"Horse whipping cart... cart pushing man...

'Project Focus'

I like the Dutch band Focus. Their 1971 album Focus II is a bit of a classic. As I yodelled my way through  'Sylvia' off their eponymous third opus, I pondered over the most recent nom de possible sackings as reported in the Manchester Evening News and the Times Higher, I made a corporate decision. As the contents of the document are in the public domain, I concurred with me that it's most definitely in the public interest that a chap publishes this document in its entirety. Staff, students and the public have a right to know.

Oh dear...

Project Axeroom?

UCU regional official Martyn Moss is quoted as saying that:

“The University of Salford already has the unenviable tag as Britain’s most prolific university for axing staff...  This damaging memo paints the university in a callous and uncaring light. It appears to have no regard for either its hardworking [sic] staff or students making potentially the biggest decisions of their lives. We are really disappointed the university has ignored the unions and pursued such a damaging approach.”

Tu t'es fait virer, toi? 

The article in the Times Higher goes on to quote a section of the document:

"Under a heading of risk, the document says of the unions: “Strike action a high possibility. Will certainly fan the flames via the media.”

The question has to be asked, is the above a realistic appraisal? Is strike action up there in the gods in the list of possibilities? Let's consider the evidence. The THE reports that this is the TWELFTH round of job cuts in eighteen months. Now according to my GCSE in maths and some corner-of-penis calculations, the Salford branch of the UCU has engaged in ONE day of strike action in response to this local 'jobs slaughter' over the last EIGHTEEN months. It's an encouraging start. I decided to develop my mathematical skill set further. Could the the prospect of Ms Sheehy leading 'the troops' over the barricades be easily increased by a ratio of 2:1 thereby inversely raising the disproportionately of lacklustre strike action from 0.055 (1/18) of a day of strike action for a single month to the almost unheard of heights of 0.111(2/18) to two days in eighteen months? Moreover, did my calculations and the threat of another SINGULAR day of strike action have the potential to imbue across seignorial gussets the human equivalent of 'dog bottom' or at least 'leafy Autumn camouflage'? I wasn't sure.

Will Hall's Saxon shield wall
hold or will he resign?

The cloth according to cutly

The previous Graves-Hall strategy of improving the student experience by spending vast sums on new prestigious buildings is clearly not having the desired outcome. Having been a student and knocked around with many thousands of them at Salford in the past, as well as having taught a good few, when asked what they want, the standard reply was smaller lecture groups, smaller tuition groups, investment in better libraries including more staff and more books. They'd also make the outrageous demand for more one-on-one time between tutors and students. I don't recall a single student ever saying to me "Duke you hair-faced buffoon, we clearly need more quality one-on-one time with consultants, a fully stocked wet room for senior managers, and regular refits of the Ole Fire station with concomitant chauffeur-driven cars." It's not rocket science.

We do have victories sometimes you know?

Sometimes it appears that your employer has all the cards stacked in his favour. When a group of workers face bullying and the threat of redundancies as well as having the Angel of D'eath pass regularly over their thresholds, it can be rather demoralising. It can readily imbue within a group of workers the idea that their bosses are hegemonic and that they'll always win. I mused for the moment on the manner in which I had without any support whatsoever from my own union, fought back over three long years against Hall, Graves* and the Chair of University Council Alan Mawson. Between them, according to a report in the Manchester Evening News, they decided to bypass the University Council and launch an expensive libel action using University money, 'something the institution now accepts was wrong'. It was expensive, costing somewhere in the region of £150,000 to stifle criticism of er... Hall and Graves. The strategy of filling lawyers mouths with gold (caution libel lawyers it's meant to be an euphemism) and choosing the terrain of England's libel courts to mount their attack disastrously backfired. Their ill-conceived and ill-advised case was thrown out at a preliminary stage by possibly the most eminent libel judge in the country. They had no case. In short I won.

The thinking chap

But the above got me to thinking, which as regular readers of this blog will know is nearly always a bad thing. Firstly, will Hall, Graves and Mawson now reimburse the money they spent on their libel claim to the University prior to announcing further job cuts?  And lastly, if I could beat them, surely a well-funded union branch at Salford could rally its members to give Hall et al another bloody nose? They could firstly refuse to negotiate about any matter to do with jobs or anything else with Executive Head of HR Keith Watkinson. They could do this because he admitted that he made up allegations that I had sexually harassed and criminally stalked a female member of staff, to gain access to my work computer, emails and file store in 2009. He admitted he did this on oath in my employment tribunal in 2011. It's not the sort of behaviour we should expect from someone negotiating over peoples' jobs and futures. The President of the UCU has had this information for some time yet has, as far as I'm aware, not acted upon it. Apart from a disciplinary investigation to be initiated by Hall against Watkinson over this serious matter, I still await a full apology from Martin Hall for Watkinson's libel against me and the stress it caused my family and myself. Hall should do the honourable thing. He should resign.

Apologise for  alleging you're a sexual harasser and criminal
stalker and therefore damaging your reputation?
Never you vile cur!

A glimmer of hope?

Feeling optimistic, I read the invitation to UCU members to attend the 'Protect the Front Line' meeting scheduled for 8th May 2013 at 12:45. Yes, the email appeared steep'd in the heady aplomb more usually associated with a car factory in the West Midlands in the 1970s. It reeked of confidence. Even the most demure statistical obscurantist with a penchant for underestimation would feel the need to lay out at least £12.99 on a bottle of Aldi's bubble-imbued finest as the UCU begin at last their long campaign to roll back the "damaging approach" of the University.

What did it for me was the heavy irony that permeated the final sentence: 'A light lunch will be provided'. I breathed a sigh of relief, content that my union and jobs of many former colleagues were in safe hands.

Notes and Resources

* Where is Dr Graves now? If any person wishes to further a cause and provide any evidence as to the whereabouts and details surrounding Dr Graves continuing lack of presence at the University of Salford, please feel free to send to the email address below. As usual, all sources of information (names) will be treated in the strictest confidence.

