Hugo wants more dosh

abelard

What irks me is that I really really don't feel, in Hugh's case at least, that he deserves the pay rise he's asking for. I mean I don't think he is deserving of an extra €135,000 per year.

He has overseen modularisation of almost the entire college, but there are still numerous problems with the system (inadequate places, the registration affair, some programmes basically ignoring the new structure, the exam seating thing, the fact that we can't trust the date they give us for publishing of exam timetable and, later on, results) along with others not directly concerned with modularisation. Maybe, since I'm just a student after all, I don't get an absolute grasp on the complexities and scope of what he's done, but almost every aspect of it just seems, to me, sloppy. He's well able to talk the talk, anyone who's read/seen/listened to any of the UCD adverts will know that, he presents a facade of perfection but breaks so many promises.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that, right now, I wouldn't give him an extra cent. I do believe there is hope though. The problems I've listed, and the countless I've forgotten, could easily be solved with some proper planning and foresight, which Hugh is surely capable of. Fair enough they've asked for extra money, so maybe they should be set some objective goals to complete to justify their raise. If this salary assessment board do their jobs right, they will thoroughly review the grounds specified in this report and monitor the progress and success of the Uni heads in implementing their promises, and if successful, fair enough, give them what they want.

(Disclaimer in case that made no sense: All of the above is just the opinion of a student, who is hardly objective)

Chakar

abelard wrote:

and if successful, fair enough, give them what they want.

Well if that happens then Bertie Ahern, the Taoiseach will be getting a big pay raise and he will be the most well paid political leader in the European Union. At the moment Bertie is the second most well paid political leader with Tony Blair of Britain at number one.

Blush_01

I think there's a number of things that are disgraceful about this thread, but having a problem with a demand for a 55% increase in wages is not one of them. dajaffa just made a really good point that I'm too tired to type, but basically, you can't have your cake and eat it too, regardless of how hard you try.

dajaffa

Blush_01 wrote:

I think there's a number of things that are disgraceful about this thread, but having a problem with a demand for a 55% increase in wages is not one of them. dajaffa just made a really good point that I'm too tired to type, but basically, you can't have your cake and eat it too, regardless of how hard you try.

It was along the lines of you can't demand private sector pay with public sector benefits and how UCD are actively trying to make cutbacks by taking on new staff on fixed term contracts rather than permanently to save money (essentially public sector pay without the benefits of working in the public sector), yet somehow Hugo is above this + somehow is entitled to an exorbitant pay rise.

Blush_01

Yeah, that was it. It's a bit shít really.

Sangre

griffdaddy wrote:

Even in Ireland's ridiculously expensive housing market you don't need an annual wage of €320,000 to sustain a mortgage. Sangre's post made him sound like some kinda pauper struggling to get by on 200 grand, hence i thought he was joking.

Obviously not but the fact he lives on campus doesn't mean he has no mortgage expenditure which is what the article and some have suggested.

cast_iron

Blush_01 wrote:

Yeah, that was it. It's a bit shít really.

I really don't think so.
Quite the opposite, I would think.

It's the very point that dajaffa makes that goes some way to justify his wage increase demand. The idea of fixed term contracts is surely a good thing for UCD - it saves money in the long run. And that is something that I think few people here, or the authors of the article have in mind.

As for not applying fixed term contracts to himself, I asked earlier - is he not on a fixed contract already?

(Someone there tried to blame the exam seating thing on Hugh Brady!)

Chakar

Blush_01 wrote:

Yeah, that was it. It's a bit shít really.

The point dajaffa made or the situation in UCD?

dajaffa

cast_iron wrote:

As for not applying fixed term contracts to himself, I asked earlier - is he not on a fixed contract already?

Yes but it's a ten year one which is far longer than the other staff would have and he's entitled to a pension when it runs out. Other workers on 1-3 year contracts who say keep getting it renewed, could end up doing a long stint of service without being entitled to a pension. As a result UCD will attract fewer high quality staff. There has to be a trade off between pay and benefits, ie if workers benefits are being reduced there needs to be some sort of trade-off of better pay otherwise our staff are going to be sub-standard.

