• Britain releases 4,000 inmates to curb spread of coronavirus

    Britain will release about 4,000 nonviolent inmates from their prisons to help curb the spread of the coronavirus, the country’s Ministry of Justice announced Saturday.

    The ministry described prisoners eligible for release as “low-risk offenders,” noting those convicted of violent or sexual offenses will not be considered.

    Inmates will be tracked electronically and required to stay home, officials said.

    “Additionally, no offender convicted of COVID-19 related offences, including coughing at emergency workers or stealing personal protective equipment, will be eligible,” they added.

    The ministry had previously announced that pregnant prisoners convicted of nonviolent offenses would be released.

    Britain has a large prison population compared to other European countries, with more than 80,000 people in custody. Prisons have continued running even though more than a fourth of staff has been absent or self-isolating.

    The ministry reported that 88 inmates and 15 prison staff have tested positive for COVID-19 and that at least three prisoners have died from the virus.

    The U.K. is the latest country to take steps to release certain nonviolent prisoners in an attempt to curb the spread of the virus. Last week, France released 5,000 of its prisoners.

    In the U.S., officials have also warned that overcrowding in prisons could lead to the disease quickly spreading among inmates.

    On Tuesday, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation announced that it would release 3,500 nonviolent inmates from its state prisons.

    New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) also said earlier this week that his city released 900 inmates to avoid the risk of the virus spreading in jails.

    #prisons #UK #Angleterre #coronavirus

  • Expliquer le Coronavirus avec les données : pourquoi tant de morts en Italie ? Et dans le monde ?

    (très très mauvaise qualité de l’image)

    –-> il souligne avant tout, ce qui est tout à fait logique, que les personnes qui ont eu un #test de #dépistage rentrent dans les #statistiques

    –-> #Décès : distinction entre ceux qui meurent DE covid (sans autre pathologie auparavant) et ceux qui meurent AVEC covid (personnes qui ont une autre pathologie, et apparemment c’est surtout des #maladies_cardiovasculaires qui seraient là un facteur aggravant) :
    – AVEC covid 98,8% des cas
    – DE covid 1,2% des cas

    –-> 85,6% des personnes décédées ont plus de 70 ans

    –-> mise en garde d’une « bombe à retardement », tous les jeunes, notamment les étudiant·es, mais aussi des travailleurs, qui habitent au Nord de l’Italie et qui sont rentré·es au Sud pour se confiner... danger pour les régions du Sud où la population est très âgée...

    –-> La question de la #temporalité de la maladie :
    – 4 jours entre le moment dans lequel le dépistage est fait et l’hospitalisation
    – 5 jours entre l’hospitalisation en thérapie intensive et le décès

    –-> Source, une étude épidémiologique du 20 mars de l’ISS (https://www.iss.it) :

    –-> Quand le système hospitalier commence à s’effondrer (manque de lits en #soins_intensifs), et qu’il n’y a pas assez de lits en thérapie intensive, les patients décèdent après 5 jours entre le moment dans lequel elles rentrent à l’hôpital en soins ordinaires et le décès

    –-> Et quand le #système_hospitalier s’effondre complètement et qu’il n’y a même plus de lits en soins hospitaliers, les personnes en #confinement_domestique ne sont même plus hospitalisées et on ne fait plus de test de dépistage...
    –-> augmentation du nombre de décès non comptabilisés

    Quand est-ce qu’un système hospitalier collapse ?

    –-> graphique qui montre, par pays, le nombre de « patients actifs » (contaminés) par rapport au nombre de patients en thérapie intensive (sur ce graphique en nombres absolus)
    –-> division des pays entre effondrement, situation très critique, critique, sous stress

    –-> Taux de mortalité en #Chine
    –-> une courbe qui, comme dit le conférencier, semble bien trop parfaite...

    –-> en #Corée_du_Sud

    –-> en Italie, où la courbe, à un certain moment, au lieu de baisser car le système sanitaire arrive à contrôler les morts, elle augmente. Le conférencier explique cela notamment par le fait que le système de santé s’est effondré, donc il y a des personnes à l’intérieur des hôpitaux qui sont contaminés alors qu’elles étaient hospitalisées pour autre chose, des personnes qui ne peuvent pas être hospitalisées, etc.