Author's request: If Martin Hall would like to supply this author with his revised Strategic Vision or Strategic Plan, we'd be happy to explore it over the coming weeks in the lead up to the 'controversial announcement' on June 5th. 

Author's second request: If Martin Hall would like to supply an apology for the actions and defamatory allegations made by Keith Watkinson, I'd be more than happy to publish such apology on this blog!

Usual disclaimer: This work is and expression of opinion on a matter of public interest and contains the opinions of the author. It is intended to report current events that are of public interest and public concern. The reproduction and use of any documents, photos and video images herein is to provide humour and accuracy in order to avoid civil litigation and claims of misquoting. In reporting current events they are used within the context of Fair Dealing or Fair Use. The author is happy to provide further acknowledgement if requested (email below). The author also suggests that before embarking upon expensive civil actions for libel, contact the author. We have reams of documentary evidence which we are happy to provide. A right of reply also operates. We are also happy to make corrections and if necessary provide an apology. Email garypaulduke@gmail.com

Circle... square... square... circle...

On the tenth reading, it still left me feeling a little befuddled. It definitely said at the top of the webpage "Against the Cuts". Which cuts was he referring to I wondered? Could it be that he supports the job cuts at the University of Salford - Manchester yet doesn't support the job cuts? I could only liken the emergent paradox to that experienced by a dysphasic transporter operative on the USS Enterprise who's trying to explain to a justifiably pissed off Captain Picard, that a dodgy Romulan cloaking device is responsible for the disappearance of Geordie La Forge and Ensign Ro, not his sweaty business finger.

Textual analysis

I like Martin Hall's blog. It's always fascinating and full of interesting detail. But this week it seemed to be missing something. I'd concentrated my efforts on distilling from the text a single reference to the UCU Salford's ballot for industrial action against mass job losses. I couldn't find it but I put that down to the antiquated pince-nez perched forlornly on the end of my nose. A thought crossed my mind. Was he attempting to square a circle, which I find has the potential to be quite a dangerous manoeuvre, especially if one is prone to inguinal hernias. The evidence would suggest that he's publicly supportive of students in their 'Carnival Against Cuts'  protest last week against the cuts he's imposing. Will he, I wondered, support the trade union initiated anti-cuts strike action as publicly? I also wondered would he show his support by refusing to cross staff picket lines? Moreover, would he and Adrian Graves jog that extra mile and make a small sizeable contribution to the UCU hardship fund? Would he then join the pickets outside the Maxwell Building with acoustic guitar in hand for a few rousing choruses of Kumbaya? If so, can I film it?

Guff and nonsense

Like the Salford UCU, I also thought it apposite to try and de-link some of Hall's discourse from the guff that's doing the rounds on the BBC news and among the pro-market politicians of all hues about the inevitability of cuts. I'm quite interested in political economy which makes me interested in the global economic crisis that's engulfed most of the major Western economies since 2007-08. It's worth bearing in mind that a softening-up process has been going on for years in the press and media with all the talk of a 'rapidly ageing population', 'unaffordable gold-plated public sector pensions' etc.

The establishment would have us believe that our excessive demands for publicly funded health and welfare systems are the cause of this crisis and not the financial and banking system that encouraged personal debt levels to climb to the historically high levels in order to provide demand for consumer goods. The seeds of this process were sown in the 1980s under the Thatcher and Reagan governments. The shift towards debt as a means of financing the expansion of capitalism (based upon mass consumption of consumer goods), was hung on a large coat hook of depressed wage levels in the US and the UK. In the eyes of the new paradigmatics, credit (including mortgages) was the preferred mechanism in providing workers with an almost perpetual advance against future earnings. Since then, capitalism has in effect tried to have it both ways: to keep wage levels low to claim a larger share of the surplus workers produce, and to create a dependency on debt among workers to supplement low wages and provide a consumer base for this section of capitalism to expand and make massive profits. But like my monthly credit card bill, at some stage debt has to be repaid. Capitalism had made no provision for this, placing its faith in climbing property prices/values to provide a cushion for any immediate economic crisis in this sector. It hasn't worked.

An historical crisis with deep roots

Karpo Marx reciting Kapital
by karmonica to friends

The crisis we're experiencing today is not new but a continuation of the original 2007 crisis which in itself is far more deeply rooted in what Karl Marx saw as the tendency over time, of the rate of profit to fall over the entire system which we'll save for another blog. Capitalism cannot create a new bubble of consumer frenzy driven by debt as this is what brought this current prolonged crisis to a head. It's response is rather of a traditionalist hue: to depress wages, working conditions, protective legislation, create a 'reserve army of unemployed' and in the process depress wages further. Another way of guaranteeing profitability is to hive off public sector services to the private sector. More usually this is achieved through outsourcing where public taxes are used to provide guaranteed profits for middle-men type companies who act as intermediaries. These companies provide no direct services but take a large slice of public monies, bringing in third parties to supply services undercutting the public sector. It's what's known in the trade as a 'race to the bottom' as workers rights are trampled on. It's a veritable feeding frenzy for those successful 'bidders'.

Forward the cutters of cloth

So even if for a moment, a chap accepted (and he doesn't) the notion put forward by such paragons of humanity: including the IMF, David Cameron, Nick Clegg, bankers, the CBI, Ed Miliband, Angela Merkel and the other neo-liberealists; that in times of hardship, cuts are necessary due to the global economic crisis , it's worth remembering that it's a crisis of someone else's making; a capitalist class and their friendly bankers who don't claim benefits or use public services. A chap's of a mind to suggest as they made it, let them pay for it.

However, there seems to be a bit of an anomaly when it comes to cutting one's cloth at University of Salford - Manchester. Professor Hall says that '[m]any universities in Britain have less money. Since late 2010, we have had a range of funding sources removed...' Given the hundreds of jobs at risk, I thought this worth some exploration.

