EU drops limit on fixed-term contracts but sector concerns remain

The European Union has revised plans to recommend member states impose a one-third “maximum threshold” on the use of fixed-term contracts in academia, after sector leaders called the proposal “unworkable”.

Adopting a European Commission paper that sets out a series of measures aimed at reducing precarity in research careers, the European Council – which represents heads of national governments – removed the suggested maximum threshold of “one-third of fixed-term contracts in the overall researchers’ human resources of a given employer”.

Instead, the council proposed that member states “could, on a voluntary basis, incentivise the establishment of a maximum threshold for the number of fixed-term contracts per organisation in researcher human resources overall”, without specifying an upper limit.

The European Commission’s original submission drew concern from umbrella groups including the Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities and the European University Association (EUA), which had warned: “The same target threshold is unlikely to fit all university needs, nor does it respect their autonomy.”

The League of European Research Universities (Leru) called the threshold “unworkable”, adding: “Fixed-term contracts are a direct consequence of the competitive way research funds are allocated on a project-like basis.”

In response to the latest developments, Leru commended the modification of the threshold suggestion, but stressed that the group maintained “specific concerns” regarding the overall recommendations. “Creating a toolbox and recommending its use could be useful, but it is not going to solve the fundamental issues that haunt researchers and research institutions,” the university association said.

Previous council recommendations, Leru said, had led to “further policy fragmentation, as all 27 member states make their own translation and create their own ways of implementation”.

Bert Overlaet, chair of the Leru policy group on careers, told Times Higher Education that the revised text asked even less of EU member states than the original, noting the replacement of terms such as “should” and “ensure” with softer words like “could” and “encourage”.

“Even the slightest hint of commitment has been changed into something non-committal,” he said. “The alterations have made it even more clear that the member states don’t want to commit to what has been agreed. They want to do their own thing and forget about it when they get home.

“Our concern has always been that this voluntary approach is very limited.”

Professor Overlaet said the revised recommendations also failed to address one of the key causes of career precarity: project-based, short-term university funding. “How can we expect institutions to offer long-term contracts if there is no long-term funding?” he asked. “Without a discussion on the precarity of funding, we don’t want to discuss precarity of careers.”  

emily.dixon@timeshighereducation.com