HE must overhaul its archaic pay structures before it can combat pay discrimination, writes Jocelyn Prudence.
Much has been made of the gender pay gap in higher education and the extent to which job evaluation and role analysis are appropriate tools to measure the relative worth of one job against another. No one doubts that pay disparity exists on the basis of gender, in higher education as elsewhere, although we might debate the statistics and causes.
The guidance on pay reviews agreed in March between trade unions and employers in the Joint Negotiating Committee for Higher Education Staff recommends an analysis based on gender, race and disability. But pay review helps only to identify problems - remedial action still has to be taken.
A significant cause of pay discrimination in higher education is our 40-year-old pay structures. Ten different pay spines, long incremental scales and the absence of institution-wide systems for evaluating the worth of jobs, are not likely to deliver equal pay for work of equal value. This is one of the key reasons why all parties at the negotiating table are committed to developing a single pay spine and new pay structures linked to that.
We have also seen from last week's recruitment and retention survey that many universities face growing problems in attracting and retaining high-quality staff. These are likely to be exacerbated by the government's aim of achieving 50 per cent participation in higher education by 2010, which will require at least 17,000 additional teaching staff and perhaps as many extra support staff.
So what is the answer? The negotiating committee has an ambitious programme for change and already some key milestones have been achieved. These include: simplified negotiating arrangements; a harmonised pay-settlement date for all staff, of August 1; guidance on pay reviews and job evaluation/role analysis; as well as the plans to create new pay structures.
It is disappointing that the Association of University Teachers was unable to agree the position reached between the employers and other unions on job-evaluation guidance, but we hope the door remains open on this issue. Job evaluation is not an end in itself. But it is seen by pay experts as an essential tool for measuring the worth of jobs and thus underpins new work on our joint pay structures.
The chance to design pay systems comes rarely. The Universities and Colleges Employers Association's vision is for a national framework that recognises the diversity of the UK's higher education institutions. We are under no illusion that this is an easy task. Colleagues in the National Health Service have taken four years to nearly complete a similar exercise. The good news for them is that the additional funds for the NHS announced in the budget will create a favourable climate to conclude their negotiations.
Both sides of our negotiating committee are aware of present funding problems in the higher education sector and the need to attract additional investment to support pay modernisation. The results of the government's spending review will be a key determinant of how soon discrimination-proof pay systems can be put in place.
Negotiations will continue apace in hopeful anticipation. In the meantime we have this year's pay negotiations, the updating of joint guidance on fixed-term employment and revision of guidance on equal opportunities to keep us busy.
New negotiating machinery is delivering, but we need a partnership approach that fully embraces unions, employers and the government to realise its potential for positive change.
Jocelyn Prudence is chief executive of the Universities and Colleges Employers Association.