Lecturers to be consulted on industrial action following ‘derisory' pay offer
Members of the Educational Institute of Scotland University Lecturers' Association (EIS ULA) are taking part in a consultative ballot on whether to accept the proposed offer, and whether they back industrial action.
The ballot will be open for six weeks and will close on August 11.
The EIS ULA, which is open to all university lecturers in Scotland, has called on its members to reject what it called a 'real-terms pay cut' and back industrial action.
It said the offer 'fails to recognise' the contribution made by university lecturers, or make up for years of below-inflation pay rises.
It also called on employers to return to the negotiating table with a 'significantly improved' offer, warning of 'widespread disruption' if industrial action were to take place.
Garry Ross, EIS ULA national officer, said: 'This 1.4% offer is not just disappointing, it is derisory and does not reflect the dedication and expertise of our university lecturers and academic-related members.
'Our members are working harder than ever, delivering world-class education and research, yet their financial security continues to be undermined by employers who appear unwilling to offer a fair deal.
'This offer fails to recognise the essential contributions of our members and does nothing to address the severe impact of rising living costs or the sub-inflationary rises they have experienced over a number of years.'
The union said the offer stood in 'stark contrast' to the 4.14% increase given to further education lecturers, and to pay awards made to NHS workers and other public sector employees across Scotland.
It said this disparity highlighted a 'clear injustice' within higher education, and demonstrated the need for a more equitable approach to staff pay,
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'Staffing and operational matters are the responsibility of individual universities.
'The Scottish Government is not directly involved in higher education pay negotiations, but we are absolutely clear that Fair Work must be the guiding principle for all employment-related decisions, and we continue to urge university management and the respective trade unions to reach decisions that ensure employees are treated fairly.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
20 minutes ago
- Sky News
Extra 150,000 people will still be forced into poverty despite welfare U-turn
Why you can trust Sky News An extra 150,000 people will still be pushed into poverty despite the government making significant concessions on its plans to cut welfare, according to its own analysis. The government document, published today, reflects its decision to water down some of the more severe changes to Personal Independence Payments (PIP) and the health top-up for universal credit. It states that an estimated 150,000 people will now be pushed into poverty after housing costs if the new welfare cuts come into effect - down from 250,000 under the government's original plans. Under the original reforms, the eligibility criteria for PIP would have been tightened for both new and existing claimants. Ministers also intended to freeze the health top-up of Universal Credit at £97 a week during this parliament. However, in the face of a large rebellion by Labour MPs, the government changed the proposals for PIP to apply to new claimants only from November 2026. All current recipients of the health element of Universal Credit will also now have their incomes protected in real terms, as will any new applicants who meet the "severe conditions criteria". The government will hope that the reduction of 100,000 people will be enough to persuade Labour MPs to vote for the new package of reforms when they are put to a vote on Tuesday. 0:43 The new assessment also states the impact on the number of pensioners and children in poverty is "expected to be negligible" after the original analysis said 50,000 children would be in relative poverty by the end of the decade. The new modelling does not take account of extra money the government is putting in to support people with disabilities and long-term health conditions into work. Before the government announced its changes, 127 Labour MPs signalled publicly that they would be willing to vote down the welfare bill in its entirety by signing an amendment that would have stopped its progress through parliament. It has been reported that the number of Labour rebels now stands at around 50 following the concessions. 1:30 Nadia Whittome, the Labour MP for Nottingham East, indicated she would still vote against the bill despite the concessions. In a post on X, she said: "Even with the concessions, the government's own analysis forecasts that 150,000 people could still be pushed into poverty by disability benefit cuts by the end of the decade. "As Labour MPs, we didn't enter politics to make struggling constituents poorer. We must stop this bill." Downing Street said the updated modelling on the impact of the government's welfare cuts "doesn't reflect the full picture". A spokesperson said there was still "uncertainty" around the projections because they don't take into account other government action, including NHS investment and employment support.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The way to tackle obesity in the UK is to make healthy food affordable. But the government won't admit it