    –-> Espagne, même tendance qu’en Italie

    –-> #UK #Angleterre

    –-> #Allemagne

    Eléments communs des pays qui soit ont un fort taux de décès et ceux qui ont un faible taux de décès :

    –-> le nombre de tests de dépistage, qui permet de faire un confinement plus ciblé et une hospitalisation plus rapide

    –-> nombre de lits en soins intensifs

    –-> nombre de lits en hôpital (pas forcément en soins intensifs)

    #coronavirus #Italie #taux_de_mortalité

    ping @simplicissimus @fil

    • About 2,100 migrants in northern France are fearful of being dispersed to new centres.

      Up to 2,100 refugees in Calais and Dunkirk are facing an imminent coronavirus lockdown by French authorities, with many saying they will try to reach the UK rather than go to accommodation centres if their camps are cleared.

      Buses will be sent to the camps to transfer refugees to centres housing up to 100 people from Tuesday. The transfers are said to be voluntary but some of the refugees told the Guardian that they distrust the police and are fearful of being forced into the centres, so plan to run away and continue in their attempts to cross the Channel.

      Conditions in the camps are worsening, with shortages of food, water and showers as NGOs are forced to pull out because of the coronavirus pandemic, although no cases of Covid-19 have been reported in the camps.

      Many refugees – mostly from Afghanistan, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq and Sudan – often make repeated attempts to cross to the UK. Last year, 1,900 reached the UK by boat, with many others arriving by lorry. Eighty migrants are understood to have reached the UK by boat last week, with some reports of around 160 attempts in one day.

      While numbers are disputed, internal documents collated by NGOs in the area and seen by the Guardian revealed there are about 1,500 people in Calais, including 160 unaccompanied children, the youngest of whom is 11. There are about 600 people in Grand Synthe in Dunkirk, including around 35 families. Some have serious health problems such as diabetes, and others have suffered broken limbs including a broken arm and a broken jaw.

      A 16-year-old boy from Sudan told the Guardian that he planned to run away and cross the Channel rather than go into one of the French centres. “If we are taken away to these centres we won’t know what will happen to us,” he said. “I will run away and I will keep trying to reach the UK by lorry. In the camps we are more spread out but if we go into the centres we could be closer together so more at risk.”

      He said that catching Covid-19 was not uppermost in the minds of the refugees. “We are thinking more about our survival,” he said.

      Many NGOs, which provide food and other support to refugees in the camps, have pulled out because of the pandemic. Refugees have reported food and water shortages. French authorities are distributing bottled water but it is understood they are concerned that too many water points in the camps will hinder physical distancing. Provision of showers and phone charging facilities have also decreased.

      NGOs working in the camps in Calais say it is crucial that the lockdown is managed properly and that the French authorities work with them, as they are trusted by the refugees.

      Clare Moseley, founder of Care4Calais, which provides emergency aid and support for refugees in Calais and Dunkirk as well as in Brussels, and is continuing to operate in the refugee areas, said: “We haven’t had any confirmed cases of Covid-19 in the camps. The refugees are more focused on survival than on the virus. We don’t know how ‘voluntary’ the accommodation centres will be.

      “Food supplies in the camps have reduced significantly and if it’s the only way people can get food, they may feel forced to go. The reduction of food in the camps has been a game-changer. If the only way people can eat is by going into one of the centres then it won’t really be voluntary.”

      She said that after getting legal advice from lawyers in the UK and France, Care4Calais volunteers are continuing to operate as frontline aid workers and are following current World Health Organization guidance on infection control.

      According to documents seen by the Guardian, some unaccompanied minors have reported being beaten by French police and they have told charity workers they prefer to sleep in the camps rather than in centres provided by the French authorities.

      When buses are sent to the camps from Tuesday, migrants who agree to leave will be given a medical check before being transferred. Once they reach the temporary accommodation they will be expected to keep the same lockdown rules as the rest of France, which has prohibited all movement except for essential work, essential shopping, medical appointments and a daily maximum one-hour exercise routine not more than 1km from home.

