What seems to have been of particular concern to the University in their statement to the T&A and included in their article on pay cuts and job losses was the vexed question of the Vice Chancellors pay award.
The Unison Branch Secretary linked the much reported 19% pay rise that the VC enjoyed to the somewhat less tempting 1% offer that the rest of us are lumbered with and the particularly uninspiring prospect of a pay cut for many of those in scope of StAAR. Incidentally, there is a possibility that in some cases staff on Grade 7 could be faced with a drop to Grade 4 leading to an eye-watering loss of 50% of salary.
The University is at pains to point out that this was a gross misrepresentation of the truth, which indeed it may well be. The reality however is that this misrepresentation is borne out of the University’s own fudging of the facts. In an FOI request the University proffered the VC’s salary for his first term of office as being X whereas his annual salary was greater than quoted; they had in fact reported the wage paid for 10 months rather than the annual salary, presumably because that looked a little less generous. They claim that when the following year was quoted as annual salary this created the “illusion” of a significant pay increase. What strikes one however is that the numbers don’t quite add up. 12 (months) divided by 10 (months) works out at 120%, or a 20% increase. Are we really being told that the VC actually took a 1% cut in pay?
Regardless, the proffering of wage paid rather than salary seems at best naïve.