Students should get compensation for strike action, but not via payouts

As a further series of strikes have been announced, the debate about whether students should get compensation for strike action seems more relevant than ever, considering that if the strikes go ahead, students will have lost 21 days due to strike action this academic year. 

Sussex University has attempted to get ahead of possible court actions by offering students up to £100 for any ‘significant distress’ and inconvenience they may have felt during the strikes that went ahead in term one. Even though some may argue that this is more than what other universities have done, £100 is nowhere near enough compensation considering some students will lose out on £860 due to strike action. 

Furthermore, it is clear that the university is doing this to prevent more complaints in the long run rather than out of care for their students. The fact they have offered a pitiful amount of £100 or less, which would go straight to the student rather than being taken off the initial university fee, plainly shows this is not compensation for missed teaching, but a transparent attempt to get students to stop bothering the university. 

Some argue that students should be supporting their lecturers in the strikes rather than campaigning for compensation. What they don’t realise is that the two causes go hand in hand. 

We should get compensation for the strikes, but not by means of universities giving students a minimal amount of money. The majority of students get student loans to be able to pay for university, so the monetary compensation should be taken off the initial amount paid. In the short-term, students may support the University of Sussex’s decision to compensate students directly as they would, in a sense, be able to see the money. However, taking money off the initial fee would be a better solution in the long run. Yes, this would mean that students would just end up owing less to the SLCC rather than receiving any money. But  ultimately the compensation of £100 is nothing compared to the around £800 plus interest that many students would end up owing for a service that wasn’t provided.

As much as universities would like to see themselves as centres of learning, I strongly support the idea that students should see university as a business providing them with (in the eyes of a humanities student) an overly expensive service. With this in mind, the University of Sussex shouldn’t be giving money to students for inconveniences caused, they should instead be returning the money for not providing a service that was paid for.  

Some argue that students should be supporting their lecturers in the strikes rather than campaigning for compensation. What they don’t realise is that the two causes go hand in hand. 

Ultimately, universities are a business and students are their customers. When customers pay for a service and that service is not provided, they expect to get their money back.

Firstly, there is an important distinction to be made between the lecturers and the university itself. I absolutely support the lecturers striking. I think the causes they are fighting for are worthwhile, particularly considering that the hourly rate of pay for men was 26% higher than for women, according to their most recent Gender Pay Gap Report. 

However, this doesn’t mean that students shouldn’t also campaign for compensation. Strikes have more impact on businesses when they start to lose money. It becomes a lot harder for lecturers to make an economic impact on universities when a university can continue to earn money from students, even when classes are not being carried out. Perhaps if universities had an obligation to compensate students for teaching missed due to strikes, they would be more willing to work with the UCU. 

Ultimately, universities are a business and students are their customers. When customers pay for a service and that service is not provided, they expect to get their money back. Why should universities be treated any differently?