      Even before the coronavirus crisis, life in the refugee camps was grim. Volunteers said that asking migrants who were often four or five to a tent to maintain social distancing was impossible.

      Léah Njeim, a volunteer with Utopia 56, an organisation that distributes food to the camps, told Ouest France: “Some migrants are more than an hour’s walk away from running water.”

      Utopia 56 had been transporting sick migrants to local health centres. “We’ve had to stop this ... the police are blocking the exit to the Jungle [camp],” Njeim added.

      Secours Catholique, a charity that ran a day centre for 250 to 300 migrants where they could warm up, have a hot drink and charge their mobiles, said it had been forced to close as most of its volunteers were aged over 70 and in the coronavirus “at risk” group. In an open letter to the authorities, 18 NGOs called for the migrants who wished to stay in the Channel area to be housed in “hotels, schools and empty apartments”.

      “To stay home, you have to have a home to stay in,” the organisations wrote in the petition addressed to the French prime minister, Édouard Philippe.

      François Guennoc, vice-president of the Auberge des Migrants, told La Voix du Nord newspaper: “Giving them accommodation far away will not work. Some will not get in the buses and there will be people who return soon afterwards.”

      Sources close to the French government told the Guardian that health protection and sheltering arrangements for refugees in the camps were under way.

      #coronavirus #réfugiés #UK #Angleterre #confinement #asile #migrations

  • Home Office releases 300 from detention centres amid Covid-19 pandemic

    Release follows legal action that argues Home Office is failing to protect immigration detainees.

    The Home Office has released almost 300 people from detention centres in the last few days because of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Guardian has learned.

    The speed and scale of the release is unprecedented in recent years. Detainees and charities estimate that more than a quarter of those currently locked up have been set free.

    The release comes in the wake of a legal action launched last week which argued that the Home Office had failed to protect immigration detainees from the coronavirus outbreak and failed to identify which detainees were at particular risk of serious harm or death if they do contract the virus due to their age or underlying health conditions.

    It called for the release of all those who are particularly vulnerable and for all detainees to be tested, along with the suspension of all new detentions. The action warns even a short delay could have “catastrophic consequences”.
    Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
    Read more

    It is believed that more than 900 people are currently in immigration detention.

    The Home Office provided a response to the legal action to the high court out of hours on Friday. After receiving the Home Office submissions, Mr Justice Swift made an order on Friday night that a half-day hearing should be held next Wednesday to determine whether or not to grant the emergency measures requested in the legal challenge by the charity Detention Action and a vulnerable detainee who suffers from hypertension, which experts say doubles the risk of death if Covid-19 is contracted.

    As part of the legal action, the public health expert Prof Richard Coker of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine has provided an expert report warning that prisons and detention centres provide ideal incubation conditions for the rapid spread of the coronavirus, and that about 60% of those in detention could be rapidly infected if the virus gets into detention centres.

    Coker’s report was commissioned by Duncan Lewis Solicitors, who have embarked on what is thought to be the first legal action against the government relating to the coronavirus outbreak.

    The UK government issued guidance stating that if there was a significant outbreak of Covid-19, “cohorting” should be used to put all those infected together behind locked doors in prisons, detention centres, young offender institutions and secure units.

    Many of those in detention have arrived from high-risk countries such as Iran, China and Italy. Some are forced to share rooms, and a “lock-in” regime prevents many from leaving their cells during the night.

    Emma Ginn, director of the detention charity Medical Justice, said that those still in detention were scared of contracting the virus.

    “We are getting harrowing calls from seriously ill clients describing their fear of the virus spreading in the centres and feeling powerless in response. The distress in their voices is palpable and there is little we can do to console them,” she said.

    Bella Sankey, director of Detention Action, said:”Our landmark legal challenge has already forced a response from the home secretary. We are delighted the high court has now ordered a hearing for next week and we’ll be pressing for a robust review of all detentions. In the midst of a global pandemic, administrative detention puts those interned in grave danger. And maintaining detention when the evidence from Prof Coker is that detention centres act as ‘epidemiological pumps’ puts us all at unnecessary risk.”