The government's policy on obesity, announced on Sunday, sounds as though it's tough on the supermarkets: they really must do better on the health front, ministers say. Put the fruit nearer the doors (where it is already), make sure loyalty cards reward good choices. Calorie for calorie, a basket of healthy food costs more than twice as much as a basket of less healthy food, according to a report by the Food Foundation. That statistic sounds stark until you engage your brain. Processed food is cheap because that is the 'process': the relentless prioritising of the profit margin over every other consideration, such as nutritional value. What else are you going to use all that big, capitalist brain power for? Making food more colourful? There are other suggestions: voucher rewards for people who live more healthily; doubling the number of spaces on the NHS digital weight-management programme. There are cute little facts, too: cutting 50 calories a day would reduce the obesity numbers by 2 million adults and 340,000 children; a reduction of a single sugary fizzy drink a day would halve obesity. The missing plank in this raft of suggestions is the only one that would make any difference: addressing the price of food. There is a reason that one in three children in deprived areas are overweight, compared with one in five in the general population – people on low incomes cannot afford healthy food. Prices have to come down or incomes have to go up. It's amazing how many words a government paper can put into not saying that. Any kind of government intervention on pricing sounds pretty radical, right? The kind of thing a Marxist might suggest; the slippery slope to a collectivist five-year plan. In fact, in August 2023, at the height of the inflation crisis triggered by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, France capped the price of 5,000 grocery products, with the finance minister criticising big food by name – Unilever, Nestlé and PepsiCo – for failing to lower prices sufficiently. But the French have form on revolutions and whatnot. Hungary's nationalist strongman Viktor Orbán? Not so much. Yet even he imposed mandatory price cuts on some basic food items in June 2023. Kamala Harris initially fought her election on three 'opportunity economy' measures: tackling the cost of groceries, housing and medical care. She sounded much more corporate-curious by the end of that campaign than she had at the start and the jury is still out on whether that was a good idea (not). If we imagine, though, that no UK politician could ever take a stand as dangerously disruptive as the communist firebrands Macron, Orbán and Harris, there is one other tiny thing we could try: raising incomes. You could call this the elephant in the room, but you know the other thing they say about elephants: how do you eat one, except one bite at a time? Ahead of a coherent plan to raise incomes, the government could start by not restricting disability benefits. Even though those people exist in different headlines, they are part of the same reality – when you don't have enough money, you can't afford healthy food. In a report published in November, The False Economy of Big Food, the economist Tim Jackson identified the mechanisms by which deprivation causes chronic illness in a more granular and sophisticated way. Food processing isn't just blase about sugar, salt and saturated fat; it strips out nutrients and fibre in the quest for shelf life and profitability. It's uncontroversial to say that processed food is cheap and that it makes us ill, but the logical conclusion – that we are being poisoned by an industry against which only surplus wealth can protect us – is peculiarly unsayable. Never accuse them of that: you will sound like a nitwit. Instead, we get a flurry of suggestions, pitched between rearranging the fridge displays on the Titanic and imploring individuals to just do better. Zoe Williams is a Guardian columnist
The National
an hour ago
- The National
West of Orkney windfarm gets green light with 125 turbines approved
Scottish ministers granted offshore consent following a recommendation from the Marine Directorate Licensing Operations Team, allowing the £8 billion, two-gigawatt offshore wind project to move forward. A partnership between Corio Generation, TotalEnergies, and the Renewables Infrastructure Development Group, the wind farm will be located around 30km west of Orkney Mainland and 25km north of the Sutherland coast. It will feature up to 125 fixed-foundation turbines. READ MORE: Wind, words, and willpower: Inside a pivotal week on Skye's energy future ScotWind, managed by Crown Estate Scotland, grants developers the rights to seabed sites to build large-scale offshore wind farms. Project director Stuart Macauley welcomed the decision, stating: 'We'd like to thank the Scottish Government, their officials, and all stakeholders and suppliers who have worked with us so proactively to make this happen.' He also highlighted the need for greater clarity on regulatory issues such as transmission charges, electricity market reform, and the future of Contracts for Difference (CfD) auction rules. 'Like many projects in Scotland and the UK, we and our investors are focused on working with government to achieve the certainty required on key regulatory areas such as transmission charging, electricity market reform and the rules for future CfD auction rounds. 'Gaining clarity on these points will be crucial for investors to fully understand the economic case for progressing into construction and operation. 'The UK Government has set out ambitious decarbonisation goals for 2030 and beyond, and our pioneering wind farm, backed by major international investors, can deliver jobs, inward investment and make a significant contribution to the energy transition in Scotland.' Highland Council had already approved the project's onshore planning application in June 2024. This covers underground cabling and infrastructure needed to connect the wind farm to the national grid in Caithness. In March, the council also confirmed it would not object to the offshore plans submitted to Scottish ministers. The developers have launched several local initiatives, including: A £1m research and development programme led by EMEC in Orkney A £900,000 education initiative with the University of Highlands and Islands A £125k Fit 4 Renewables programme run by ORE Catapult The offshore application included requests under the Electricity Act 1989 and the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, alongside two and a half years of environmental and technical assessments. The West of Orkney Windfarm is expected to play a key role in meeting the UK Government's 2030 net-zero targets.