Project Headroom

Clear evidence if any were needed to show that there's many a job
still to be had by the BBC at Salford Quays

As any historian will tell you, it's always worth going back a bit. If a chap's memory serves him correctly, in 2008-09, Salford UCU and the campaign group SUDE among others, persistently warned as the West stood on the crest of the financial turmoil sweeping the globe, that common sense should dictate that the University could not afford its MediaCity presence. We argued publicly that the University should not sign the agreements that would bind them into huge levels of expenditure during an economic downturn. Given the global turmoil, sound advice one might posit? The trouble is that even though this chap 'common sense' has a loudish voice, it seems senior managers including the then Registrar, now Deputy Vice Chancellor, Registrar and Secretary, Freedom of Information 'Champion' Adrian Graves, as well as the then Vice Chancellor Michael Harloe, either didn't hear it, or chose to ignore it and sign on the dotted line anyway.

Payment by results or payment by peanuts?

It's unlikely that Peel Media would accept payment for the weekly rental costs in peanuts so the University pay them in non-peanut currency - £40,867 of this currency every week until 2020 which according to the fine, investigative Salford Star will cost in the region of £20 million. That's about the cost of the salary of one academic every week for the next eight years or so. And that's excluding the costs of fitting out the four floor building which are reported to have cost in the region of £30 million or 666 academics (at an average of say £45,000 per annum). Now that's a ruddy lot of scholars and money by anyone's standards. Or is it?

A ruddy lot of money (Part II)

Much has been made by angry members of the UCU (in the opinion of this writer justifiably so) threatened with unemployment, of the manner in which senior managers are pushing ahead with the 'Estates Master Plan' which in peanut-speak means the spending of even vaster-er sums on new buildings and refurbishments. The plan was published sometime 2008-09 and judging by the activity of construction workers on or around campus, it would seem to be moving ahead with some gusto.  I decided that as the holidays are approaching, a little currency conversion might help readers put this Master Plan into some perspective. For Phase One of the plan, if one peanut = one pound, in currency conversion terms the University would be looking at spending around 107 million of these tasty blighters. I did a further calculation and extrapolated from the results that that would give any reasonable person wind. The importance of spending these vast sums of money on 'excellent buildings' was emphasised by DVCRSFoI'C' Graves to the University Council recorded in the October 2010 minutes:

'The Registrar and Secretary and Deputy Vice-Chancellor emphasised the importance of the Master Plan to the University’s strategic aspirations; the ability to attract and retain high calibre staff and students was predicated on the ability to develop a high quality, welcoming environment. Given that MediaCity UK would place the University at the leading edge of media programme delivery, it was imperative that excellent buildings were designed and constructed elsewhere on the University campus.'(1)

Strategic aspirations

The almost inevitable consequence of either; a) being publicly 
excoriated in Morrisons by a penurous 
unemployed academic, b) self-fornication,
c) rising wheat prices

There's nothing wrong with aspirations, particularly aspirations of a strategic variety. My own strategic aspiration is premised upon being able to complete my daily shop in Morrisons without having recourse to publicly excoriate the manager in front of some pensioners, over the skyrocketing price of breadstuffs, which according to my calculations, is rising faster than a methane emissions in a Ukranian fart-catchery. But I was worried that Graves' words were being misinterpreted. The chap doing the 'consulting' over the current job losses was one Keith Watkinson who is a resourceful human all of which you can read about here. Watkinson of HR reports directly to Graves. And all the evidence at the moment seemed to suggest that Watkinson was doing the opposite of retaining high calibre staff. Would he be rigorously disciplined by Dr Graves I wondered, for deviating from the Master Plan? If so, can I film it?

Der Masterplan

This Master Plan interested me. Why? Well it's predicated upon a '24.5% continued growth in student numbers over ten years' according to the online blurb. Yet blogger Hall has stated for the record, that 'from this September onwards, we will be a smaller university with fewer students to teach...' And as we mentioned earlier he's also stated that since 2010, that 'a range of funding sources' have been 'removed'. Yet the refurbishments and plans for new buildings continues apace. I wondered why? With the relevant information to hand, I decided to let one go... another question that is. So I asked, given the evidence that the UK economy is in a recession and that the Tory government are convinced that even deeper and broader cuts to public expenditure is the solution to the crisis, surely prudence and pragmatism would dictate a hold on all major projects involving large capital expenditures? 

Pounds and pennies

I often find such talk of hundreds of millions of peanuts pounds overwhelming. So large are they that they can become difficult to grasp. There's an old saying that speaks of the focusing of one's attention on one's peripheral pocket currencies of diminutive denominations in order to secure financial stability in the medium and long term. We've already seen how prior to the imposition of Project Headroom in 2007-08, senior managers gave the green light to expenditure on consultants of £3,961,109. I decided to cast a figurative eyeglass over the finer detail of some more recent expenditures on consultants and other things, which readers can find ensconced on the Whatdotheyknow freedom of information website:

I did some more sums. It came to a total of £170,248.79. I then perused the University of Salford - Manchester's evidence to a recent Justice Committee report into the Freedom of Information Act. 

Yes... this 'particular case is me

Was this a good use of public money in a time of mass job cuts and tightening of budgets?

Pennies from heaven

I then mulled over the £402,000 spent recently refurbishing the Ol' Fire Station, and the £50,000 Hall and Graves have already 'invested in the libel proceedings against me with more to come. I considered the above in light of Hall's recent communication with staff:

'While we will do all we can to avoid compulsory redundancies, I have an obligation to ensure that the University remains financially sound, continues to achieve its objectives, and continues to improve provision of learning and teaching opportunities for our students. We cannot do that if our academic staffing bill exceeds the income we have available from student fees.'(2)

I wondered just how such expenditure would ensure 'that the University would remain financially sound' or how it would 'improve provision of learning and teaching opportunities for our students'. How would it save jobs? 

From fire stations to panic stations?

If anything, the sense I get from reading Hall's latest online missive, is one of panic. Clearly, the threat of industrial action and student anger from below is provoking a response from above. I'm firmly of the opinion that these job cuts - in fact all future proposed job cuts as there will be more if Hall's words are to be taken literally (see below) - can be successfully resisted. But this will involve rejecting the 'common sense' arguments that cuts to our services are necessary as well as strike action. As we should oppose the closure of every school, hospital, old peoples' home, or the cut of a single benefit to pay for a crisis not of our making, Salford UCU should oppose not just compulsory redundancies but every job cut and course closure at Salford. It is our University after all.