    A Home Office spokesperson said: “Immigration enforcement is responding to the unique circumstances of the coronavirus outbreak and following the latest guidance from Public Health England. This includes providing soap and cleaning materials to all detainees. Decisions to detain are made on a case-by-case basis and kept under constant review, but our priority is to maintain the lawful detention of the most high-harm individuals, including foreign national offenders’’


    #détention_administrative #rétention #UK #Angleterre #asile #migrations #réfugiés #coronavirus #centres_de_rétention_administrative

    • High court rejects call to free 736 detainees at risk from coronavirus

      Judges say Home Office has addressed dangers in immigration detention centres.

      The high court has rejected calls to free hundreds of immigration detainees who, lawyers and human rights activists say, are at risk from Covid-19 while behind bars.

      The ruling, following a hearing over Skype on Wednesday, was handed down in response to an urgent legal challenge from Detention Action.

      The legal action asked for the release of hundreds of detainees who are particularly vulnerable to serious illness or death if they contract the virus because of particular health conditions, and also for the release of those from about 50 countries to which the Home Office is currently unable to remove people because of the pandemic.

      The two judges – Dame Victoria Sharp, president of the Queen’s Bench division, and Mr Justice Swift – came down strongly on the side of the Home Office and highlighted the range of measures already being implemented by the home secretary, Priti Patel.

      These included the release of more than 300 detainees last week, ongoing assessments of the vulnerability of individual detainees to the virusand a range of “sensible” and “practical” steps the Home Office is taking to make detention centres safer, such as single occupancy rooms and the provision of face masks for detainees who wish to wear them.

      “It seems likely that the arrangements already in place by the secretary of state will be sufficient to address the risks arising in the majority of cases,” the judges said, adding that “the present circumstances are exceptional”.

      The court hearing on Wednesday heard that 736 people are still being detained in the UK, while 350 have been released in recent days. It was also confirmed that detainees in three detention centres have displayed symptoms of Covid-19.

      The Home Office previously confirmed to the Guardian one case of Covid-19 on Sunday at Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre in Bedfordshire, which mainly houses women.
      Million undocumented migrants could go hungry, say charities
      Read more

      The court heard that in a second centre - Brook House, near Gatwick airport - one detainee who had displayed symptoms was reportedly serving food to other detainees just before he fell ill.

      Chris Buttler, representing Detention Action and also representing a detainee who lawyers say is at greater risk from Covid-19 because he suffers from high blood pressure, told the court that expert evidence suggests the virus “will run rampant” through detention facilities.

      He argued that the home secretary was acting unlawfully and falsely imprisoning many detainees because removals are no longer possible to 49 countries and it is difficult to remove people to many others.

      He said that the Home Office was a “glaring exception” to the government’s moves to suppress Covid-19 and that leaving people in detention would further burden the already overstretched NHS when they get sick.

      “The home secretary is arguably falsely imprisoning some clients who there is no realistic risk of removing,” Buttler told the court.

      Lisa Giovannetti QC, representing the Home Office, told the court: “Government accepts all reasonable steps should be taken to shield people in high-risk categories and we have been proceeding on that basis. I can’t claim the system is perfect but it’s a reasonable one.”

      She said reviews to identify the most vulnerable detainees were under way and this process is due to be completed imminently, adding that numbers in immigration detention have fallen substantially from 1,200 in January to 736 now.

      As part of Detention Action’s case, the public health expert Prof Richard Coker, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, provided an expert report warning that prisons and detention centres provide ideal incubation conditions for the rapid spread of the coronavirus, and that about 60% of those in detention could be rapidly infected if the virus gets into these locked facilities.
      Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
      Read more

      Toufique Hossain of Duncan Lewis Solicitors, who brought the case, said: “This litigation has brought about the release of hundreds of detainees, preventing many from suffering serious harm.

      “Hundreds more remain in detention in terrible conditions. Though we are disappointed with the ruling today, this action has clearly focused the minds at the Home Office on vulnerable individuals they usually wilfully neglect.”

