Posts Tagged ‘IFUT’

Co-ordinated university attack on staff conditions- Indymedia, 6th Jan

January 6, 2011 1 comment

Post by “gramsci fan” on Indymedia today
“There are two particularly odd aspects of this. One is that these demands are being made “under Croke Park”, despite the fact that the unions representing most academic staff – IFUT and TUI – voted against Croke Park. In other words, management are unilaterally demanding the right to rewrite contracts which they have notionally entered into as binding agreements with their employees. It is not clear what threats they have available to force staff to sign away tenure, academic freedom, holidays or the right to flexible work.

The other is that this process is being rushed through while most staff are in the throes of exams and in a “lame-duck” government which has nothing to lose by supporting this process of “putting the boot in”. It is to be hoped that effective resistance can stall this until at least after the election – and garner political support for reversing these demands.” (more)

Will Third Level Education be Irretrievably Damaged Like The Banks

January 3, 2011 7 comments

From Paddy Healy, Former President TUI, Lecturer in Physics, Former member of Governing Body and Academic Council of DIT
Threat to Academic Freedom. Support call for gathering of academics to oppose this change:
Proposed university changes labelled “outrageous”
IRISH TIMES Fri, Jan 07, 2011
THE IRISH Federation of University Teachers (IFUT) has labelled as “outrageous” proposals for work practice changes relating to the Croke Park agreement which would affect academics.
The preliminary NUI Galway document proposes a longer working year, student evaluation of staff and changes to academic freedom.
“The proposals as tabled are absolutely outrageous,” Mike Jennings, general secretary of the federation said last night. “They would destroy the whole concept of a university . . . they are so bad that I really wonder if the university authorities at the highest level are even aware of the document because if by some miracle IFUT were to agree to them, it would no longer be a university as understood in any country in the world.”
Meanwhile a former president of the Teachers Union of Ireland has called for a meeting of Irish academics to resist the proposals.
“It is vital in a democracy that academics have the freedom to say what they want,” argued Paddy Healy, a lecturer in physics at DIT. “But they intend to remove tenure . . . Erosion of tenure is very fundamentally anti-democratic,” he said.
An official document presented by NUIGalway to the Trade Unions containing it’s proposals to implement the Croke Park Deal has now become available. I understand that the implementation proposals in other universities are essentially the same. I am consulting with colleagues in Universities and Institutes of Tech nology with a view to convening a gathering of all Irish academics to resist this attack on academic freedom, the related entitlement to permanency and tenure and, indeed on Irish Democracy itself. Here is the NUIG document:
Public Service (Croke Park) Agreement – NUI Galway Implementation Plan

This plan is derived from the Public Service Agreement 2010 (P.S.A.) and the sectoral plan for universities. It reflects the individual needs and responsibilities of the university as an autonomous institution. It should be read in the context of the sectoral plan.

1. With effect from the start of 2010/11 academic year, the provision of an additional hour per week to be available to facilitate, at the discretion of management, teaching and learning in the university/institute. This will be allocated to individuals by the head of school via the workload model

2. Co-operation with the introduction of academic workload management and full economic costing models and with the compilation of associated data to support these and operational plans for all staff .

3. Co-operation with redeployment/re-organisation/rationalisation arising from the review of Higher Education strategy and changing economic and social circumstances and to facilitate the reorganisation of both work and staff to maximise the effectiveness and efficiency of the university. Additionally, co-operation with measures to promote value for money including inter alia, outsourcing as provided for in the agreement.

4. A comprehensive review and revision of employment contracts to identify and remove any impediments to the development of an optimum teaching, learning, and research environment. This review and revision to be completed in advance of the start of the 2011/12 academic year.

a) In the case of service staff (administrative, technical, professional, library, computing, general operative and craftworkers) the review and implementation will include –An increase in the working week with a view to extending the working day.
– a commitment to implement the time and attendance system
– reform of the current flexible working hours scheme to include eligibility, leave and appointments, etc
– consolidation of the overtime ban
– review of redeployment procedures
– annualisation of leave and review of “closed days “
– commitment to flexibility within and between departments/units
– unified technical and administrative structures at school and college level
– introduction of a performance management system (see below)
– working with and alongside private contractors

b) In relation to academic contracts this review will include

Attendance – there shall be a requirement to be in attendance at the university during the normal working week and for the duration of the college year which is 12 consecutive calendar months.

Tenure – tenure is to be consistent with the established corpus of employment law. In this context tenure refers to the duration of the contract.

Duties – duties encompass the three key areas of academic work – Teaching, Research and Contribution to the institution, the academic’s discipline and the wider community served by the university.

Flexibility and cooperation – staff will agree to flexibility and efficiency in the discharge of responsibilities; to provision for change of duties (subject to reasonable capacity to exercise the new duties); and a requirement to co-operate with management of the university in pursuit of the university’s plans, goals and objectives. Such co-operation will encompass a requirement to supply relevant data to management.

Professional development – opportunities will be available to staff and the contract will require staff to undertake such development including participation in the university’s Performance Management and Development programme which may be developed and amended in response to business needs.

Academic Freedom – it will be acknowledged that the freedoms contained within Section 14 of the Universities Act, 1997 are to be exercised within the context of the framework of obligations set out in the contract and they will be recorded along with other leaves.

Annual Leave – the time at which leave is taken is at the discretion of the university and all leave must be applied for and approved in advance.

Discipline / Dismissal – clarification that the University shall have the power to impose disciplinary sanctions up to and including the termination of appointment in accordance with such procedures as established from time to time and subject to any applicable employment legislation.

Development of redundancy procedures as required by the Universities Act.

Review of ill-health leave an its recording – i.e. Time and Attendance.

Review of Procedures relation to examinations and markings for all staff.

5. The Development and Implementation of a Performance Appraisal System.

This Performance Appraisal System will be at the heart of a high performing culture and staff who do not have a satisfactory rating in the P.A.S. will not be able to access:

 Promotions/Re-grading
 Incremental Progression
 Flexi-time
 Sabbatical Leave
 Private Consultancy Work
 The Triennial Grant
 Training and development other than as prescribed to address the performance deficit including further and higher education.

In the case of academic staff, targets will be delivered from the academic activity profiles and the workload models currently being developed and will include student evaluations of teachers.

