Our research found that between 2001 and 2006, more than 1,900 military projects were conducted in the 26 UK universities covered by the report.
· “In terms of income to these universities, we have estimated the total value of these projects to be a minimum of £725 million.
· “Out of the 26 UK universities, those conducting the largest number of military projects were, in descending rank order: Cambridge, Loughborough, Oxford, Southampton and University College, London.
· “Three powerful multinational companies were involved as the sponsors/ partners of over two-thirds of identified military projects: Rolls Royce, BAE Systems and QinetiQ.
· “The UK government’s military research establishment – including Ministry of Defence (MoD), Defence Science Technology Laboratory (Dstl), Defence Evaluation Research Agency (DERA) and Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) – was involved in a quarter of all military projects at the 26 UK universities.
· “Over half of all military projects are conducted in university engineering departments, with the rest spread over other science and technology departments.”[4]
According to CAAT, the University of Cambridge holds shares directly or indirectly in arms companies[5]. Churchill College has invested £223,600 in BAE Systems and £142,820 in Cobham; Darwin College has invested £115,004 in BAE Systems, £83,880 in GKN and £139,075 in Rolls Royce; Downing College has invested £85,870 in BAE Systems. Unsurprisingly, many of the colleges were unwilling to disclose this information. Even leaving aside arms investments, private investment by universities is massive. St. John’s College alone has an investment portfolio worth £335.4m, and Trinity College’s portfolio is worth a staggering £859m.
In the Yorkshire region, the University of Leeds invests £58m of its money into private companies (although apparently none of this is into arms companies); Leeds Metropolitan University invests £14m; Sheffield University invests £35.8m (including £255,400 into Cobham, £135,177 into Rolls Royce and £34,288 into General Electric); the universities of Bradford and Huddersfield invest £4m and £2.3m respectively; Sheffield Hallam and Hull invest £18m and £6.5m respectively (though none of it directly into arms companies); the University of York invests a whopping £330m via its pension scheme (including £713,803 into BAE Systems and £283,539 into Rolls Royce).
As well as investing into existing multinationals, most major universities push to ‘spin out’ research groups and projects into private companies. IP Group PLC exists to “creat[e]… value for its shareholders and partners through the commercialisation of intellectual property originating from research intensive institutions”[6] According to the company’s website, during 2008 “[o]ver £55m of capital [was] raised by portfolio companies during the year, of which over £30m was raised in private financing rounds”, including a “[l]andmark $18m investment from major US corporate into Oxford Nanopore Technologies, the Group’s largest holding”. Even in a recession, there is profit to be made in privatising research groups and commercialising research. Incidentally, the academics who develop the research rarely become owners of the intellectual property rights under such schemes, and usually receive only a small cut of the profits, the rest going to the universities and the ‘business’ people they bring in to run these new enterprises.
With all of these commercial pressures, it isn’t difficult to see why universities behave more and more like private companies, screwing their staff down to the lowest possible pay (which, in this case, equals no pay at all!). Universities invest capital just as if they were multinational corporations, and spin out their research into profitable ventures. They raise money for all of this partly by attacking the pay and conditions of their staff.
Exploiting the ambition of young workers
One common feature of all ‘professions’ is the potential to exploit the willingness of young (and not-so-young) workers to ‘get on’. Eager to impress a superior, it is common for a young employee to work many more hours than s/he is paid for, ‘going that extra mile’ to leave a good impression in the hope of securing career progression. Young professionals are also encouraged to view their employment in terms of ‘it will look good on my CV’, and consequently poor wages and long hours become an acceptable price to pay for gaining ‘experience’. Many private companies provide unpaid internships for students and even new graduates. These interns are expected to perform a job of work like any other employee, minus the salary. But they should be grateful for the experience! King’s College goes a step further, however, by foisting this unacceptable exploitation on older, better qualified workers.
This episode also throws into sharp relief the hollowness of the propaganda young people are subjected to. As one young enough to remember school and university reasonably clearly, I remember learning the importance of being ‘flexible’ and having ‘a diverse skill set’. Unions were old-hat: all you needed was the right skills, drive and work-ethic to secure yourself a well-paid future of workplace bliss. Young people who have followed an academic path, or embarked on a career in a ‘profession’ (IT, finance, engineering, etc.), will recognise this ‘advice’. Well, the highly-skilled, experienced, hard-working applicant for this post is rewarded with a big fat zero. So much for not needing unions…
Trade union issue
A serious trade-union issue is at stake here. Not to mention the absurdity of expecting someone to do a job of work without being paid, the university is blatantly undermining the existing staff by ‘employing’ someone on the team without paying them. Who’s to say the new employee’s colleagues won’t see their pay-scale ‘restructured’, resulting in lower salaries or worse conditions? “Well, if you don’t like it, we could always replace you with volunteers…” This insidious practice of using the exploitation of one section of the workforce to attack the conditions of another must be fought.
British academia has the advantage of the presence of a trade union. According to its website, “UCU is the largest trade union and professional association for academics, lecturers, trainers, researchers and academic-related staff working in further and higher education throughout the UK.”[7]. Whereas the union has attracted unwelcome attention for some high-profile and pointless gesture politics[8], there is serious work to be done here. As a basic minimum, the union should refuse to accept these ‘voluntary’ posts (for there is no reason to believe this is an isolated case), and indeed any post outside the negotiated pay arrangements. If the universities involved refuse to remove the posts or replace them with paid ones, industrial action must be called, including strike action if necessary, with the full backing of the union nationally.
On the wider issues, the union must as a minimum campaign against investment in arms companies by universities, and demand the universities make their investment portfolios public. The campaign must be backed up with action, as a start non-cooperation with military projects. Education is being sold out for commercial gain, and the UCU must be at the forefront of the resistance.
References
[1] http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/vacancies/downloads/1353.pdf
[2] http://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=3214
[3] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article3751612.ece
[4] http://www.studywarnomore.org.uk/data.html
[5] http://www.caat.org.uk/campaigns/universities/data/cambridge.php
[6] http://www.ipgroupplc.com/ipo/
[7] http://www.ucu.org.uk/
[8] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6705131.stm
