MMU set to axe support staff
MULE | 21.11.2009 11:04 | Education | Workers' Movements
Manchester Metropolitan University has this week announced that it will be cutting 127 administrative and support staff roles.
The University, which employs over 4,200 staff, will make the cutbacks in employees across three of MMU’s campuses with South Cheshire sites Crewe and Alsager expected to be affected. MMU says the cuts are necessary to “weather the current economic downturn” and asserted that research and teaching staff would not be made redundant. It appears there are a range of jobs likely to go from cleaners and kitchen assistants to technicians and HR administrators.
Vice Chancellor Professor John Brooks said: “We are taking action now to protect the university from cuts in public expenditure and secure the jobs of the majority for the long term future.”
At present it appears that a large proportion of the losses will Unison members. In a press release earlier this week, Unison placed the blame at the feet of the Vice Chancellor for “years of mismanagement”.
UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt responded: “We are, as yet, unaware of any institution that has improved the student experience, especially where student numbers are expanding, by axing staff.” The union is expected to launch a campaign to oppose the redundancies ‘Defend Jobs, Defend Education’.
In relation to the “student experience” MMUnion President Rob Boardman spoke of its necessary maintenance: “MMUnion want to be certain that the quality of the student experience is maintained.” But the Union appears ready to cut the University some slack, as he added: “We will respect the agreed negotiating process and will not comment further until it is concluded.”
However, in response to one member of staff, who declined to be named, believes that the student experience will only suffer from this point onwards.
“For students it means worsening services. As a result of series of disastrous management restructures, the student experience has already suffered. With these cuts it will only get worse. For staff that are left over, it means more and more work with less and less help,” they explained.
One MMU admin worker believes that the situation could have been avoided. Speaking to MULE they said: “Rather than consult on restructures as they have in the past, they are simply taking a slash and burn approach. They are using the economic crisis as an excuse to push through planned restructures and planned redundancies.”
Kai Hughes, a former employee of the University also laid the blame on the arrival of the current Vice Chancellor. “Couple that with the lack of progress achieved on developing the Didsbury site and a financial crisis, which of course was unseen, then you have a major disaster looming,” he said.
The cuts have been constantly and explicitly linked to the economic crisis, with directors accused of “trying to change the University from a public institution based on education to a corporation with a market”. The consequences of this being that staff at the bottom of the food chain must be the first to take the heat for what detractors describe as “mismanagement”.
In axing staff in the name of efficiency, the University appears to be saying that these support staff jobs are dispensable. However, the running of a University takes more than just teaching and research staff. And as one politics student, who has spoken out against the cuts, put it in relation to the economic crisis: “If the government can bail out the banks then where is the money for jobs, education and public services?”
In light of the failure to develop the Didsbury site and the closure of the Alsager site, the University’s plans to build a ‘green’ campus in Hulme have been further called into question. In response to that a MMU spokesperson said that the proposed Birley Fields project would “not be affected”. But MMU has declared that it will be revisiting the costs across all of the estates in the current improvement programme. As things stand the new £120m campus may have to be built in phases with compromises made over new developments.
Nigel Woodcock, a member of Our Hulme, a group against the proposed new student campus said: “Managers of large corporations like MMU tend to be pretty ruthless. This project is going to cost £120 million, so of course they’ll scrimp a squeeze wherever they can.” Mr Woodcock added: “Birley Fields is the last bit of green space in this area and it’s worth saving. I just hope enough people have enough fight in them.”
http://themule.info/article/mmu-set-to-axe-support-staff
Vice Chancellor Professor John Brooks said: “We are taking action now to protect the university from cuts in public expenditure and secure the jobs of the majority for the long term future.”
At present it appears that a large proportion of the losses will Unison members. In a press release earlier this week, Unison placed the blame at the feet of the Vice Chancellor for “years of mismanagement”.
UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt responded: “We are, as yet, unaware of any institution that has improved the student experience, especially where student numbers are expanding, by axing staff.” The union is expected to launch a campaign to oppose the redundancies ‘Defend Jobs, Defend Education’.