In the case of other staff, targets will be derived from Competency Frameworks and K.P.I.s which will be developed for individuals and units

Will Third Level Education be irretrievably damaged like the banks before anybody blows the whistle?
Following conversations with colleagues in various universities, I now have a reasonable idea of the demands on unions being made by the University authorities under the Croke Park Deal. These demands confirm the predictions in my e-mail message but go even further. I include these demands towards the end of this piece. Though the discussions are taking place on a university by university basis the management strategy is being orchestrated by the Irish Universities Association.
I carry at the end of this piece the E-mail message referred to in University Blog by Ferdinand Von Prondzynski in which I reveal the demands to be put to TUI in talks on Croke Park Deal in respect of academic staff in Institutes of Technology. Some explanatory material has been added for a wider audience.
Professor Von Prondzynski remarks that holidays in Institutes of Technology “may be indefensible”. This, I hope, is due to a misunderstanding on his part. I shall return to this issue further on in this piece.
The discussion on conditions of service in third level institutions must be seen in a wider context. Government is determined to make savings (cuts) in all areas of public expenditure. This has particular effects in each sector. For example it is affecting the vital provision of health services to human beings. In education it threatens at once the fulfilment of a fundamental human need and the infliction of damage on the most productive sector of the economy- the provision of skilled professional labour. Teachers at all levels of education together with parents and those who pay tax collaborate in this hugely productive sector. The contention that education is a service “carried” by the private sector is manifest nonsense and self-serving propaganda of the rich. Indeed high tech manufacturing companies, both indigenous and multi-national, who benefit greatly from a highly educated workforce contribute little to education in Ireland due to the low corporate tax rate. The generation of a highly educated population with the capacity for critical thought is both a key human need and a necessity for a successful modern economy no matter what social system may be in place.
Inappropriate Change
The danger is that the government and societal establishment will damage this system in pursuit of the wrong type of change. Education in Ireland is under-resourced by international standards and there is need for genuine reform to improve the system. But this is not the type of change that government has in mind. There is the problem of further reduction of resources on the one hand and the putting in place of systems which damage the education process itself in pursuit of false efficiencies. A government which was so wrong about the needs of a well functioning banking system is unlikely to be right about the needs of the education system. One of these systems is the current arrangement that funding is contingent on number of students enrolled and on the number progressing to the next year of the course through passing exams. It is now intended to extend this principle further. Funding per student will be contingent on course completion by the student.!! A company salesperson may consider that payment by results is entirely natural. But should education be run on the basis of such a system.? Should competition for students between third level institutions be the norm? In fairness, some far sighted business people with a background in education do not agree with such an approach.
Such arrangements are already “dumbing down” qualifications despite the best efforts of most lecturers. There have been instances where students have been administratively progressed despite the opposition of lecturers and external examiners as Professor Prondzynski has noted. But the usual process is much more subtle and incremental. It is ,of course, a huge step forward that an increasing fraction of young people are going on to third level. Inevitably, many of these will have modest attainments at second level. Suitable structures should be put in place in Universities and IoTs to enable such students to genuinely learn. But there is competition to enrol students due to the funding system. This has led to the recruitment of students with very modest levels of attainment at second level to ab initio honours degree level courses (Level 8). These students should be enrolled in lower level courses on completion of which they may progress to the higher level course. There was great merit in the original course structure in Institutes of Technology where students could progress from certificate to diploma and on to a genuine honours degree level. But this would take additional years tuition which nowadays would be considered “inefficient” despite a hugely successful track record. In addition, an institution which graduates students in less time would have a competitive edge in the chase for students and the money attached. A lecturer faced with such a cohort has no choice but to cover material slowly and in less depth and with repetition if the students are not to be completely “lost”. The “dumbing down” is automatic. There is considerable pressure to “teach to the exam” to avoid huge failure rates. There is no standard external examination as at Leaving Cert for degree level courses. External examiners at third level are now effectively chosen by the academic Department carrying out the examination. Often the recommendations of “externs” can be ignored under the rules of the institution. Is this light touch regulation academic style?
If lectures are given and examinations set by insecure part-time lecturers, the dangers are obvious. But let me pay tribute to the many part-time lecturers who have bravely risked “losing hours” to protect standards. If permanency or tenure is removed from full-time lecturers the damage will be huge. Already many companies employing graduates are not taking degrees at face value and are insisting on submission, in addition, of Leaving Certificate results!!!
Anecdotes from the Common Rooms
Sometimes anecdotes from the common room are very effective in illustrating reality as long as they are supported by real evidence generally. “He sent me a first class honours student to supervise for a masters in English but the student could not make sentences. He was great at cutting and pasting” This I heard over lunch in one third level institution. “I have them for third year honours physics but they cannot use logs” I heard in another. At a cross- third- level meeting I once expressed the view that students with less than 300 leaving certificate points were generally not capable of learning in the first year of a level 8 course under the traditional lecture/tutorial/ library system and required small group concentrated teaching particularly in the earlier years. A colleague from another institution whispered in my ear “Paddy, would you believe 150 points”. The best story of all doing the rounds concerns the approach of a student representative to a Head of Department concerning a forthcoming examination. The student complained that they “had no idea what would be on the exam” The Head replied that the class were about to sit an examination after all and it would be extraordinary if matters were otherwise. “Does she cover the course” : “yes”. “Does she ask questions on topics she hasn’t covered”: “No”. The student began to leave but turned at the door to the Head and said: “ But we know what will be on all the other exams”. Many a true word has been spoken in jest.
Poaching for salmon from the river flowing through the estate of the landlord is an honourable Irish tradition. But there is nothing honourable about the new process of poaching students from competitor institutions. Here is how it is done. First artificially depress the number of places on the course concerned in the specifications supplied to the CAO. This artificially inflates the minimum points required rendering the course attractive to good students. Then use the list of unsuccessful applicants to telephone students already enrolled in other institutions and offer them a place! It is happening!