      Bella Sankey, Director of Detention Action, said: “While the high court declined to grant our interim relief tonight, our litigation has already forced major and rapid concessions from the government: 350 people released from detention in the past week; an undertaking to proactively review the detention of all those held under immigration powers according to updated guidance and with a view to further significant releases; and a very strong presumption against any new detentions for people facing removal to around 50 countries.

      “The government has also been forced to issue new guidance on hygiene standards in detention and to accept that detention poses high risks to those with Covid-19-relevant underlying health conditions.

      “We will monitor the implementation of all these guarantees and continue to hold the government to account.”

      A Home Office spokesperson said: “We welcome the court’s decision. Immigration Enforcement is responding to the unique circumstances of the coronavirus outbreak and following the latest guidance from Public Health England. The safety of detainees and staff is of vital importance.

      “Decisions to detain are made on a case-by-case basis and kept under constant review, but our priority is to maintain the lawful detention of the most high-harm individuals, including foreign national offenders.’’


  • I’m an epidemiologist. When I heard about Britain’s ‘herd immunity’ coronavirus plan, I thought it was satire | William Hanage | Opinion | The Guardian

    Tous les échos que j’ai de médecins et épidémio disent la même chose : la stratégie de l’"immunité de groupe" est une vaste blague, une théorie fumeuse, bollocks, débile, criminel, assassin, inhumain, irresponsable, aberrant…

    Cet article donne des arguments détaillés sur le sujet.

    (La rubrique « Opinion » est ici bien mal nommée.)

  • Les privatisations de l’éducation

    Les processus de privatisation « en » éducation et « de » l’éducation concernent désormais la plupart des pays du monde.
    Dans un contexte de #mondialisation et d’#internationalisation accrues des systèmes éducatifs, la mise en œuvre, ces dernières décennies, de mesures spécifiques de privatisation, le développement d’un #secteur_marchand de l’éducation, mais aussi des évolutions sociétales de fond concernant les notions d’#individualisme et d’individu interrogent d’une nouvelle manière les enjeux liés aux privatisations.
    La promotion des #intérêts_privés est-elle compatible avec un processus d’éducation ? Induit-elle irrémédiablement, par exemple, une conception utilitariste de l’éducation ? Quel est son impact sur les nouvelles générations et leur capacité à faire société ? Finalement, les privatisations en cours de l’éducation en changent-elles la nature ou ne s’agit-il que d’une différence de modalité d’organisation ou de gouvernance ?
    Pour répondre à ces questions, ce dossier rassemble les contributions de treize chercheurs en éducation, spécialistes mondiaux réputés ou auteurs d’enquêtes pionnières dans leur domaine, dont les travaux permettent d’envisager une grande diversité de cas (#Angleterre, #Chili, #Côte_d’Ivoire, #États-Unis, #France, #Inde, #Suède). Il met également en évidence des problématiques transversales à de nombreux pays, comme le développement du #soutien_scolaire_privé en Asie ou les stratégies mises en œuvre par des entreprises privées pour influencer les #politiques_éducatives.
    Quelle que soit la définition retenue, tous les auteurs soulignent la croissance sans précédent de la privatisation ces dernières années. Illustrer cette diversité est l’un des objectifs majeurs de ce dossier qui donne à voir trois principales formes de privatisation, non exclusives et clairement liées les unes aux autres : une privatisation par le biais de politiques publiques spécifiques, une privatisation par le marché et une privatisation par une prise en compte croissante d’aspirations et d’intérêts individuels privés.

    #privatisation #revue #éducation #utilitarisme #USA #Etats-Unis

    • L’Ecole peut-elle échapper à sa privatisation ?

