Tete a Tete: “are the UCU marking strikes justified?”

Bethan Smith says “yes”…

“Boycott” is a word that automatically sparks controversy. Considering that strike actions have so far resulted in protests, well-meant but misguided student lectures and twitter rows with Katie Hopkins, it’s fair to say that when you combine the word “boycott” with “marking”, there will be some initial knee-jerk anxiety. I’ve seen some distressing “grab- your-torch-and-pitchforks” style anger. Some students are imagining the boycott to be kind of apocalyptic academic armageddon, where work won’t ever be marked.

Quite simply, that’s a myth. What isn’t a myth is that the teaching staff at Warwick are drastically underpaid and overworked. What isn’t a myth is that the university makes a surplus of up to £30 million each year, it charges £9000 tuition fees with no student say in how that money is spent, and it pays its Vice Chancellor a staggering twenty-two times the wage of its lowest paid member of staff.

When a person is paid unfairly, and is drastically overworked – and when that has an impact on their personal lives and wellbeing – it’s frankly unfair. It’s important that we respect the right to fair pay for all staff who organise lectures, seminars and mark essays to the small hours of the day. “But why does this dispute have to directly affect my studies?” I hear you cry. Granted, sometimes it can feel as though students are pawns in the battle for fair pay. But the boycott is an outcome of university attitudes towards learning, and not the strikers themselves.

the teaching staff at Warwick are drastically underpaid and overworked

Warwick has proven time and time again – a bit like a child with its fingers in its ears – that it simply doesn’t want to listen to strikers, picket lines or organised meetings. The university has made it clear that it will only start caring about what’s fair when it is affected directly and consistently. That’s where the marking boycott comes in. In an age where universities are treated like businesses, we students are simply a source of income. By interrupting the final marking process, the boycott automatically forces the university to pay attention.

It’s the only way that the university will finally adhere to the needs of the people who work tirelessly to give us a decent education. We need to think of the wider implications rather than our own immediate wants. So, yes, students might graduate a little later. But if we can ensure that our lecturers get decent pay for the jobs they do, then it’s definitely worth it in the long run.

Michael Wrench says “no”…

Despite delays, after April the 26th, the UCU are planning on boycotting any marking normally undertaken by their members. Not content with striking, and therefore disrupting the primary purpose of a university, to educate, the UCU has taken another step in their war for fair pay.

The war is justified; some of the staff have particularly bad wage packets, especially considering the work they put in. And the postgrads are occasionally treated like bona fide slaves; this is more perhaps to do with the culture within academia, however objections are still justified. But the UCU is not targeting the management, the wage givers – they are targeting the students. It’s a lottery; perhaps you’ll be hit by it, perhaps you won’t. It’s justifiable that some students are worried, then, potentially, some students will graduate later than expected, some people will be worried with exam season just round the corner. But why should they have to worry? It’s not the pupils of the universities that have done wrong, it’s the management – yet it will be students suffering.

We pay for the privilege of having a BA or a BSc next to our names

At a time when education is far more expensive, marking boycotts should be absolutely forbidden. Even for the generation graduating, the final intake to pay £3000 a year automatically, it’s a lot of money. £3000 is easy enough to spend, but to earn back? No. Students are paying for an education, for a service. Perhaps this is an amoral way to see it, but at its basest level this is fact. Student pays money – student gets degree. And even then, the degree is earned.

It’s a common joke that students are all lazy, but in the end we evidently do enough. We graduate, move on. We pay for the privilege of having a BA or a BSc next to our names; we pay to help us make our own way in the world. We even work hard to earn the bloody right to pay (stupid personal statements). We work and we pay – so why on earth should we pay for someone else’s mistakes, why should we be a weapon and a casualty in someone else’s fight? The UCU, in short, have gone too far. This is no longer just about equal pay or equal rights – it’s about how far should you go. What are you willing to sacrifice for your aim? The staff don’t deserve some of the stuff that goes their way, but the students definitely don’t deserve to be used and abused in this way.

[divider] flikr.com/lidyanneaquino

[divider] flikr.com/simoningram

[divider] flikr.com/plashingvole