Managerialism and Collegiality
Reduction of resources and imposition of business models on third level institutions including competition for students is already doing serious damage. The notion of the student/parent as customer is fundamentally flawed in education. A current student has a prime interest in securing the qualification however devalued. On graduation the student acquires an interest in opposing further “dumbing down”. Students should of course be allowed and encouraged to complain if they feel they are not getting the education they deserve. But student driven quality assurance systems can paradoxically damage education. Many have seen the infamous message from an American student to her lecturer which was circulated by a British colleague some time ago: “I’ll thrash your grades next year if you don’t give me at least a 2.1 honours this year”
“Managing” in a competitive world with diminishing resources involves replacing collegiality with direction from above. This process is well advanced. Academics as a collectivity have an interest in maintaining standards. But their collective power is being diminished to serve the agenda of competition and false economy. The rule of the Human Resources Unit has become dominant.
Because of the vicious competition between institutions for students and, in particular, for reasonably able students, there is considerable pressure on academics to remain silent to prevent damage to the quantity and quality of student intake in their own institution including in their own course. Great credit is due to those who have taken a stand for standards in this atmosphere. But is this atmosphere not reminiscent of the atmosphere in the upper echelons of banks which prevented warnings being given. Vicious competition, loyalty to the individual institution and fear of career damage are common elements.

The vehicle through which change is to be imposed is an industrial relations agreement- The Croke Park Agreement. Irrespective of it’s appalling content, the focus of an industrial relations agreement is far too narrow and therefore damaging. Lecturers at Third Level have a commitment to teaching and scholarship. Scholarship includes inter alia research, creative writing and maintenance of world class practical skills in a rapidly changing world. The revelation that lecturers in a university were teaching “only” six hours per week at a Dail Sub-Committee enraged some TD’s. No account was taken of the number of post graduate students they supervised, the amount of research and scholarship they carried out, the number of publications they produced or the weight of course direction and co-ordination effected not to speak of lecture preparation and task correction. We recall that TDs are not required to turn up for work at all in order to draw basic salary.
Holidays not defensible in Institutes of Technology?
Ferdinand Von Prodzynski in a recent posting opined that holidays in IoTs were “hard to defend”. Lectures in the Institutes are required to teach for 16 hours per week and assistant lecturers carrying out the same duties are required to teach for 18 hours per week. Under Croke Park deal the management side is demanding that this be increased to 20+1 hours and 22+1 hours respectively.
A survey commissioned by TUI some years ago concluded that this was equivalent to a 50-54 hour week of teaching and related duties. It is extremely difficult to conduct the degree of scholarship appropriate to a third level institution in the context of such a workload. Currently many lecturers “tip away” at scholarly activity during term time and then put on a big push during the holidays.
The attempt by Institutes and Government to reduce vacation periods in addition to imposing the biggest teaching load in Western Europe cannot fail to damage the Institutes and literally make the adequate performance of academic duties impossible.
My judgement is that it is the intention of Government to bludgeon Institute staff into submission using the threat of redundancies. If they succeed they will then proceed to confront tenure and workload in Universities. The same damage will be inflicted there as has already been inflicted on Institutes if the Government has its way.
A bank can be bailed out with money extracted from the population. But it will take at least ten years for third level institutions to recover from the damage inflicted on them by cuts, marketisation, and the imposition of business models including bogus quality assurance systems.
Isn’t it time, Ferdinand, that you joined people like myself in shouting stop. Like banking chief executives you will be unable to claim that you didn’t know what was happening.
Demands being Made by University Authorities Under Croke Park Deal
1. That tenure be brought into Line with corporate industrial relations law. (This means that tenure until pensionable age with the individual university is being abolished and university academic staff can be made compulsorily redundant and/or redeployed to other parts of public service. This will require legislation PH)
2. Renegotiation of all existing contracts for implementation from September 2011
3. Contractual restrictions will be placed on Academic Freedom ( The restrictions are not yet clear but if the worst precedents abroad are followed they could include prevention of public criticism of government or the university authorities: they could also include forcing academics to carry out particular research projects or particular research outcomes could be suppressed due to commercial research agreements with private companies eg infamous heliobacter pylori case abroad- PH)

4. Staff must engage with workload monitoring and measurement.
5. Academic staff required to be in attendance at the university each day for twelve consecutive calendar months
6. Holidays to be at the discretion of the University. Staff member must apply and receive approval in advance for holiday leave (The effect of points 5 and 6 taken together is that holiday entitlements are to be set by The Holidays(Employees) ACT which sets minimum holidays for employees to protect them from predatory employers. If this were accepted it would reduce the holiday entitlements of academic staff below those of comparable public service employees and below those of trade unionised employees in the private sector—PH)

7. The current position under which the staff member automatically gets an increment unless management objects will be changed. Staff will only receive an increment following a satisfactory Performance Appraisal outcome. Failure to engage with Performance Appraisal System (PAS) will lead to a freezing of the incremental position and denial of access to promotion, sabbatical leave etc. The PAS system will include student evaluation of lecturers. (Performance appraisal will apply to all grades of academic staff including professors-PH)
8. Extra hour per week of teaching or administration to be implemented immediately
9. Staff may be redeployed to other Departments/duties within the University
10. Staff may be redeployed to other posts outside the university but within the wider public service (as set out in Croke Park Deal) with particular regard to HEA Proposals (eg Mergers to be recommended under Hunt Report PH)
11. Co-operation with Outsourcing (including teaching and research PH) in accordance with Croke Park Deal
12. New arrangements will apply to rewards for additional internal work and external consultancy work
My Email Message to TUI Colleagues in IOTs
Reliable information is circulating in HR Departments of the Institutes in relation to the demands being put to TUI in current talks on Croke Park Deal
1 extra hour per week teaching or other duties to be in addition to completion of 560 annual hrs teaching.
Summer Break to be reduced to 6 weeks
Full Maximum 560(L), 630(AL) hrs to be delivered annually
All night weighting(1.5) of teaching hours to be abolished
All hours credit on teaching time-table for course co-ordination to be abolished
Credit to be allowed for post-graduate supervision as part of annual 560 hrs at a rate to be negotiated
Post grad supervision to be continuously delivered on a 12month basis
I believe that all third Level Area reps(executive members) should be present at these talks (this is not the case)
I believe that attempts to make lecturers redundant and the above demands should be resisted in common
Any “trade off” would be disastrous for union
Talks with IFUT in relation to University Staff are being dragged out until Institute Staff have been bludgeoned into submission by the threat of redundancy. Then the assault on conditions of service of university staff including tenure and redeployment will begin.(This will require changes to the Universities Act. The acceptance of the principle of redundancy across the public service in the Croke Park Deal by ICTU led by SIPTU, IMPACT, INTO, PSEU lends support to the elimination of tenure and the required legislative changes. TUI, IFUT and ASTI remain opposed to Croke Park Deal)
It would be suicide to do a deal with a dying government

Paddy Healy 086-4183732

Third Level Workload-Reply to Prof. Von Prondzynsky and Sean Flynn

December 31, 2010 Leave a comment

Letter published in Irish Times Friday, Dec 31
Push to increase teaching load
Madam, – Your Education Correspondent, Seán Flynn (Home News, December 29th) referred to a message I sent to colleagues in institutes of technology recently. He also quoted Prof Von Prondzynski, who is not from our sector, as saying that holidays in institutes of technology were “hard to defend”. In addition, Mr Flynn refers to a current annual workload of 560 hours per year. The Department of Education is attempting to enforce an annual teaching load of a minimum of 560 hours per year in addition to the additional hour per week stipulated in the Croke Park deal. Workload is a different matter.