When all is said and done, students prefer lots of teaching and academic staff. First and foremost, a university is its academic staff and its front-line administrative staff. If you're in any doubt, ask the students. It's the academics that produce cutting edge research, advance knowledge and truth and in the process, produce the next generation of innovators. The front-line staff ensure this happens. I've yet to find a nice new shiny building that can achieve this.

Besides their logic doesn't convince me. If these jobs and courses were of value to the institution, students and society last year and the year before, they are of intrinsic value to the institution, students and society today.


 Notes and References

(1) University Council minutes October 2010 sourced at http://www.governance.salford.ac.uk/cms/resources/uploads/File/council_committees_minutes/Council%20mins%2010-11/Minutes%20-%20101005%20-%20confirmed.pdf

(2) The text of Martin Hall's communication to staff sent on the 25th May at 09:34

'UCU ballot for industrial action.

The UCU is asking staff to take industrial action in opposition to compulsory redundancies at our University. Whilst it is not yet confirmed that there will be any compulsory redundancies, I’m writing to give you the background and to explain why we cannot give this assurance. If you have not been notified that you are impacted by the current organisational change proposals, you are not part of the current process. Secondly, it is not yet clear that there will be any compulsory redundancies. We are doing everything we can to prevent this. I would, of course, prefer to give a guarantee that compulsory redundancies will be avoided. But we have had more than 400 funded student places removed by HEFCE and 100 more places will be removed in 2013. This is further compounded by the inclusion of international students in immigration controls. Because we will have fewer students to teach, and reduced fee income, we are forced to reduce the numbers of our academic staff. We are not alone in this situation. A significant number of universities are being forced to reduce their levels of academic staffing. More generally, more than 300,000 publicly funded jobs have been lost in Britain. There is no real prospect of things improving over the next few years. We have been exemplary in our consultation with the unions, sharing information about allocated student numbers as soon as we could, in early February. We have followed the full requirements, and spirit, of labour legislation and processes in consultation and mitigation, and have entered into discussions which have resulted in the mitigation of a significant number of the proposed redundancies. We will continue to consult with UCU over our proposals with a view to achieving them through voluntary means wherever possible, but also to discuss how we may resolve the dispute they have registered with us in balloting for industrial action. Our primary concern is, and remains, the future of our staff who are caught up in this process. While we will do all we can to avoid compulsory redundancies, I have an obligation to ensure that the University remains financially sound, continues to achieve its objectives, and continues to improve provision of learning and teaching opportunities for our students. We cannot do that if our academic staffing bill exceeds the income we have available from student fees. You will of course make up your own mind whether or not to support industrial action. However, were the UCU to succeed in moving from negotiation to confrontation, its actions may have a direct and damaging impact on the quality of teaching and the student experience. I cannot see how this will help anyone, or affect our circumstances favourably. You have, of course, the right to industrial action. I have the responsibility of ensuring that you are aware of the implications for you personally. I’ve asked HR to prepare a Q&A factsheet which you can access by clicking here. This highlights the key issues you need to consider. I had hoped that the UCU would continue to work with us in defending the principles of equity, access and the improvement of quality of learning and teaching, and I still hope that we can re-establish this common purpose. Yours sincerely

Martin Hall,

Vice-Chancellor

Usual disclaimer: This work is and expression of opinion on a matter of public interest contains the opinions of the author. It is intended to report current events that are of public interest and public concern. The reproduction and use of any documents, photos and video images herein is to provide humour and accuracy in order to avoid civil litigation and claims of misquoting. In reporting current events they are used within the context of Fair Dealing or Fair Use. The author is happy to provide further acknowledgement if requested. To make any such request press here.

The author also suggests that before embarking upon expensive civil actions for libel, contact the author. We have reams of documentary evidence which we are happy to provide. A right of reply also operates. We are also happy to make corrections and if necessary provide an apology. So, to save £££sss please avail yourself of this opportunity if you really feel it necessary, which you can do by clicking here or by emailing garypaulduke@gmail.com

Douglas Bader's legs

When I was at junior school, all the pupils had to belong to a house. Like many things in life, it was imposed from above and was therefore compulsory. I knew of no fellow pupil courageous enough to take the issue up directly with the Headmaster, Mr Coath. To an impressionable youngster brought up on Sooty and Sweep, Mr Coath looked like a less-than-benign David Nixon, but with a terrible dynamic. He was also known for his diabolically skilful use of 'plimsoll fear', which legend has it, could be extraordinarily persuasive. Each house had a colour, red, green, blue and yellow. They were also named after some famous derring-doer types like: Leonard Cheshire who against all the odds and under hostile fire, set up a care home charity in 1948 (Red); Douglas Bader notable for his magnificent portrayal of actor Kenneth More in the 1956 film Reach for the Sky and his ability to play golf lying down (Blue); Robert Falcon Scott who had an icy landmass named after him (Green) and Francis Chichester who sailed in boats (Yellow). I was in Scott.

False legs, false hope or false consciousness?

The three handed Harry Corbett in his heyday

On the odd occasion, one of these adventurist types would be invited to the school to give an 'inspiring' talk. I recall one such event. My good self, one amongst many impressionable youngsters probably dressed in a pair of grey demoniacs (long grey shorts that itched like billio in the crotchal regions), sat patiently in rows on the cold, highly polished parquet flooring of the school hall. Douglas Bader (irritatingly dressed in civvies and not a smart 1941 RAF uniform or his golfing plus twos) was ushered into the hall by a nominally fawning headmaster. The usual covert side-of-mouth chitter-chatter from the floor was this afternoon unusually subdued. Indeed, several of us nearly had to seek medical attention after the event from the school nurse for strained ear drums. We had potentially damaged them we were told, because of our concerted but vain attempts to discern from the attenuated hubbub, the sound of Douglas Bader's legs clanking as he ascended the steps up to the rostrum. Yes, the prevailing view among gullible seven to eleven year olds was that those legs of his were made out of metal (probably tin). It was a silly notion as it was clear that they were expertly hewn Long John Silver-like, from two solid pieces of lignum vitae, the unyielding stuff from rainforests afar.

