Breadcrumbs
- Home
- Research staff
- Research staff blog
- I fought the law. The law won.
I fought the law. The law won.
15 July 2010
By Sarah Davies
If you’re anything like myself and my colleagues, you have a vague sense that things are changing around fixed term contracts but not much knowledge of the details. Something about…er…European law, right? And that if you’ve been working for somewhere for five years you can’t be sacked, maybe? Or something?
If this is you – as well as me – then this new report is essential reading. Researchers, fixed-term contracts and universities: understanding law in context is the result of a research project which, as the executive summary notes:
…aimed to extend research into the management of researchers within universities in the light of the fixed-term employment legislation. It aimed to develop a more detailed understanding of how HEIs are implementing the legislation and how researchers experience it ‘on the ground’. The project involved legal and policy analysis, key informant interviews and institutional case studies based on policy analysis and interviews.
In other words, the findings give a thorough overview not only of what the legal situation actually is – based on the 2002 UK introduction of the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations – but how they are being worked out in practice, by human resources staff, principal investigators and managers, and in the day to day experiences of contract researchers. For me, the report is particularly revealing in terms of the interview data from these informants: at the very least, it suggests that knowledge about the legal situation of fixed term employment is patchy. Some employers are great, others less so – as one quote in particular suggests:
“...the last person I would ask would be my PI because I know he knows nothing. He came to me a couple of weeks ago and asked me when I was being made redundant. Surely, he’s the one who should know that, not me.”
All the more reason, I reckon, for us to be clued up on our employment situation and able to stand up for our rights. This report definitely helped me think about how to do this.
Hannah Dee15 July 2010 at 12:36 PM
permalinkreport this comment
There's a good UCU leaflet summarising the law here: http://www.ucu.org.uk/media/pdf/d/9/fixed-termflier_A5_1.pdf if you want a 1 side of a5 version of the law. I have to admit that when I came to the end of my last UK contract in 2009, I was surprised to realise that I got a redundancy payment. The payment wasn't huge, but it was enough to get me a washing machine when I took up the job in France! An unforeseen advantage of UK employment law when considering the problem of researcher mobility...
Sarah Davies15 July 2010 at 12:49 PM
permalinkreport this comment
This took me by surprise, too! I think you get a payment if you've been employed for more than two years? I also used mine to get my flights to my next location...
Anne Alexander15 July 2010 at 02:08 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Thanks for the posting, Sarah. The report looks very useful and the point about context is very important. I would also add that it is important not to see the context as something that just happens to you. You can shape it, too. I think the best way to do this is by organising together with other research staff - working through your trade union to make sure that senior management are made aware of what PIs are doing (or failing to do). If necessary putting fear of God into them that they will face collective action or costly employment tribunal cases if they don't start treating people better. But even at an individual level you can make a difference - one very small thing is by making sure that HR and your PI do a worthwhile exit interview in good time (at least 3 months before end of contract) at which they don't just 'go through the motions' but think about what they could do to help you find work. (Having your union rep, or at least a friend, sitting next to you and taking copious notes will help concentrate their minds). You can ask for support to retrain in order to redeploy within the organisation, for example. Or ask that they circulate your cv to other departments. Beyond this, start asking some big questions. Am I really 'redundant'? Has my university really got no further use for my skills? There is no need for you to internalize the whole idea that endlessly applying for fixed-term contracts is good for you, your research, or even the institution where you work. In my view it isn't and the more we do collectively to challenge the 'throwaway culture' around research contracts the better.
Sarah Davies16 July 2010 at 10:43 AM
permalinkreport this comment
Thanks Anne - that sounds really helpful advice for those of us who are too willing to accept the status quo! Can I ask if your suggestions are based on your own experiences? Please do post more or blog - it would be really great to hear first hand how researchers are finding ways to convince their institutions that the 'throwaway culture' you mention is not ultimately productive.
Andy Humphrey16 July 2010 at 10:49 AM
permalinkreport this comment
Anne: thank you, I couldn't have put it better myself! One key aspect of the legislation, that almost everyone misses, is that once you've worked for a certain length of time (more than 4 years) on 2 or more successive contracts, you have the automatic right to regard yourself as a permanent employee. The onus is on the employer to justify why they DON'T regard you as a permanent employee - it's not your job to convince them that they should make you permanent. UCU encourages fixed-term contract staff who reach the qualifying point to submit a formal letter to their university's HR department, stating that they are exercising the right to regard themselves as a permanent employee and asking the university to clarify their status formally. In practice this usually means a meeting where the university lay out, in great detail, all the reasons why they are not prepared to regard you as a permanent member of staff - and what happens after that is really strongly dependent on the circumstances of your individual university, and how far you want to exercise your legal rights. Dr. Andy Ball famously took Aberdeen University all the way to the Employment Tribunal, and won - but for most researchers it isn't going to be in our interest to take such a militant stand. Most of us simply want to be allowed to get on with the research that we love to do, and have the protection of proper support procedures from our employers if it does come to the point that there's no way they can keep us on any more.