The workload of lecturers at third level involves both teaching and scholarship. Scholarship includes inter alia research, creative writing and maintenance of world-class practical skills in a rapidly changing world.

Some commentators take no account of the number of post- graduate students supervised, the amount of research and scholarship carried out, the number of publications produced, the weight of course direction and co-ordination undertaken, or the course reviews completed (not to mention lecture preparation and task correction).

Under the Croke Park deal the management side is demanding that the teaching load be increased to 20 plus one hours per week for lecturers and 22 plus one hours for assistant lecturers. A survey commissioned by TUI some years ago concluded that the current 16/18 hour lecturing load was equivalent to a 50-54 hour working week of teaching and related duties alone. It is extremely difficult to conduct the degree of scholarship appropriate to a third-level institution in the context of such a teaching load.

Currently many lecturers struggle on with scholarly activity during term time and then put on a big push during the holidays. Any agreement to reduce the vacation period would lead to an extension of teaching into the holiday period by the authorities.

The attempt by institutes and Government to reduce vacation periods in addition to imposing the biggest teaching load in Western Europe on lecturing staff cannot fail to damage the institutes and literally make the adequate performance of full academic duties impossible.

It is clear that government wishes to effectively reduce the institutes to teaching-only institutions.

The development of institutes of technology has been a hugely successful initiative in Irish education. Could the Government that oversaw the destruction of the banks be allowed to seriously damage third-level education also? – Yours, etc,

PADDY HEALY, 086-4183732
Griffith Court,
Dublin 3.

Lecturers face checks on the amount of time spent teaching (via Ninth Level Ireland)

Lecturing staff continue to suffer the indignity of being fed the Hunt Report third hand.

Lecturers face checks on the amount of time spent teaching "University academics will no longer be able to get away with doing a few hours teaching and little or no research or other work. The Irish Independent has learned that a forthcoming report will recommend the introduction of sophisticated work-load management models to monitor what staff actually do in terms of teaching duties, administration, counselling students and research …" (more) [John Walshe, Independent, 22 June] … Read More

via Ninth Level Ireland

Is IFUT’s no vote a warning bell for society?

Perhaps it might occur to others (obviously not Ms O’Kelly, article from SINDO below) that those who are entrusted with the formation of our young population at all levels might be genuinely fearful for the ultimate implications of the Croke Park Deal for their students. IFUT after all has only voted for Industrial action once in its history and its “no vote” is clearly a warning bell of the serious damage being inflicted on standards in learning and indeed on critical thinking in our society generally.
‘Copper-fastened’ deal all comes down to the nuts and bolts The cracks are beginning to show already in the Croke Park agreement, writes Emer O’Kelly
“The anti-democratic charge, with its potential to scupper the agreement, has been led by the Teachers’ Union of Ireland (TUI) and the Irish Federation of University Teachers (IFUT). It’s hard to believe that the men and women entrusted with the educational formation of many of our citizens at second level, and all of our citizens at university level, can behave in such an unprincipled fashion. At least, it’s hard to believe of the IFUT; we’re used to the outrageously selfish impropriety of teachers at primary and secondary level. But how uneasy does it make you feel to envisage the intellectual elite of the country being taught ethics, philosophy, and particularly, politics, by people who refuse to abide by a democratic, if reluctant, vote? “ (more )

University heads told courses and jobs at risk in funding cut, Irish Times, Wed 2 June 2010

“UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS are being told to brace themselves for unprecedented cuts which could force them to cut staff and cancel courses.

In a confidential letter to the seven presidents, the chief executive of the Higher Education Authority (HEA), Tom Boland, says he is alerting all colleges now to take “whatever action is needed” to prepare for the next academic year.

Mr Boland advises colleges to budget on the basis that there may be further staff reductions in 2011. He also says the colleges can expect “further reductions in core allocations” and no increase in student charges.

It is clear, he writes, that “overall recurrent funding will be reduced and this is likely to require reductions in pay and non-pay across the sector.””(more)

IFUT’s “utter astonishment” at threat of more funding cuts to universities.

Redundancies not an Option
2 June 2010
The Irish Federation of University Teachers has reacted with utter astonishment to the prospect of more funding cuts to universities as reported in The Irish Times today, 2 June 2010.
“I note that in a panic reaction to the prospect of more cuts, some university sources are allegedly considering redundancies for academic staff”, said Mike Jennings, General Secretary of IFUT. “I wish to state categorically that under no circumstances will IFUT agree to any compulsory job losses in the university sector”, said Mr Jennings.
“At a time of unprecendented demand for higher education and at a time when we have record numbers of students in our universities, it beggars belief that the Department of Education could even be considering more cuts.”
IFUT calls on the Minister for Education, Ms Mary Coughlan TD, to issue an immediate statement denying these reports.
– ENDS –
For further information on this media release, please contact:
Mike Jennings,
General Secretary,
Irish Federation of University Teachers,
11 Merrion Square,
Dublin 2.
Tel: (01) 661 0910
(087) 677 6747

Joe O’Toole Supports Croke Park Deal – My reply

Public sector reform deal is the best we can hope for says NUI Senator

Joe does not mention the requirement to negotiate changed teaching contracts for teachers and lecturers or the agreement to the continued elimination of posts of responsibility in schools and large numbers of lecturing posts at third level or the damage to collegiality–

Senator Joe O’Toole represents NUI graduates in Seanad. Eireann. He is a former primary school principal, former general secretary of the Irish National Teachers Organisation, and a former President of ICTU. In the most recent election to Seanad Eireann he was nominated by David Begg, General Secretary of ICTU.
Joe is recommending a “yes” vote to the Croke Park Deal