In relation to the “student experience” MMUnion President Rob Boardman spoke of its necessary maintenance: “MMUnion want to be certain that the quality of the student experience is maintained.” But the Union appears ready to cut the University some slack, as he added: “We will respect the agreed negotiating process and will not comment further until it is concluded.”
However, in response to one member of staff, who declined to be named, believes that the student experience will only suffer from this point onwards.
“For students it means worsening services. As a result of series of disastrous management restructures, the student experience has already suffered. With these cuts it will only get worse. For staff that are left over, it means more and more work with less and less help,” they explained.
One MMU admin worker believes that the situation could have been avoided. Speaking to MULE they said: “Rather than consult on restructures as they have in the past, they are simply taking a slash and burn approach. They are using the economic crisis as an excuse to push through planned restructures and planned redundancies.”
Kai Hughes, a former employee of the University also laid the blame on the arrival of the current Vice Chancellor. “Couple that with the lack of progress achieved on developing the Didsbury site and a financial crisis, which of course was unseen, then you have a major disaster looming,” he said.
The cuts have been constantly and explicitly linked to the economic crisis, with directors accused of “trying to change the University from a public institution based on education to a corporation with a market”. The consequences of this being that staff at the bottom of the food chain must be the first to take the heat for what detractors describe as “mismanagement”.
In axing staff in the name of efficiency, the University appears to be saying that these support staff jobs are dispensable. However, the running of a University takes more than just teaching and research staff. And as one politics student, who has spoken out against the cuts, put it in relation to the economic crisis: “If the government can bail out the banks then where is the money for jobs, education and public services?”
In light of the failure to develop the Didsbury site and the closure of the Alsager site, the University’s plans to build a ‘green’ campus in Hulme have been further called into question. In response to that a MMU spokesperson said that the proposed Birley Fields project would “not be affected”. But MMU has declared that it will be revisiting the costs across all of the estates in the current improvement programme. As things stand the new £120m campus may have to be built in phases with compromises made over new developments.
Nigel Woodcock, a member of Our Hulme, a group against the proposed new student campus said: “Managers of large corporations like MMU tend to be pretty ruthless. This project is going to cost £120 million, so of course they’ll scrimp a squeeze wherever they can.” Mr Woodcock added: “Birley Fields is the last bit of green space in this area and it’s worth saving. I just hope enough people have enough fight in them.”
![](/img/extlink.gif)
MULE
e-mail:
editor@themule.info
Homepage:
http://www.themule.info
Comments
Hide the following 4 comments
Times are hard
21.11.2009 15:41
Too many in the public sector expect to be kept in the style to which they have become accustomed whatever is happening in the rest of the economy which pays for it.
As teenagers say, get real.
Pete
how old are you....
22.11.2009 00:10
love your opinions on the 'public sector' btw. everything that makes no profit is worthless, and all staff should be treated accordingly i suppose? are you the vice chancellor at the mmu, by any chance?, a man I have personally met and have despised even more since....
your 'opinions' are those of someone either very priviledged, or utterly bitter and/ or dumb....
pete?
Spare us this nonsense
22.11.2009 20:31
Either way there is a budget deficit that needs to be plugged. Cutting non essential staff is a logical solution.
Most of those complaining about the cuts have their heads in the clouds.
Common sense
Pretence that paying tax is a social contract
23.11.2009 17:01
Students are already getting heavily into debt to come to a uni where they’re packed into classes like sardines, facilities unreliable and less and less staff to address problems when they arise. Although of course many new student housing blocks have been built to mop up their loan money.
“Tax payers”, if such a person can be said to consciously exist, could decide not to put their tax money into buying bombs, or bailing out irresponsible banks and put more of it into education and health for instance. But of course no tax payer gets to influence specific budgetary decisions and its down to the Labour or Tory facilitators of capitalism to parcel out our tithes to the least worthy cause.
Common wealth