An Odyssean journey?

Aah... Bisto?

I can't recall any of his words but I remember being a bit miffed that the name that represented our house would never make it to such an event as the berk had misplaced himself somewhere in the icy wastes of Antarctica. If he had, we'd probably have sat just as quietly trying to detect the sound of his legs fizzing as they thawed out in front of a three bar fire. Mind you, I don't recall Francis Chichester ever making it to Meadowcroft Junior School either. I and my peers were rather prone to classical flights of fancy and we'd probably have filled our ears with beeswax and tied ourselves to the climbing frame in the hall in order to avoid the beautiful yet malignant songs of the Homeric sirens beckoning us to consume watery gravey like Odysseus and his ship mates.

Competition - early years intervention

To be frank, having your school house named after these famous adventurers rarely if ever instilled the sense of adventure in young and impressionable school types I'm sure our 'betters' believed it would. Battle lines were almost invariably drawn along lines of colour... "red's better than green..."  "... that's bollocks... there's more blue on this planet than red OR green put together" was the clincher. I find it interesting how this artificial division created and imbued within such young impressionable clipped ears a competitive spirit, probably intended, played out to its fullest in the annual sports day. I'm not a fan of sports days nor am I a fan of competition in any form in the education sector or anywhere else for that matter. I have a poor record in egg and spoon races and competition has a poor record historically.

Competition in the workplace

Historical musings aside, most people accept if begrudgingly the concept of competition for jobs. It's a hard fact of life. You compete against other people for the privilege of being employed and thus exploited by your employer. However, this form of competition is largely external to the process of surplus value creation - it's something you do before the boss gets his or her hooks into you. How sad it is then when this form of competition is introduced into the workplace, particularly in a university where collegiality is seen as a fundamental and much cherished principle.(1)

Academics ahoy!

I learned last week that former colleagues in my old haunting ground at the University of Salford - Manchester, in the department school? college? of English, Sociology, Politics and Contemporary History are having to re-apply for their jobs (those staff below professors). Twenty two academics have been told that they must compete for sixteen jobs. More widely, it was reported in last week's Weatherfield Gazette (2) that sixty five academics are at risk. The UCU branch leadership view the process of pitching one colleague against another in this manner as 'abhorrent'. I agree.

Collegiality holed on the reef of competition?

In an Olympic year, could this be a fairer way 
of deciding who keeps their job?

I pondered my time as an undergraduate and postgraduate at Salford. I'd received the finest instruction, a first class education and excellent advice by staff members in ESPaCH, being taught by some of the most knowledgeable and dedicated academics and professionals in their fields. Crescent House then had a cafe/restaurant on the fifth floor which was eminently conducive to heated arguments and debate at lunchtime. It was a lovely environment for learning. Contrary to myths expounded in the courtroom, I have nothing but praise for my years at Salford and nothing but the highest praise for those staff I came into contact with. Yet my mental wanderings have led me to one or two conclusions which I think might have some relevance to staff at Salford, and in particular those staff whose future employment status will now be determined, like the winner of my school egg and spoon race, by the simple mechanism of competition. These musings are not meant as a criticism of my own union but a reflection on a strategy to save these jobs.

No Lenin

I'm a great believer in organised collective action. The Arab Spring and the wonderful OCCUPY protests around the world are inspirational. Yet where are the protests at Salford? Protests are relatively simple to organise. Even I've managed one or two in the past and I'm no Lenin. But with the help of other kindred spirits I find that the odd demo can be convened with very little effort. For example, as a member of a dedicated university anti-war group, we organised three coaches to send anti-war protesters to London in February 2003 from Salford University. Small groups made their own banners and placards. I recall I booked all three on my credit card. I, with other anti-cuts students and staff, was involved in organising the magnificent SUDE protests at against job cuts again at Salford in 2008-09. For example, we wore masks and carried a coffin across the A666 outside Dr Graves' office, stopping rush-hour traffic. I raise this not to blow my own trumpet but to show that it's actually quite an easy thing to do.

Why protest?

Imagine a world without protest. Imagine the conditions we would be forced to live in and the policies we would be forced to accept if there was no such thing as protest. Protests arise because of the inadequacies or lack of democracy. Mass demonstrations raise matters publicly and inspire others to join in or follow suit. At Salford such public demonstrations of anger at job cuts would act as a pole of attraction for other staff and students. Quite often the press and media show some interest. Are they effective? Judge for yourself the words of one Adrian Graves, current Registrar at the University, who sent this email to the former Harloe, which we covered in an earlier blog:

'...isn't it supremely ironic though, that Gary Duke is so sensitive about his own reputation that he has organised a campaign amongst students to defend it  - having carried out a sustained campaign himself over six months aimed expressly at damaging the reputation of six or seven people and the university itself - through the anonymous publication and distribution of three scurrilous pamphlets within and without the university, through speeches at well publicized demonstrations and meetings subsequently published as video on the internet, a sustained press campaign in the local and HE sector press nationally and through lobbying MPs, local government councilors, and other influencers: Sorry - steam coming out of ears.

Adrian'(3)

Reputational sensitivity - how can we measure it?

If we were trying to measure reputational sensitivity among university employees, might we not use the initiation of libel proceedings as a key indicator? The meaning of this email is clear to any reasonable person - the esteemed Dr Graves frowned upon my SUDE activities. He seemed to have a particular problem with a little device I used which involved thinking up something called an idea, attaching this idea to a series of words which I then strung together into something called sentences which I orally projected through something called a face-based-sound-augmenter to crowds of miffed staff and students. Clearly protesting and speaking out against job cuts is not yet against the law. But in light of the above email, I'm even prouder to have played a small part in this wonderfully vibrant campaign to save jobs and to campaign for a decent education for students at Salford. The campaign galvanised the campus unions, drew in students, the Student Union, and created the foundations for the reinvigorated UCU branch we have today.

Where is the mass opposition today?