Members of TUI, ASTI and Irish Federation of University Teachers have voted strongly against the Deal. UNITE which represents lecturers in University of Limerick has voted against the DEAL. The Dublin based Education Branch of SIPTU has recommended a” no” vote as has the Academic Section of SIPTU at NUIG

INTO executive recommended acceptance and the members voted in favour though 35% voted “no”.
The only arguments made by Joe (Irish Times, 7 May) in support of the deal is that there is “hope” that pay losses may be restored and union leaders will be able to “influence” changes in the public service.
He makes no mention of the requirement to negotiate changed teaching contracts under pain of continued pay reduction. The failure of the DEAL to halt the wholesale elimination of posts of responsibility in primary and secondary education and the provision in the agreement to make all teachers carry out the duties as additional unpaid work. The huge ongoing reduction in numbers of lecturers at third level and the provision in the agreement to force remaining lecturers to carry out the duties of the unreplaced go unmentioned. The threat to tenure and academic freedom from the redeployment provisions of the agreement goes unrecorded. In a word the Croke Park deal is to be used together with the moratorium on recruitment to devastate the education system, seriously worsen conditions of service and to replace collegiality with managerialism. It would be too much to expect Joe to mention a 4year pay and pension freeze no matter how steep the increase in consumer price index!!
As this is the effect of the deal negotiated by ICTU Public Service leaders, it is clear that public servants would be far better served by depending on their own unions and foregoing the “influence” of ICTU in discussing changes in the public service.

But Joe is well aware of the huge increase in the workload of teachers and the large cuts in education provision inherent in the DEAL. He has state on record:“I met Batt O’Keeffe (Minister for Education) and Mary Harney(Minister for Health) during the talks(Nov/Dec 2009) and they were both salivating at the prospect of getting at the things in the union documents on offer—We are very near an agreement (in current talks) because  the deal was virtually done last December.” Senator Joe O’Toole, Former President ICTU on RTE, Marion Finucane, Sunday March 22 urging Government to accept the ICTU offer to Government in December 2009 which became the Croke Park Deal.

But the approach of Joe is not surprising. Teachers will remember his infamous statement in the context of the ASTI dispute. “Benchmarking is just an ATM machine” Senator Joe O’Toole rubbishing the attempt of ASTI to achieve a catch up pay rise outside of Benchmarking which incorporated industrial style productivity dealing in the public service. IBEC have not ceased to quote the statement of Joe since then as part of a campaign for pay reductions in public service. The effect of the statement was to give comfort and ammunition to the enemies of the public service.

Irish Times Fri, May 07, 2010
OPINION: The Croke Park deal on pay and reform is grim but a yes vote will keep the unions in an influential position, writes JOE O’TOOLE 
PUBLIC SECTOR workers deciding how to respond to the Croke Park deal find themselves in a conundrum. Inherently they want to do the right thing but they feel it is unfair that they, and private sector colleagues, should have to shoulder the financial consequences of the greedy and reckless policies of our former icons.
It is impossible to contradict those who maintain that it’s the worst deal ever they saw. I’m with them in that assessment. As agreements go this one has to be at the bottom of the pile.
Add to that the fact that there is a complete breakdown of trust and confidence in the Government and, above all, there is a ferocious anger towards it and a firm desire to give the Government a bloody nose and it becomes apparent why it has so few champions.
It was a young teacher who put it at its simplest to me. “I just don’t trust this Government. I don’t believe them and I’m going to vote against the deal. I distrust anything proposed by this Government. Why should we do anything to accommodate them?”
And she had a solid point, reflective of thousands of public servants who find themselves in exactly the same space.
Intuitively I want to lash out against this deal too but strategically I come to a different conclusion. . Some union members are of the belief that they can vote “no”, keep the head down and there will be no change. Unfortunately, not so. The only certainty in all of this is that, whether the vote be won or lost, the Government will have to continue to make savings in public service costs at the next budget. Another certainty is that only after those savings are made can there be any chance of regaining some of the lost pay.
Union members are faced with choices which, though unattractive, are very clear. They can be represented around the table, influencing and informing crucial decisions regarding the timing and implementation of public service reform and fighting for pay restoration. On the other hand they can be involved in a less-than-attractive long-term campaign of action against the Government, seeking the reversal of cuts.
Which is best then? The certain pain and possible gain of such a campaign or the certain advantages from a negotiated set of outcomes as posited in the agreement.
The agreement, bad as it is, does offer hope, opportunity and influence. Hope that we have hit the bottom of pay cuts; an opportunity to begin the reclamation of what we have lost; a chance to have an influence in shaping the direction of public service reorganisation.
As regards paying back the Government, voting against the agreement is not the way. There will be other opportunities to do that. The general election is around the corner.
Public servants with more secure employment and good pensions are easy targets. They rarely see their contribution publicly acknowledged. As with many in the private sector, their pay cuts have been savage and devastating and, like most of the population, every euro of monthly income is spoken for by way of direct debits, standing orders or ordinary living expenses.
Unlike our bankers, these were undertakings honestly entered into on the basis of certainty of income and security of employment. Now, with net pay cut, those public servants, like their private sector colleagues, are struggling to cope and worrying about more cuts and rising interest rates.
The uncertainty is terrorising. If they could truly believe that the deal would end pay cuts and begin a process of reclaiming lost income then they would flock to it.
In that regard, the immediate challenge to the Government is to authenticate its bona fides. To bolster up the deal, politicians must win the trust and confidence of the voting trade union members and convince us of their commitment to both the spirit and letter of the Croke Park document.
If public servants could truly bank the pay assurances in the agreement then there would be a solid level of support.
We’re not being served up a great-looking dish from Croke Park. Hard to find much meat in it and there’s little enthusiasm for the veggies, only the hope that the pudding will be better when it arrives.
It is a big ask but, unappetising as it is, these proposals are the best we can expect just now. And, if we can make them work, not only will we be the winners but also the country and the economy. Voting “no” offers no protection whatever. Voting “yes” at worst offers a sporting chance of beginning the reclamation of lost ground. Let’s go for it..