      « C’est une lame de fond qui est à l’oeuvre ». La formule de Xavier Pons (UPEC), dans le nouveau numéro (82) de la Revue internationale d’éducation, montre la puissance d’un phénomène mondial. La privatisation de l’enseignement peut prendre des formes variées, endogène ou exogène, avouée ou masquée, systématique ou très localisée, elle est à l’oeuvre partout. Elle pose plusieurs défis. Celui de la qualité de l’enseignement, car dans de nombreux pays elle entraine son déclin. Et un fort enjeu politique et social : comment des systèmes éducatifs privés peuvent ils transmettre des valeurs communes et encourager le commun ? Ce numéro, dirigé par Xavier Pons et Thierry Chevaillier, particulièrement réussi, visite 8 pays : le Chili, les Etats-Unis, la Suède, la Côte d’ivoire, l’Inde, la Chine, l’Angleterre, sans oublier la France. Tous sont touchés. La privatisation c’est l’avenir de l’Ecole ?

      Une privatisation exogène

      Si la privatisation est à l’oeuvre dans les systèmes scolaires du monde entier, force est de constater qu’elle prend des formes bien différentes. Peut-être est en Suède ou en Angleterre qu’elle s’affiche de la façon la plus visible. En Suède le système éducatif a été totalement dérégulé dans les années 1990. L’Etat a autorisé les écoles privées, y compris lucratives, et les a financées grâce à un système de chèque éducation, les familles ayant la possibilité de choisir leur école. Aujourd’hui un jeune sur quatre est dans une école privée. Le fort développement de ce secteur a attiré des grands groupes privés et du capital risque. 68% des établissements privés sont des sociétés par action. Tous ces changements se sont faits petit pas après petit pas, au nom de la liberté des familles, par choix politique.

      En Angleterre, selon Anne West, l’Etat a autorisé des « academies », c’est à dire des écoles publiques gérées par des organismes privés, d’abord pour relever le niveau d’établissements publics populaires. Aujourd’hui une école primaire sur trois et 3 établissements secondaires sur 4 sont des academies ou des free schools, un autre type d’école privée. Dans des comtés entiers l’éducation a pu être confiée à des sociétés privées comme Atkins Education dans le comté de Southwark. On a là des privatisations exogènes, le secteur privé entrant dans le secteur public et y réalisant des profits.

      Quand les idées du privé pénètrent l’Ecole

      Il y a aussi des formes endogènes où ce sont les idées , les pratiques du privé qui s’imposent dans le public. C’ets ce qu’on voit avec le New Public Management. Il a déjà pénétré la plupart des pays développés. Nous vivons en ce moment en France une ultime tentative pour le faire accepter à travers le « nouveau métier enseignant » et les nouvelles formes de gestion passées dans la loi de transformation de la fonction publique. Le nouveau plan pour l’éducation adopté en Wallonie (Belgique) préfigure ce qui attend la France : il rend les écoles responsables des résultats des élèves et prévoit des sanctions si les objectifs évalués ne sont pas atteints.

      La privatisation des esprits

      Il y a aussi des formes plus masquées de la privatisation. C’est le cas du développement du soutien scolaire privé ou encore du développement d’une offre parallèle à l’école d’Etat justifiée par des raisons idéologiques ou la recherche d’une autre pédagogie. C’est aussi le développement de l’école à la maison. Là aussi ce développement s’appuie sur une tendance de fond de la société : l’individualisation.

      La privatisation peut aussi progresser en passant par l’expérimentation ou le soutien social, rappelle X Pons. Il donne en exemple Teach for France, devenu Le choix de l’école. Ce programme américain, soutenu en France par l’Institut Montaigne et l’Education nationale, utilise des élèves des grandes écoles pour les envoyer dans les classes de quartiers populaires comme contractuels. « Au nom de cela on promeut une autre vision de la carrière des enseignants et de leur gestion. C’est une stratégie des acteurs privés de passer par là pour avoir un effet d’entrainement sur le système éducatif ».

      Quelles conséquences ?

      Quelles conséquences peut avoir cette privatisation ? La Revue de Sèvres cite la baisse des résultats scolaires en Suède. Mais une récente livraison de l’OCDE montre que c’est aussi le cas au Chili, autre pays phare, ou encore en Finlande, en Australie, aux Pays Bas et Belgique, tous pays marqués par le New Public Management. La recherche du profit amène les entreprises scolaires a faire travailler des proportions croissantes de maitres peu formés et moins onéreux. Là où le privé est très installé les effets peuvent être plus graves sur les élèves pauvres. Par exemple en Angleterre des écoles non rentables sont fermées par leurs exploitants privés les laissant sans solution de scolarisation.

