Dear Nick,
Thanks for your letter and for confirming the essentials of the case: posts were to be cut in Psychology and staff were given the option of taking redundancy with a financial package or competing for a reduced number of jobs and leaving without the package if they were not selected.
Our response was not intended to make judgements about those who implemeted this decision, nor to deny that this must have been an agonisong process for all involved. Rather, we question the decision itself. We also question the description of the outcome as 'voluntary redundancies'.
In response to your specific points:
a) We acknowledge that not everyone left against their will, but undoubtedly some did. The issue is not one of numbers but of principle: such forced redundancies set a dangerous precendent
b) We also acknowledge that all of us are about to face hard times, but that makes it all the more important that we challenge this precedent. Whether our actions will have an effect we canot say, but
we can be certain that doing nothing leaves all staff (in Surrey and elsewhere) more vulnerable.
c) We know, from the many letters of support we have had from Surrey staff, that it has been very difficult for them to debate these issues openly when they have felt so insecure about their futures. Part of our aim has been to draw attention to the job cuts and their human consequences and thereby to stimulate an open public debate about how best we should all respond to a difficult financial climate.
d) We do not accept that our actions are harmful for those who have lost their jobs. The fact that they have been made redundant clearly has nothing to do with their qualities and everything to do with the process.
Charles
Susan
Steve
Margie
No comments:
Post a Comment