Yet as far as I'm aware, since then we have had no public protest, no activity led by students and staff to halt the savaging of hundreds of jobs. It's as if having begun to build a strong union on the back of large public protests, that public protest and public opposition on the streets is no longer deemed necessary by the union branch executive and therefore must be safely channelled into bureaucratic strategies to save and secure jobs. The trouble is, such strategies have clearly not produced the desired results as we witness yet another round of job cuts.

The inexorable consequence of not feeding academics or are they merely potential Frankenstein burners? 
(word of warning, burning Frankensteins is not lawful and potentially an act of harassment, 
bullying, and victimisation if committed in the workplace)

The importance of light lunches should not be overestimated

Salford UCU are good at putting on light lunches and to be frank, light lunches are nice. But a hurriedly grabbed sandwich is no substitute for direct collective action. I'd just like to state at this juncture, that  I have no wish to be cast as some chap called William Critical. I want my union to be strong and effective. So, as a member of Salford UCU I'd like to propose a 'three point plan' which I think could be adopted quite easily and quite quickly by the UCU branch. Alternatively, as I thought it up in the pub on Sunday evening I might call it a 'three pint plan'.

Three Point Pint Plan

It goes something like this.

1. Immediately initiate a ballot for strike action. The rationale: do those staff being told to re-apply for their jobs feel that this is a voluntary process? In my opinion it's compulsory redundancy and something I warned against at the last EGM.
2. Stop fannying around and simply tell members and other staff to refuse to participate in this process. This way, an essentially non-voluntary process will quickly become a compulsory process. Staff will at least know where they stand, and the union can thus engage in what unions do - taking strike action to protect and secure jobs.
3. Call a public meeting, invite all staff and students. Publicise this meeting as widely as possible. Use this meeting as the base for the launch of a campaign of regular staff-student protests outside the recently re-vamped Ole Fire Station. Propaganda and publicity is essential in helping to build a grass-roots movement. It will force the Student Union to stop abstaining at University Council meetings over job cuts. Importantly it must be publicly and directly supported by all the unions. Such a tactic will also draw into activity members and non-members and help revitalise the UCU branch.

Unanimity

I sensed at the last EGM a feeling that those members who attended (so many they were crammed into every seat and every step of the lecture theatre) wanted more than just a light lunch and rhetoric - they want action. The vote for strike action was unanimous. Not one abstainer. It should  be abundantly clear even to the most exasperated plug-plotter, that staff have had enough and are up for a fight.  History tells us that when the unions take on the bosses, more people join unions, borne out by the evidence that the branch has increased its membership since the magnificent national strike action of November 2011.

A role model or a model aeroplane?

If Douglas Bader could play golf, drive a car, dance, fly a Hawker Hurricane in the Battle of Britain, get shot down over German Occupied France in 1941, escape from a series of prisoner of war camps, end up working in the oil industry and appear at my school with a pair of wooden legs, then the UCU president Chris Sheehy can surely translate her fiery words into positive and immediate collective action. Although no one can guarantee that direct action and a strike will win, I can guarantee that if no ballot is called, the union and its members will lose.

Notes and References

*Another word for opinion
(1)This is the view of the Salford UCU and it's a view this writer agrees with.
(2) This is a comedic device. It's actually called the Salford Advertiser which arrived through my letter box on the 29th March 2012
(3) Email from Graves to Harloe dated 30 May 2009:

Usual disclaimer: This work is the opinion of the author and is produced in order to report current events that are of public interest and public concern. The reproduction and use of any documents, photos and video images herein is to provide accuracy in order to avoid civil litigation and claims of misquoting. In reporting current events they are used within the context of Fair Dealing or Fair Use. The author is happy to provide further acknowledgement if requested. To make any such request press here.

The author also suggests that before embarking upon expensive civil actions for libel, contact the author. We have reams of documentary evidence which we are happy to provide. A right of reply also operates. We are also happy to make corrections and if necessary provide an apology. So, to save £££sss please avail yourself of this opportunity if you really feel it necessary, which you can do by clicking here.

A libel claim and the peculiar case of cobwebs in the resources department

Tuesday 6th of March 2012 at 11am may prove to be a rather interesting anomaly. It does of course have nothing to do with calibration of the remainders of the days necessary for the retention of calendarical purity. Nor does it involve the synchronous alignment of several far flung celestial bodies whose combined gravitational fields will in all likelihood wrench our own spatially located rondure from its sun-centric circumgyrations, whilst in the process causing all manner of gravitationally induced tectonic mayhem and possible further delays on the M25. No, that's going to happen in December. We Vagrants refer to the hearing at Manchester Civil Justice Centre, for our application to have struck out the current and ongoing libel claim against a certain chap of no fixed teeth. The grounds for this application are largely(but not exclusively) located in the Civil Procedure Rules at 3.4 (2) (a) and 3.4 (2) (b) and has been covered in more detail on previous postings here and here.

The pisser in the wind

Many well-wishers well versed in the arcane field of defamation law are surprised that it has gone this far given the Overriding Objective introduced as part of the Civil Procedure Rules in April 1999. The Overriding Objective was introduced to ensure for example that parties involved in civil actions are on an equal footing, which clearly is not the case. One issue raised in the application to the court was that 'the claimant is using that process for a purpose that is in a way significantly different from its ordinary and proper use'.(1) Given the complexity of this claim, the success of this application may well depend on whether the judge is versed in defamation law and proceedings. Like an asthmatic night soil attendant, we are not holding our collective bear breaths.

Night soilers... nothing whatsoever to do with shite-ing the bed

The interstices between paid employment and the truth

It is, however, incumbent upon a chap to raise the prickly matter of  the funding of the University's libel claim. Clearly there is an inequality of arms. Hall and Graves have access to apparently unlimited sums to pursue this action. They can do this because they claim writings on the blog Rat Catchers of the Sewers have damaged the reputation not of them, but of the University. This is vehemently contested. We have argued and will argue on Tuesday, that Hall, Graves and the reputations of the Executive Committee (formerly the Strategic Leadership Team) do not equate to the reputation of the University. Like the porters and professoriate employed by the university, Hall and Graves are correspondingly employees of the University.