Matthew Salois22 July 2010 at 05:30 PM
permalinkreport this comment
I do not mean to be discourteous towards anyone who has made a career out of fixed term contracts, but shouldn't the ultimate goal for us be getting out of such temporary positions and into something more permanent like a lectureship? The economist in me believes the labour market should be free of too much government regulation. Employers should have a good degree of freedom over hiring and firing decisions.
Simon Smith22 July 2010 at 06:03 PM
permalinkreport this comment
You seem to be contradicting yourself, Matthew. The legislation Andy refers to is intended precisely to get people out of temporary positions by making a research post permanent after a certain period of time / number of contracts. More importantly, I would like to think that the relationship a researcher has with their university is more than just that of an employee with their employer. You should feel, and be made to feel, that you are also a member of a community - the 'college'. In fact you'll be expected to show how you are contributing to collegiate life (or 'academic leadership') if you want to apply for a promotion at most institutions. That can be difficult if you've always got one eye on the next job opportunity. Another respect in which a researcher is more than just an employee is that they have (to a greater or lesser extent) an independent research agenda, which the institution should be helping them to develop (rather than just employing their labour on one task or another). In my opinion an entirely unregulated labour market for researchers is counter-productive because it doesn't take account of the social and cultural conditions that are necessary for bringing up the next generation of independent researchers.
Matthew Salois22 July 2010 at 07:21 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Hi Simon, it does sound that way, though I am afraid I am just not expressing myself very smartly. My first point is that researchers should be making the effort to get into more permanent positions, moving away from fixed term contracts. My second point is meant to express the view that I think researchers ought to be doing so on their own merit rather than through a legal loophole that allows them stay just because they have been there a few years. Over regulated labor markets can often end hurting those individuals they are intended to benefit. By making it more difficult for employers to engage in redundancy actions most employers will respond rationally by making the hiring process more cumbersome. This is not my opinion -- there is a large body of economic evidence on this. In some ways the story is similar to laws that raise the minimum wage. Employers respond to the increase in cost by hiring fewer people. Often the people who end up not getting hired are the ones who need the job the most (single mothers, low-income households, etc.). A more appropriate course of action is to support policies that create more jobs for researchers. Not only does this benefit the many researchers on the job market, but will expand the boundaries of scientific knowledge as more researchers are engaging in more research. While you may disagree, my feeling is that the “social and cultural conditions that are necessary for bringing up the next generation of independent researchers” is not something that can or even should be legislated. The current generation of researchers ought to be working in concert with the leaders in higher education, not to foster job protection, but rather the expansion of intellectual potential the scientific community has to offer.
Hannah Dee23 July 2010 at 06:45 AM
permalinkreport this comment
Matthew, I have to disagree with your premises here. Yes, researchers should working towards the expansion of intellectual potential that the academic community has to offer. Of course. But I think that your free market quasi libertarian (or do you actually call yourself a libertarian?) leanings are coming through very strongly. Are the best and brightest being attracted into a career in which there are no long term contracts? Or are they looking at the opportunity cost associated with studying for 6+ years and then working at 25-35K with zero job security and say "sod this, I'm going into banking?". Do you not see how better job security at the postdoctoral stage might be the best way to expand intellectual potential in the system? And without wanting to seem personal, I'd really like you to try and respond without using the phrase "As an Economist" - I think you have a particular type of free market economics in mind when you say this and very strong anti-protectionist views. I know for a fact these are not shared by the whole of the field of economics, and that using you economic background as an arguing tool is (incidentally or deliberately) masking your political bias.