Letter to Irish Times
Public sector pay and conditions
Sat, May 08, 2010
Madam, – I’m incensed by Joe O’Toole’s assessment of the Croke Park deal (Opinion, May 7th). He quotes a young teacher, whose objections to the deal are based purely on mistrust of the Government – and by extension, not logic, and he goes on to imply that opposition to the deal is a lash-out, knee-jerk reaction.
He also implies that public service interests will not be represented when reform happens, if the agreement is not ratified – the alternative being prolonged industrial action. This is just scaremongering nonsense, based on the false premise that this agreement is the only option open to the public service. This is not only spurious, it is dishonest and wrong. Why was this deal brokered in the first place? It was certainly not negotiated in the interests of the rank and file union membership. The connivance of the ICTU leadership with this Government has manufactured a situation where workers are forced to vote on an agreement that should not exist.
This deal offers workers nothing. This is a Government- sponsored document which bestows draconian powers on employers and Dickensian conditions of employment on employees. If passed, this deal will have dire consequences for all workers in this country, and not just those of us in the public service. – Yours, etc,
Hazelhatch Park,
Celbridge, Co Kildare.
© 2010 The Irish Times

Three out of Four Teacher Unions Vote no. Second and Third level Education Unions Stand Together

IFUT votes 68% no—three of four teacher unions have now voted no—IFUT has today reiterated that it will not be bound by majority decision of Public Service unions

Recent ballot outcomes are as follows:

TUI No 75%, Yes 25%

ASTI No 62%, Yes 38%

IFUT No 68% Yes 32%

INTO No 35%, Yes 65%

CPSU has already had a 67% NO Vote

Lansdown Rd Agreement Would Further Damage Education, Health and All Public Services

May 24, 2010 1 comment

Campaign Against Lansdowne Rd Agreement–National Public Service Alliance Convener: Paddy Healy 086-4183732


Less Than 1 in 3 (29%) Voted for Agreement

Over 60% Did Not Vote

 The Impact Leadership trumpeted the 75% to 25% vote in favour of the Lansdowne Rd Agreement. But it failed to mention that over 60% of the membership did not vote and only 29% of the membership supported the Agreement. This was in spite of the deployment of the full complement of union officials throughout the country during the ballot to put a spin on a disastrous agreement.  As shown below, the members were seriously misled on very important matters by the IMPACT leadership.

The voting strike by the majority of members shows growing lack of confidence in the leadership by members. Some branches were not misled and the roll of honour of “no” voting branches is carried below. There was a strong “no” vote in other branches also. However the overall response of members was the Voting Strike. This was particularly strong in some very large Dublin Branches.

Full Result

Membership   c.59,000      Total Poll    22,830   %Poll 39%   % Yes of Membership 29

% of Those who Voted            Yes  75%      No 25%

Roll Of Honour     IMPACT Branches Which Voted NO To Lansdowne Rd Agreement

(% of those who voted)   Branch

YES                    NO             %Yes          %NO

TIPPERARY South HSE                     62                      257              19%             81%

Primary Sch. Inspectors                     10                     41                20%              80%

Irish Youth Justice                             18                     66                 21                 79%

Road Safety  Auth                           28                      47                 37%              63%

Dun Laoire/Rathdown                     65                    203               24%               76%

GVO Professional                           22                       25                 47%             53%



IMPACT has also told branch secretaries that there was no expectation that additional hours would cease with the expiry of Haddington Rd on July1, 2016.IMPACT makes a false comparison with a clause in Croke Park 1. As Haddington RD was in substitution for EMERGENCY LEGISLATION, that comparison  is not valid. TUI Leaders do not agree with the IMPACT position on expiry of additional hours. Most teachers at second level and lecturers  in Third Level Institutes of Technology, intend to retain Haddington Rd until July 1, 2016 and to drop the additional hours on that date before resuming negotiations.

This is in addition to the misinformation on Section 2B, of FEMPI carried below



Government retains power to unilaterally cut pay and worsen working conditions


According to IMPACT, “In October 2014, Section 2B of the FEMPI legislation was deleted.” (p. 7)

Just over two years ago, the majority of public sector workers voted to reject Croke Park 2. (‘Croke Park II rejected as two major unions vote No’,, 17 April 2013) Following the rejection, a bit of tweaking of Croke Park 2 produced the Haddington Road Agreement (HRA). In case union members were minded to reject HRA, the Government included a section in the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act (FEMPI Act) that would enable them to unilaterally (i.e. without our agreement) cut our pay and worsen our working conditions. This was Section 2B, passed in the Dáil in May 2013.

The only way to avoid the consequences of Section 2B, to avoid being ‘FEM-peed’, was for unions to vote in favour of a collective agreement, HRA, and register our acceptance of the agreement with the Labour Relations Commission. Some unions resisted HRA but ultimately the vast majority signed up under the threat of Section 2B. There was no end of rhetoric at the ICTU biennial conference in Belfast in July 2013 about the injustice of FEMPI, in particular Section 2B. An emergency motion was passed at the conference calling for a “vigorous and robust campaign” to repeal FEMPI.

No such campaign was ever launched but in October of 2014, Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Brendan Howlin, announced that Section 2B would be deleted. The unions welcomed Howlin’s move. For example, the INMO described it as “very welcome.”

However, other unions appear to claim that Howlin’s stated intention to delete Section 2B has actually been carried out. According to IMPACT, “In October 2014, Section 2B of the FEMPI legislation was deleted.” (p. 7) In his speech to ASTI Annual Convention in April 2015, General Secretary Pat King claimed that “the most offensive section of FEMPI, Section 2B, was removed in October 2014.”

Has Section 2B actually been deleted or removed? The Irish Statute Book shows that Section 2B is still in place: If it has not yet been deleted or removed (as of July 2015), when might this happen? From our research, we have discovered that Section 2B is not scheduled for deletion until 1st October 2015 at the earliest. This is the scheduled date for the commencement of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, Section 86(3) of which provides for the deletion of Section 2B of FEMPI.

We can conclude, then, that as unions are voting on the Lansdowne Road Agreement up until September/October (for ASTI, TUI), the Government is retaining the power to unilaterally cut our pay and worsen our working conditions at least until October 2015. Could the threat of FEMPI be used once again against the remaining No unions at that stage?

Mark Walshe, ASTI Standing Committee (personal capacity)

Paddy Healy, Former President of the TUI


From Paddy Healy, Former President, TUI, CONVENER National Public Service Alliance against Lansdowne Rd Agreement,

The following Unions, 5 in all, have now recommended a “No” vote to Lansdowne Rd—Teachers Union of Ireland, Irish Medical Organisation, OPATSI (Plasterers Union), Association of Higher Civil Servants, Association of Secondary Teachers in Ireland (ASTI)

NB  Due to TUI Motion passed at ICTU Biennial Congress 2003, individual unions cannot be compelled by an ICTU majority to continue additional hours, shorter holidays or additional duties.

