The academic precariat is estimated to make up over a third of the UK HE workforce. We are a nebulous group. Some of us are on hourly-paid teaching contracts, others on fixed-term research fellowships, yet more on indefinite* contracts ‘subject to funding’. Many of us have found ourselves precarious after being made redundant from indefinite roles. One thing that unites us all is a lack of financial, personal, professional and institutional stability.
Further, we are a hugely wasted resource. Some of us live hand-to-mouth on a few hours’ pay a week, while our colleagues on indefinite contracts are collapsing through overwork. There is more than enough work that needs doing year on year, and yet we are given no reason to remain loyal to institutions and a HE system that would do well to retain us.
And yet, our employers repeatedly say they care about us, wringing their hands while stating there is nothing they can do about the issue of unstable employment in HE. The University and College Union (UCU) have been doing some pioneering work with regards to casualisation in some institutions; for example, moving all members of research groups onto indefinite contracts at the University of Bath, and the groundbreaking win at the Open University which saw all 4,800 of their Associate Lecturers moved onto indefinite contracts. While our employers, and their representative body, UCEA, can’t solve this complex issue overnight without full-scale government intervention, here are five low-cost things they could do right now which would benefit both us as workers, and the institutions they run. With vision and commitment, real and lasting changes could be made.
First, those of us with the relevant experience should be given parity of opportunity to be employed as external examiners. How many times have I heard colleagues on indefinite contracts saying they regret taking on this kind of role when they have very little time and don’t especially need the pay when I am sitting at home with time on my hands in need of money? We have the time to do the role, the necessity for the money and the need to put such things on our CVs.
Second, university management and HR departments need to introduce robust and proactive redeployment policies that are adhered to (rather than guidelines which are routinely ignored). As a beneficiary of redeployment from a fixed-term special collections role into a fixed-term lectureship some years back, I am proof that many of us can do several different types of work within the HE system. Retaining staff who are already in the institution also saves money for employers, and makes it much easier for those of us who are redeployed to hit the ground running in our new jobs, as we are already set up on systems. UCEA could even set up a centrally commissioned platform for matching people to posts, where redeployees could upload searchable ‘skills profiles’, and decide whether they want them to be visible within their institution for redeployment; or externally, as many opportunities arise from research connections and funding bid write-ins.
Third, where we can’t be redeployed, allow us to keep our institutional email addresses and library access as honorary fellows or through extended access agreements. This is not difficult, and makes it easier to re-employ us should the need arise. Locking us out of IT systems makes it hard for us to deal with publications, keep in touch with research collaborators and receive new opportunities. It also enables quicker re-employment into roles that may arise.
Fourth, for those of us in teaching roles, prioritise us for bunched teaching on the same/consecutive days. This makes a huge difference in us being able to take on work that isn’t necessarily near where we live. My current employer, based in the Home Counties (about 90 minutes’ commute door to door from my home in London), was able to put both my classes on the same day, which meant I could take the job, since it is hard to justify paying for two train trips when you are on a few hours a week, and cost aside, travelling more than necessary is a huge drain on our already precious time and energy. I know timetabling is a hard job, but giving us this sort of option where possible can be a dealbreaker.
Finally, give us the same opportunities for research and professional development as our colleagues on indefinite contracts. Let us apply for the same grants, the same funds and attend the same courses. Where possible, consider introducing bridge funding, where we are paid for a few months after the end of our contracts to apply for further grants. For those who also have teaching or admin duties, bridge funding can also enhance continuity for the institution, as commitments are not cut off suddenly and arbitrarily with contracts expiring. This small amount of extra funding would likely end up reaping huge rewards overall, and would stop us from getting into debt as we wait for the next role to come along. Bridging can effectively act as seedcorn funding for new research that brings grant income to a university when it might otherwise go elsewhere—with vision and foresight, investment in precarious staff could pay handsomely.
I will end by saying that no precarious member of staff should have to ask for any of the above: it needs to be proactively given and clearly communicated: that is how employers signal that they are committed to working with us to improve our professional lives.
*I use ‘indefinite’ in this piece to refer to what some might call ‘permanent’ contracts. In the current volatile climate of UK higher education, I find the idea of anyone’s employment being ‘permanent’ very problematic, and so avoid using this terminology.
Jo Edge has been a member of the academic precariat since 2014. She is currently an hourly-paid Visiting Lecturer at a post-92 university, and sits on UCU’s NEC as Women’s Rep (HE). She is a member of UCU Commons.