      Les enseignants sont aussi dans les premières victimes. Pour assurer la rentabilité de la privatisation, on va exiger davantage d’eux pour des rémunérations plus faibles. Les plus expérimentés sont remplacés par des contractuels.

      Mais la privatisation menace aussi les communs. Elle encourage la fragmentation de la société. Les groupes privés, associatifs ou marchands, colportent des valeurs qui peuvent s’opposer aux valeurs collectives. La Revue en donne des exemples saisissants en Inde, par exemple. La privatisation devient ainsi un enjeu politique majeur.

      Mais comment la controler ou l’éradiquer ? La Revue montre que la privatisation s’accompagne du passage dans l’ombre de la gestion de l’école ce qui rend les politiques de controle plus difficiles. « Je crois à la vertu de l’exemple », estime cependant Xavier Pons. « Dans les études d’opinion les Français sont pour le libre choix de l’Ecole à 72% et même 85% dans les quartiers défavorisés. Mais une fois mis devant le choix ils se posent des questions ». Le meilleur barrage à la privatisation serait -il éthique ?


  • Outre Manche 74 universités entrent en grève en février et en mars

    Soixante-quatorze universités britanniques seront touchées par 14 jours de grève en février et en mars, selon le communiqué de UCU aujourd’hui. La grève commencera le jeudi 20 février et prendra de l’ampleur chaque semaine jusqu’à culminer en un arrêt total du travail du lundi 9 au mardi 13 mars.

    Le conflit porte sur la viabilité financière du système de retraites Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) et de l’accroissement de son coût pour ses membres, et sur l’échec des universités à n universitieséchec des universités à faire des améliorations significatives sur la rémunérations, leur équiités, la flexibilité et la charge de travail. Voici les jours de grève prévus :

    Semaine 1 – Jeudi 20 & vendredi 21 février
    Semaine 2 – lundi 24, mardi 25 & mercredi 26 février
    Semaine 3 – lundi 2, mardi 3, mercredi 4 & jeudi 5 mars
    Semaine 4 – lundi 9, mardi 10, merciredi 11, jeudi 12 & vendredi 13 mars
    Les membres de UCU ont cessé le travail huit jours en novembre et décembre l’an passé affectant ainsi un million d’étudiant⋅es. La prochaine vague touchera 14 autres universités, soit 200 000 étudiant⋅es supplémentaires, puisque UCU davantage de sections UCU ont atteint les 50% de participation légalement requis pour entrer en grève.

    Le syndicat a également averti qu’il consulterait ses membres après la vague de grèves si les conflits ne trouvaient pas de solution, afin de s’assurer que ses sections puissent faire grève jusqu’à la fin de l’année universitaire. Les mandats de grève ont seulement une validité de six mois ; aussi les sections qui ont cesser le travail en novembre doivent faire renouveler le mandat reçu pour être autorisé à faire grève après avril.

    En plus des jours de grève, les membres syndicqués sont invités à pratique la « grève du zèle ». Cela implique de actions comme travailler selon les termes exacts du contrat, ne pas assurer le travail de collègues absents et refuser de remplacer les cours supprimés à cause de la grève.

    La secrétaire générale de UCU Jo Grady déclaire : « Nous avons vu plus de membres soutenir les grèves depuis la moblisation de l’hiver derner et cette nouvelle vague de grève va affecter plus d’universités et d’étudiants. Si les universités veulent éviter davantage de perturbation, il faut qu’elles parviennent à un accord sur l’accroissement du coût des retraite et s’affrontent aux problèmes des rémunérations et des conditions de travail ».

    « Nous avons été clairs dès le départ sur le fait que nous allions organiser une grève ferme et durable si c’est de ça qu’il était besoin. En plus des grèves du mois à venir, nous allons consulter nos membres pour nous assurer que nous disposons d’un mandat renouvelé pour couvrir le reste de l’année universitaire, si ces conflits ne trouvent pas de résolution satisfaisante ».