Individual unions may continue with existing agreement (Haddington RD Agreement) until it expires on July 1, 2016. The additional hours and duties will then expire. Negotiations can then be sought with the new government.-PH

Irish Independent

The powerful, 23-member Standing  Committee of the Association  of  Secondary Teachers’ Ireland (ASTI) is recommending a  “no” vote in a ballot of members, expected to take place in the autumn

The decision, taken at a meeting of the Standing Committee today, will be considered by the ASTI 180-member  executive in late Augusts/early September, which  will take a final decision on the recommendation to be put to members.

The other union representing  teachers at second-level, the Teachers’ Union of Ireland (TUI), is recommending rejection of the  deal, while the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation (INTO) is urging a “yes” vote.

From Newstalk

Higher Civil and Public Servants union recommends members to reject the Lansdowne Road Agreement

The Executive Committee of the Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants decided unanimously on Monday to recommend its 2,850 members vote against the pay deal

The Union has called on its members to reject the Lansdowne Road Agreement.

Under the proposals, public servants are to receive an income boost of €2000 euro.

In a statement on Monday evening, the union says the proposals ‘actively discriminate’ against their members in terms of the final outcome, which its labelled ‘grossly unfair’.

It goes on to say they union are now considering a ‘range of options’, including industrial action.

TUI,  OPATSI (the plasterers union) and IMO (medical doctors trade union) have recommended rejection of the proposed agreement.

   this Agreement is Imposed by ICTU, extra hours, reduced annual leave, recruiting restrictions, casualisation etc existing cuts,  will continue for 3 more years” 

The pay rise is a pittance, has nothing to do with “restoration” and is less than that being claimed by trade unions representing comparable grades in private sector.


Short Links         Vote NO in  INTO

Some General Secretaries are suggesting to members that they can be outvoted on Lansdowne RD by a vote at a special Congress of ICTU or by an aggregate vote of all ICTU UNIONS

NOT TRUE!  Don’t be Pressurised!

AT the ICTU Biennial Congress in 2003 the TUI tabled the following motion:

This Conference respects the integrity of each union or group of unions in both the negotiation of the conditions of service of their members and of the decision-making process in relation to any such negotiation.

This Conference directs the Executive Council to respect these principles in any future negotiations towards any proposed National Agreements and to utilise approaches such as the local bargaining clause in the PCW in order to implement such principles.

The motion was passed and never overturned but an attempt is being made to forget it!

As the Lansdowe Rd Areement requires additional hours to be worked for an additional two years and reduced holidays for many, it comes within the remit of the ICTU motion.

As then vice president of TUI, I initiated the motion at TUI executive. Senior official, Peter McMenamin proposed it at ICTU.—————————————————————————————————————————————-


These agreements are Registered at the Labour Relations Commission (not with Labour Court). ICTU is not a party to these agreements as it is not a trade union but a convening centre for trade unions. The individual public sector union and the specific public service employer (eg HSE, Institutes of Technology, Government Department) are the parties to the agreement. Only the parties to an Agreement can break it.

When these Agreements expire on July 1, 2016, Unions will be in a much stronger negotiating position at that time.

The new private sector agreements for 2015 will then be in place. The biggest craft union,TEEU, is claiming 5%.

PS unions can then claim the increases its traditional analogues(comparators) in private sector have achieved and restoration of pay cuts as well.

Copies of the agreements are in trade union head offices.  Some general secretaries are trying to bury them. PERSIST WITH YOUR REQUEST! 


Draft Discussion Document-Paddy Healy       TO BE REVISED

The Lansdowne RD Agreement represents a further abject capitulation by the ICTU to the austerity policies of successive governments. It is based on the assumption that only a tiny sum of money is available over the next 3 years to restore public service pay and pensions and public services.

On this basis totally inadequate pay increases are proposed even for the most lowly paid and additional hours and duties which would expire in 12 months time under the existing agreement are continued for a further two years. There is not a single mention in the agreement of increases to pensions in payment which were also cut under the two FEMPI ACTS. The shortages of staff, and concomitant severe intensity of work, which are damaging all our public services and undermining safety of human beings in our hospitals are to continue.

No “Restoration”

It is arguable that there is no net restoration of pay in the agreement because the proposed increases are the same or less than those occurring in comparable private sector employments  particularly in areas where there were no pay cuts. Though price inflation has been low, it has been greater than the proposed increases since the cuts. Inflation Figures: 2011, 2.59%; 2012, 1.72%; 2013, 0.5%, 2014, 0.2%.   Compounded (2011to 2014) 10.7%

“IBEC, the group that represents Irish businesses, will today publish a study covering hundreds of companies which suggests the average pay increase in private sector will be 2pc- – – The Technical, Engineering and Electrical Union told the Irish Independent its strategy for the new year will be to lodge claims for 5pc increases over 12 months”                                  Irish Independent June 6/2015

ICTU Colluding With Increasing Inequity in Society

ICTU accepts that only 536million or c300 million after tax, is available over the next three years to improve pay.   There are c.300, 000 public servants

This is a blatant falsehood to which ICTU has subscribed.


Increase in Financial Assets from the 2008 (“Bust”) to 2013 was 93 billion or an increase 51% of Gross Domestic Product(GDP) . There has been further annual increases since then.( as indicated by Sunday Times Rich List Last Sunday)

These Assets have more than doubled. There is no wealth tax on these massive gains.

In 2013 Net Financial Assets of Households were 26 Billion Euro above 2006 peak “boom” level.

The super-rich are now richer than they were at the height of the boom

Incomes of Super-Rich

Top 5%  108,250   Total Income €20,122 m  Aveage Income €185,885   Revenue  €7,145 m (Tax + PRSI+USC)36%  Average After Tax INCOME               €120,000  PQ Reply Michael Noonan to Seamus Healy TD 2013

In 2012 the top 5%(108,250) of income recipients had a total income of  over 20 Billion and an average annual income of 189 thousand Euro each. When PRSI is excluded they pay less than 30% of their entire income in income tax. Of these, the top 10,000 have an average income of 595,000 euro each. There are no public servants in this group.

Instead of increasing income and imposing wealth tax on these fabulously rich people, Michael Noonan gave each of them 747 euro in tax relief or a total of  81 million Euro in the last Budget

The reason that only small amounts of money are available to restore pay and pension cuts is that successive governments have refused to tax the assets of the very rich and to tax adequately their incomes.