Hugh on the other hand wants to get closer to private sector pay whilst retaining his benefits.

hullaballoo

What's with the repeated emphasis on Hugh Brady? Have you forgotten that this will give some of the lecturers some of the benefits that they have been without? That they have been looking for since Brady started getting on their bad sides.

He's hitting one for the team this time. It's not just about him this time. So why must you people continually give him flak over this?

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that I think Brady has had a flawless record. Far from it. Personally, I think Horizons was introduced far too quickly and far too broadly - to the extent that it's put a major spanner in the works for many people, from freshers to final years. Further, his recruitment methods have sat uneasily with me in the past. However, credit where it's due at the same time.

I think the teaching staff deserve a pay increase. Of course, it won't be anything like 55%. Anyone involved in wage negotiation will tell you that the parties involved will each have their limits and will try to reach agreement within those. I think 20% might be more realistic (just to elaborate - that's an increase of about 5% plus 15% to cover the lag in wages that lecturers are insulted by every month as a result of falling behind other professions when their work was undervalued and de-prioritised by a slumping economy). If Brady gets a windfall as a result, fair play to him - the rest of the college will be better for it.

It's not like he's getting a 55% increase all to himself whereupon he'll divy up a 5% increase for the lecturing staff. Or at least, that's what one would hope.

Crash

Essentially, my problem with this is the push to be recognised as on par with the private sector. I know from my experience in trinity that were John Hegarty CEO of a large company, he'd be gone by now - a number of issues over funding would have led to him gone IMO.

so they trade off job security (a nice ten years) versus private sector. there's their pay increase right there.

cast_iron

I'm not convinced that job security is such a big issue. These are very highly qualified people, who are very employable. I doubt they will struggle too much to find a job when their term ends.

ferdi

ah hugh is great, lets all chip in and by him a new hat.

Stabshauptmann

cast_iron wrote:

I'm not convinced that job security is such a big issue. These are very highly qualified people, who are very employable. I doubt they will struggle too much to find a job when their term ends.

I had a lecturer last year who often admited that he is lecturing (incompetently) because he didnt make it in the "real world".

dajaffa

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

I had a lecturer last year who often admited that he is lecturing (incompetently) because he didnt make it in the "real world".

I think he was referring to the presidents who *should be* very well qualified.

Lecturers are safe for life basically if they get tenure, but depending on what department they're in etc it can take years.

poobum

dajaffa wrote:

I think he was referring to the presidents who *should be* very well qualified.

Lecturers are safe for life basically if they get tenure, but depending on what department they're in etc it can take years.

what exactly in tenure?

dajaffa

poobum wrote:

what exactly in tenure?

Well basically when a lecturer/professor type gets made permanent.

poobum

oh id heard it in friends, but hadnt a clue what it ment! :P it hought it was when they published a paper...then realised they have to do dem anyway...and so was lost! thanks!

Sangre

Its not that they're just permanent, they basically can't be fired. Its a job for life.

Hulla, what are you talking about teaching staff? Doesn't this only affect the university presidents?

BKtje

Thats what i was thinking as well. Just the seven uni presidents.

Red Alert

It definitely only is with reference to the 7 university presidents. The document was about the heads of institutions.

If he gets a pay rise it will be the biggest exercise in buck-passing i have ever seen. I agree it's not his direct fault if some idiot programmer wrote a crap SIS registration system which the fools signed off on and then paid for. Nor is it his direct fault that there were problems with exam seating. I accept that, and see that suggesting that is idiotic. It is however his fault that all the numerous issues with modularisation, had a seemingly direct effect on students, as a read through these boards would tell you.

It wouldn't be so bad if there was a concrete recognition that there are problems. However everything is shrouded in a veil of change, progress, smile! A lot of the cosmetic changes like renaming buildings should have been left to the end, when all the main business was done and dusted. The job of a university president when such a project is being done is to see that the main aims are being done properly, not be on an ego trip where the only people making money are signage contractors and PR companies. Allowing for example, the website to be a costly unusable mess compared to both the old one and Trinity's site is a misjudgment. Allowing an idiot somewhere to engage a web design company who idiotically in turn used some restrictive font or whatever is another indirect misdemeanour which somebody who claims to have his intellectual horsepower should have had the good sense to shut down.