Sarah Davies23 July 2010 at 01:51 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Well, to take a very non-economic perspective, I think the example of the minimum wage is an interesting one. I think some would argue that even if you're right and the implementation of a minimum wage may result in fewer people being employed, there is more at stake than numbers - that a minimum wage is important for the dignity of employees, and for a sense of commonality and respect between different members of a society. I think Simon is arguing something similar here - that there are issues of trust, and of valuing people's skills and experience, which are intertwined in this legislation. On another note, I'm going to start - metaphorically - throwing paint at comments that talk about the 'scientific community' in catch-all terms. The scientific community is a lovely thing, but I'm not part of it - and neither are many many researchers... ;-)
Matthew Salois23 July 2010 at 03:37 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Hannah, I am troubled by the insinuation that I use an economics background to mask a political bias. The fundamental purpose of this blog is to provide "an open forum for research staff to discuss issues relating to their experience, careers and skills development" (quoted from the Vitae RS Blog terms of reference). Each one of us comes from a unique background tailored by past experiences inspired by our chosen field of study. The experiences in my own career and skill development are obviously, and not wrongly, influenced by my training as an economist. My thoughts and opinions are offered freely and frankly in the spirit of courteous discourse and debate. My opinions and convictions are not without bias, as no opinion or point of view is without partiality, but they are without malicious intent or political scheming. Yes, I acknowledge that better job security at the postdoctoral stage will expand the intellectual potential across higher education. But my experience and background tells me that regulation is not the optimal course of action. My statement, buttressed not by political bias but by a dispassionate set of analytical tools, is intended towards seeking a solution that improves the quality of life for all researchers. On every occasion that I read the RS Blog, I am convinced that all those who contribute have a greater gift of wit and intellect than I surely do. If I too often use the phrase, "as an economist" it is only because I feel that my unique background, amongst a sea of smartly trained natural and physical scientists, gives me something useful to contribute. While I can try, ultimately I cannot separate myself from being an economist -- it is one of the ways I define myself. When I write posts on this blog and comments on others' blogs, I am writing from an economist's point of view. I will be the first to recognize that not all economists share my views, nor will other scientists in general. But I like to think that I bring something to this website that might be different from others who are not trained in the "economic way" of thinking.
Simon Smith23 July 2010 at 08:26 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Sorry to go off-topic, but the exchange between Hannah and Matthew relates to the structure of this blog. I find it useful to know something about people's background, and as a cross-disciplinary researchers' network, probably the most useful piece of information we can give others about ourselves is our disciplinary background. So I don't mind at all when Matthew prefaces his comments, 'as an economists' - it just reminds me who I'm talking to, and - as Matthew modestly suggests - what he might therefore be able to contribute to the discussion. It would be even more useful if all users of the blog had a publicly accessible profile that we could click on. Ironically Matthew is one of the six 'core contributors' whose profile is available from the link on the left panel, but I think my point still remains. Incidentally ('as a sociologist who happens to have done quite a lot of research on online communities') I can say that it isn't at all unusual for contributors to feel a need to introduce themselves regularly to the community by disclosing more personal information than is strictly necessary in their posts. It can be about establishing the authority to speak, for sure, but it's often just a sign of friendliness.
Hannah Dee30 July 2010 at 01:34 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Matthew - I'm sorry for my clumsy comment earlier. I'd interpreted your "As an economist" as an argument from authority, rather than a simple piece of background information. As someone who's studied philosophy (see what I did there?) I'm wary of certain rhetorical tricks; it's easy to fall in to the trap of appearing to say "I've studied X and therefore my opinion on related matter Y is more valid than yours".
Matthew Salois31 July 2010 at 01:52 PM
permalinkreport this comment
No worries, it was fun to get a little spicy actually. But I was surprised to learn that you also studied philosophy. And here I thought you were all tech and computer vision!
Andy Humphrey11 August 2010 at 01:19 PM
permalinkreport this comment
"Researchers should be making the effort to get into more permanent positions, moving away from fixed term contracts.... I think researchers ought to be doing so on their own merit rather than through a legal loophole." I completely agree with you, Matthew, despite the fact that I probably come to the question from the opposite end of the political spectrum. The problem is that there ARE no "more permanent positions", or rather (according to my much-cited careers advisor at the RSC) there are only positions for 10% of those of us who want them. I'm inclined to view it as a good thing that there is a mechanism which at least creates SOME greater possibility of a stable job which really contributes to the development of the Academy, rather than forcing research staff to be just hired help who have to go and get hired somewhere else every couple of years (and eventually get brain-drained out of academia precisely because of the lack of long-term prospects). It may not be the best mechanism, but it's a lot better than laissez-faire. If market forces were allowed free rein over higher education, then we'd have expensive or "unprofitable" departments shutting down left right and centre, even if they happen to be world leading (look at the recent furore over the philosophy department at Middlesex for a classic example). How exactly is this good for academic freedom?