In addition the state is spending c.8 billion per year paying interest on the national debt. This debt was accumulated through borrowing money to pay off huge investors in failed banks and borrowing to provide necessary public services rather than taxing the assets and incomes of the very rich when transactional property revenues dried up.

For a person on the lower marginal rate of tax a pay increase of 1000 euro per year amounts to less than 700 euro after tax, PRSI, USC,and pension contribution is deducted. This is less than the 747 Euro which the Government gave to all those earning from 80,000 to 2 million per year in the last budget.

And the Government has promised to give them at least the same again in the coming budget through tax cuts! 

For a person on the higher marginal rate of tax an increase of 1000 Euro will amount to less than 600 Euro after all deductions and about 11Euro per week.

This gross unfairness in government policy is also reflected in the fact that when all taxes, including VAT and excise is taken into account the poorest 10%  of the populatio pay the highest proportion of their income in tax according to CSO!!!

Through this agreement ICTU is continuing its support for policies, which are grossly unfair to public servants and to the poor.

ICTU collaborated with totally irresponsible extreme capitalist policies, including privatisations and right-wing income tax cutting, during the boom. It was represented on the Board of Directors of the Central Bank which allowed banks to borrow, and to lend out, an unprecedented additional 50% of GDP  between 2003 and 2007. It is now collaborating with grossly unfair austerity policies in the recession.

Unions are required to engage with all government plans for change (wrongly called reforms) and to submit to binding arbitration on a far wider range of issues than under Haddington Rd Agreement even if the issues are professional issues rather than industrial relations issues. This means that industrial action is banned in any conceivable circumstance. For example, the days of action on the JUNIOR CYCLE issue would have been banned if Lansdowne Rd Agreement had been in place.

The matters with which local authority workers have to engage subject to binding arbitration of disputes include: “in the Local Government Sector the Action Programme for Effective Local Government Putting

People First; and Irish Water Programme;”

Because of the contentious issue of water charging and water metering, colleagues in Local government may wish to explain to us the possible meaning of this clause of the Agreement.


Our campaign to defeat the Lansdowne RD Agreement is a campaign against gross unfairness to public servants ,serving and retired, both in pay and pensions and in working conditions including extra hours of work. It is a campaign against the damage being done to our public services by recruitment embargoes and other cuts. It is a campaign against continued casualisation of work. It is a campaign against discrimination against recent entrants in pay and pension schemes. It is a campaign against collusion with this unfairness to public servants and with austerity generally by ICTU including the protection of the huge assets and incomes of the rich and the infliction of deprivation on the poor.

We seek fair pay rises including restoration of pay and pensions and the withdrawal of extra working hours and extra duties imposed under Haddington Road and Croke Park 1

We have always advocated greater percentage increases for the lowly paid and continue to do so. The current increases for the lowly paid are grossly inadequate.

We call for the immediate and complete repeal of FEMPI 1 and FEMPI 2

We are heartened by the recommendation of Teachers Union of Ireland, OPATSI the plasterers union and the Irish Medical Orgaisation to  members to vote against this Agreement.

Let us begin the campaign.

 Agreements Registered With LRC UNDER FEPMI ACT 2013

Some public service trade union officials are seeking to mislead members into believing that  AGREEMENTS between the Union and its specific public service employer have not been regitered at the Labour Relations Commission. This is designed to deflect arguments to the effect that a better option for members would be to reject Lansdowne RD and await the expiry of the registered agreement in July 2016 foregoing the tiny pay rise in the proposed agreement. The extra hours and duties would then disappear and the union would be in much more powerful position to negotiate pay and hours.

These agreements registered at the LRC  do exist and any union member is entitle to get a copy from union head office.

Below is the relevant section of FEMPI ACT 2013

7.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and section 8, for the period of 3 years beginning on 1 July 2013— (a) no increment shall be awarded to a public servant; and (b) the operation of the pay scale that applies in respect of a public servant shall stand suspended, 10 and with the effect that— (i) the point on that pay scale that shall be applicable in respect of a public servant on 1 July 2016 shall be that which was applicable on 1 July 2013 in respect of him or her, and  (ii) the operation of that pay scale, on and from 1 July 2016, shall be by reference to service of the public servant on and from 1 July 2016, but this is subject to subsection (2). (2) Subsection (1)(b)(ii) does not operate to exclude for the purpose of the operation of the pay scale so much of the service of the 20 public servant, before 1 July 2013, as would have been reckoned for the purpose of the next immediate increment that, but for the suspension of the pay scale by virtue of subsection (1), would have fallen to be awarded to him or her on or after 1 July 2013. (3) The reference in subsection (1) to the pay scale that is applic- 25 able in respect of a public servant (being a public servant to whom the amendment hereafter mentioned relates) is a reference to that pay scale as it stands adjusted by virtue or in consequence of the amendment of the Act of 2009 made by section 2. (4) For the avoidance of doubt, subsection (1) has effect in 30 relation to a pay scale that, in consequence of a public servant’s appointment or promotion to a position after 1 July 2013 (but before 1 July 2016), falls to be applied subsequent to 1 July 2013 as it has effect in relation to a pay scale that applies to a public servant on 1 July 2013, but with the substitution in that subsection for the refer- 35 ence to 1 July 2013 (where it secondly occurs) of a reference to the date of such appointment or promotion of the public servant. (5) Notwithstanding anything in the preceding subsections of this section, subsection (1) shall— (a) apply to a public servant only to the extent specified in the 40 agreement, or (b) apply to a public servant with such modifications as are specified in the agreement, to whom a collective agreement relates and which agreement— (i) for the time being stands registered with the Labour  Relations Commission for the purposes of this section, and  Pay scales: suspension, subject to exceptions, for certain period. Exemption, etc., from operation of section 7 in certain circumstances. Certain pension rights not affected. (ii) provides for the application to such a public servant of subsection (1) in the manner described in paragraph (a) or (b), as the case may be.


Croke Park Deal And academic Freedom

If we allowed Croke Park Deal to be imposed on us, managerialist developments, undermining of university autonomy, weakening of tenure and academic freedom and destruction of scholarship would be immeasurably accelerated. The processes described by Tom Garvin and Jim McKernan would become rampant.
For more by respected University Academics and the challenges to academic freedom