Yet the contrast in resources is stark. The chap on the receiving end so to speak, has a surfeit of cobwebs in the financial resources department which is very nearly a medical complaint. So the £80 cost involved in making this application, given the large sums spent so far is a considerable sum to one who currently exists within the interstices between positions of active employment.

The wonderful life

Yet despite the obvious elemental imbalance of resources, there is every likelihood that the libel claim instigated by Martin Hall and his subordinate Graves will fail and fail spectacularly at that. It's got something to do with a rather large body of 'evidence' we've collated. And oddly enough, like the wine procured from the grapes of a bountiful vine, lovingly cared for by a Gitane-smoking grape tenderer in an idyllic Burgundian vineyard, this evidence just keeps on flowing into our beautifully maintained and copious files of defence.

The postman always rings twice when a chap's in the shower...

Every week brings something anew and with this anew-ness comes surprises. This week it was one or two responses (five in total) on the What Do They Know Freedom of Information website, from the University of Salford - Manchester's own Mr Matthew Stephenson. We're decent chaps really, although one or two of us reek a little as we don't have access to a walk-in wetroom. So in the line with our policy of being rather pleasant and manners-imbued, we'd like to take the opportunity here of thanking Messrs Stephenson, Graves and blogger Hall for providing this information to the public, albeit after being told to do so by the Information Commissioner. You can visit the ICO's decision here.

The Registrar

We invite the regular partakers of our pitiful meanderings to consider the new video of Dr Graves below. 

It clearly isn't going to get much in the way of sustained airplay on MTV despite its obvious appeal to the 'yoof market'. And some might be asking why blogger Hall isn't relaying this good news personally to staff? And we're guessing that readers including former colleagues of a certain chap of no fixed income might be asking, 'what on earth has this breakfast spoiler got to do with matters of a libel nature?'

The cobwebs in the resources department (part II)

Well, staff over a cup of piping hot coffee or two, have every right to consider carefully the content of Dr Graves' words:

"You know we're in difficult times with major budget pressures, but also an incredibly uncertain and challenging public sector and public policy environment for universities. And that is, in itself, a significant enough driver for changing universities - and many are doing that. But in this University we've got an urgent need now to rationalise our College and School administrations to make them more efficient and more responsive to our students and better equipped to serve the academics who teach and research within the Colleges and within the Schools."(2)

Firstly, we like Graves' idea of 'changing universities'. We're not entirely sure what you could change a university for? Given the talk of 'drivers' maybe a 1978 Ford Granada estate? Or maybe a 1967 Morris Traveller with renovated ash timber framework in a sort of mock-Tudor style. Maybe the Hall/Graves continuum would like to change the university for one that's going up the standard league tables? It's a thought.

We like the word 'driver'. Professionally speaking it has its equivalent in the word 'chauffeur'. And we're keen to state for the record that the two 'drivers' of this libel claim are blogger Hall and Graves. The President of the UCU at Salford Chris Sheehy, may well feel justified in asking Dr Graves why the 'major budget pressures' that appear to be one of the principal drivers of the policies of further redundancies at Salford, do not appear to be impacting upon the expensive libel claim that he and Hall have instigated and are pursuing through the Civil Courts.

The relevance

According to the current figures, the dynamic duo have invested a significant sum of University income into this libel case. They will invest a good deal more if the case goes to a full blown trial. Back o'er stamp calculations which are of course an approximation based upon costings presented to the court last year by the University's solicitor Ian Austin, suggest that they have already expended so far something approaching the cost of one academic's salary for a year (£40,000 +) or approximately five lots of student fees. Tuesday's four hour hearing will naturally drive this sum in a heaven-wards direction. But maybe that's a price worth paying? It has after all played a small part in keeping one solicitor and one barrister in work since 2010.

The end

Few could deny that in the face of the current global neoliberal onslaught on the public sector, that there's been a slashing in research funding and central funding from government across the wider University sector. Despite the half a trillion Euros handed out to the European banking sector by the European Central Bank (ECB) on the 29th February, we're constantly told money is tight. Given Salford's continued slide down the league tables and according to the Guardian's 2012 University Guide, one of the highest staff/student ratios in the UK HE sector, it is vital that the reputations of those who must ultimately take full responsibility for this sorry state of affairs are protected at any cost... isn't it?

Public Notice

You are cordially invited to attend a hearing into all things alleged libellous (but fiercely resisted) betwixt the two parties

University of Salford - Manchester

-v-

The flagrant quillard 
Dr Gary Paul Duke

11am prompt!
Tuesday 6th March in the year of our Lord 2012
Ye Olde Civil Justice Centre
Manchester

Be'eth thereth or be'eth square'eth

Notes and references

(1) 'Supplementary Information to Support Application for Claim to be Struck Out' supplied to the Court as part of the Application made to the Court on the 20th December 2011
(2) The full transcript can be accessed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cMdyMm7arRQ 
(3) Is it the case that these major refurbishments are at the root of the so called 'major budget pressures? Page four of the University council minutes provide an interesting overview of the loan arrangements arranged by the University. Of some interest are the conditions attached to the £35 million loan from Lloyds. See  http://www.governance.salford.ac.uk/cms/resources/uploads/File/council_committees_minutes/Council%20mins%2011-12/Minutes%20-%20111004%20-%20confirmed%20-%20web%20version.pdf




Usual disclaimer: This work is the opinion of the author and is produced in order to report current events that are of public interest and public concern. The reproduction and use of any documents and video images herein is to provide accuracy in order to avoid civil litigation and claims of misquoting. In reporting current events they are used within the context of Fair Dealing. The author is happy to provide further acknowledgement if requested. To make any such request press here.

The author also suggests that before embarking upon expensive civil actions for libel, contact the author. We have reams of documentary evidence which we are happy to provide. A right of reply also operates. We are also happy to make corrections and if necessary provide an apology. So, to save £££sss please avail yourself of this opportunity if you really feel it necessary, which you can do by clicking here.

