Following a recent article in The Guardian, which focused on higher education, and in particular the University of Nottingham’s (UoN) treatment of its academic staff, UoN has now released their official response.
Last week The Guardian published an interview with two academic members of staff working at the University of Nottingham, one of whom stated that he had ‘more rights [whilst working] as a binman’. This was among the five jobs the academic allegedly had to take, due to being employed on casual contracts at UoN and another university, which were financially unviable.
A casual or temporary contract is defined by The Guardian in this piece as “short term and paying only by the hour [thus offering] more experience than income”.
The article went on to disclose that forty-five percent of staff working at the University counted as “casual labour”, and were therefore on this type of potentially unstable contract.
“The University of Nottingham does recognise that the case studies within The Guardian’s article were ‘concerning’”
The Guardian then stated that UoN students were paying “£9,000 a year in tuition fees…[to be taught by] teachers who may not even be earning that much”.
The University of Nottingham have now published a response to The Guardian’s article on UoN Blogs, which declares that the prominence of the University in this article is “unwarranted, unbalanced and unfair”.
Following this, the response states that The Guardian’s article is “misleading and inaccurate” and based on ‘flawed data’ provided by the University and College Union, who are currently running a campaign against the use of casual contracts.
The University claims that instead of “almost half” of Nottingham staff being on casual contracts, using the correct full time-equivalent figure (FTE) and data from 2014/15, the number is instead “10.33%” of teaching and teaching-and-research staff.
“The statement notes that only ‘4.6%’ are actually on casual contracts”
The Guardian when calculating their figures instead analysed contracts as a measure which led to the “misleading picture of the student experience”.
When regarding the entirety of full-time academic staff within the University, the statement notes that only ‘4.6%’ are actually on casual contracts, and that comparing temporary and fixed-term contracts will not work, as the figures are “not comparable”.
Despite this, the University of Nottingham does recognise that the case studies within The Guardian’s article were “concerning”. It went on to claim, however, that they were “completely unrepresentative of working life” here at UoN.
Indeed, the statement went on to say that the University is “an enlightened and progressive employer…[where] working practises are a world away from those at Sports Direct”.
Furthermore, the response also comments that claiming any staff are on zero-hours contracts is “wilfully misleading”. Similarly, “visiting lecturers, expert consultants or industry professionals”, who “add greatly” to the research done here at UoN would also be on this type of casual contract.
“The University is ‘an enlightened and progressive employer…[where] working practises are a world away from those at Sports Direct’”
The response concludes with reinforcing that “staff welfare is, of course, a priority” and that the University will be taking up their concerns about the article “directly with The Guardian”.
To read the University of Nottingham’s full response, click here.
Amy Wilcockson
Image: Michael Brunton-Spall via Flickr.