A Consultant Calls

Some might say it's money well spent. Others may disagree. The Vagrants do of course refer to the 'summary detail of the annual accounts for 2007-8' released by the University of Salford after some delay - the original request for this information was submitted on the 28th November 2009. The requester Mr Damien Shannon should be commended for his staying power and tenacity. Given the explosive nature of many of these 'operating expenses', it is clear why the University fought tooth and nail to prevent their release. It also begs the question regarding the concept of openness and transparency within what is after all a public authority, funded from the taxpayers purse and increasingly the student wallet.

Of particular interest - CONSULTANCY F££S

We decided to focus on one particular feature of these accounts, a service that has obvious benefits for staff and students alike - we refer to University expenditure on consultancy fees. We make this comment as the University appear to have deemed these particular services worthy of some considerable investment during this period. A comprehensive list of this expenditure has been compiled from the accounts which readers can view here. A quick glance at our dog-eared ready reckoner suggests the figure is lurking in the region known in the numbers trade as £3,961,109 or very nearly £4 million. Dr Graves would have to recruit around  about 480.1 students to cover these costs.

With scientific calculator in hand, we did a rough calculation and surmised from our reckonings that the University invested an average of roughly £76,175 or 9.23 students every week on these ardent-value-for-money-transmitters during the accounting period 2007-08. We continued to break this down and it worked out that the University spent in the region of £10,852 or 1.31 of a student every day of the year including the weekends, Easter and Christmas holidays, Eid and the summer recess.*

An idea of how extensively value was imparted into the overall student experience in 2007-08

Project Headroom and its adherents...

Deputy Dawg: should he consult Muskie
or Vince and if so at what cost?

What is of significance is the year these phenomenal sums were spent. It's difficult to ascertain if the precise extent of this expenditure on consultants under the dual steerage of former Vice Chancellor Harloe and extant Deputy Vice Chancellor Adrian Graves, was brought to the attention of the campus unions during the negotiations around the rather ridiculously appellated 'Project Headroom' in 2008? After all, one of the principal arguments for axing 150 jobs was the claim that it was absolutely necessary to create 'financial headroom' - or what are colloquially known as 'savings' - in order to provide funding for what were seen by Graves, Harloe and the shrewdly named 'Strategic Leadership Team' as essential future investments. Given that the summary detail of the accounts 2008-09 haven't been released to staff or the unions (will it take another FOI for this information to be divulged?), it's not known if the figures for consultancies decreased, remained the same or increased in 2008-09 or 2009-10. If Dr Graves wishes to clear this matter up he can by emailing this information to the Vagrants here.

Why the need for job cuts? Why not cut the consultants?

What is certain is that questions need asking of Martin Hall and Graves about these massive sums spent on consultants. Questions such as 'are they necessary?' or 'what value do they bring to staff and more importantly to students?' Some might also wish to ask 'have hundreds our valued colleagues forfeited their jobs to fund costly firms of consultants?'

More overspends?

The recent 'overspend' of £2.5 million on the new IT systems at the University of Salford voted through by University Council coupled with allegations circulating within the University that the library closures transformation of library services has risen from an estimated £1 million to £4.5 million, might give those threatened with redundancy and redeployment some food for thought. It raises what are in our opinion fundamental questions like - WHO IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALLOWING THIS HUGE WASTE OF MONEY TO CONTINUE? We've just thought of another question that's equally as pertinent given such profligacy with the public purse - SHOULDN'T THE PERSON WHO HAS OVERSEEN THIS SORRY STATE OF AFFAIRS BE SACKED FOR GROSS INCOMPETENCE?

Pest Control

Jack Black

On to more mundane spending matters. We note from the above accounts that the Office of the Vice Chancellor and Registrar spent £87.88 on pest control. 'Pest control' is not we think an arcane reference to the legal fees spent on the libel case against Dr Gary Duke originator of the Rat Catchers of the Sewers blog as one person suggested. After all the Rat Catchers of the Sewers only began posting in 2009. Given the breakdown of legal costs to the University so far, we're of the opinion that the University would never consider spending such a lowly figure on this type of 'pest control' when they could spend in the region of £40,000, which approximates the figure expended so far in the civil courts by Professor Martin Hall and Dr Adrian Graves. What is clear is that this libel claim will prove costly to them in more than financial terms.




Other costs - taxis and coaches

What do they mean by the word 'coach'?

It also remains to be seen whether the £20,392 spent on taxis and coaches by the Academic Registrars Department, the £1,463.2 spent on the same by the Offices of the Vice Chancellor and Registrar or the £73,346 spent by Estates on such essential modes of transport will prove to be value for money. The phenomenal total of £219,823 spent on the above would suggest a lot of coaches have been necessary on a day-to-day basis at Salford. This is not to suggest that some expenditure is not necessary on taxis. The question is, given that it's such a huge sum, can it be proved that the bulk of this expenditure was necessary?

An argument to be put

There's clearly an argument to be put here by Chris Sheehy and the Salford UCU who are resisting job cuts at the moment. It goes something along the lines of 'Dear Martin... can you provide us with complete assurances and detailed evidence to show that all such unnecessary expenditure has ceased in the years 2008-09/2009-10 before we consider discussing a single job loss with the University.'

Notes and References

The Vagrants would like to hear from staff and students with their own experiences of such matters. Any information received will be treated in the strictest confidence. To contact us press here.

*This is at a student exchange rate today of around 1 student =£8250. Due to political expediency, the value of students may fluctuate.

For the summary breakdown of 'operating expenses' go to http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/details_of_other_operating_expen#incoming-215800

Usual disclaimer: This work is the opinion of the author and is produced in order to report current events that are of public interest and public concern. The reproduction and use of any documents herein is to provide accuracy in order to avoid civil litigation and claims of misquoting. In reporting current events they are used within the context of Fair Dealing. The author is happy to provide further acknowledgement if requested. To make any such request press here.

The author also suggests that before embarking upon expensive civil actions for libel, contact the author. We have reams of documentary evidence which we are happy to provide. A right of reply also operates. We are also happy to make corrections. So, to save £££sss please avail yourself of this opportunity if you feel it necessary, which you can do by clicking here.