    Universities affectées par la grève

    Deux conflits (47) :
    1. Aston University
    2. Bangor University
    3. Cardiff University
    4. University of Durham
    5. Heriot-Watt University
    6. Loughborough University
    7. Newcastle University
    8. The Open University
    9. The University of Bath
    10. The University of Dundee
    11. The University of Leeds
    12. The University of Manchester
    13. The University of Sheffield
    14. University of Nottingham
    15. The University of Stirling
    16. University College London
    17. The University of Birmingham
    18. The University of Bradford
    19. The University of Bristol
    20. The University of Cambridge
    21. The University of Edinburgh
    22. The University of Exeter
    23. The University of Essex
    24. The University of Glasgow
    25. The University of Lancaster
    26. The University of Leicester
    27. City University
    28. Goldsmiths College
    29. Queen Mary University of London
    30. Royal Holloway
    31. The University of Reading
    32. The University of Southampton
    33. The University of St Andrews
    34. Courtauld Institute of Art
    35. The University of Strathclyde
    36. The University of Wales
    37. The University of Warwick
    38. The University of York
    39. The University of Liverpool
    40. The University of Sussex
    41. The University of Aberdeen
    42. The University of Ulster
    43. Queen’s University Belfast
    44. Birkbeck College, University of London
    45. SOAS, University of London
    46. The University of Oxford
    47. The University of East Anglia

    Pour les rémunérations et les conditions de travail seulement (22) :
    1. Bishop Grosseteste University
    2. Bournemouth University
    3. Edge Hill University
    4. Glasgow Caledonian University
    5. Glasgow School of Art
    6. Liverpool Hope University
    7. Liverpool Institute of Performing Arts
    8. Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh
    9. St Mary’s University College, Belfast
    10. Roehampton University
    11. Sheffield Hallam University
    12. The University of Brighton
    13. The University of Kent
    14. Bath Spa University
    15. Royal College of Art
    16. University of Huddersfield
    17. University of Winchester
    18. University of East London
    19. Leeds Trinity University
    20. UAL London College of Arts
    21. De Montfort University
    22. University of Greenwich

    Contre la réforme des retraites USS seulement (5) :
    1. Scottish Association of Marine Science
    2. Institute for Development Studies
    3. Keele University
    4. King’s College London
    5. Imperial College London


    #université #Angleterre #UK #grève #résistance #universités

    Ajouté à la métaliste sur les résistances dans le monde universitaire en Europe :

    • Senior UK academics protest over pay and working conditions

      Professors refuse to act as external examiners, potentially disrupting students’ results.

      Senior academics are refusing to act as external examiners – a vital part of higher education assessments – in protest at pay and working conditions in UK universities, and are urging colleagues to join them, potentially disrupting this year’s results for students.

      British universities rely on external examiners to independently validate the results of undergraduate and postgraduate courses, meaning that mass resignations would cause headaches for universities in the setting and marking of exams.

      A letter to the Guardian signed by 29 professors said they were resigning as external examiners and refusing to take on new contracts because of pension cuts and insecure contracts throughout the sector, as well as gender and ethnicity pay gaps, heavy workloads and stress.
      Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
      Read more

      “We are refusing to act as external examiners because although we believe that this role is crucial in underpinning the quality of education provided to students, so too is the need to provide fair pay, pensions and job security for those who work in universities,” the letter states.

      “It is long past time for universities to address these festering problems, and we believe we have a responsibility to staff at the start of their careers to make a stand now. Please join us by resigning external examiner posts and refusing to take on new contracts until universities take action to address these issues.”

      Phil Taylor, a professor of work and employment at the University of Strathclyde, said he had signed the letter because he was “fed up” with universities treating their staff with contempt.

      “Someone starting now is likely to have to deal with one insecure contract after another, face cuts in their pension, spiralling workloads, unrelenting pressure, soaring stress levels and pay inequality. Universities must start to value staff more or they will lose what little goodwill that is left,” he said.

      Another signatory, Natalie Fenton, a professor of media and communications at Goldsmiths, University of London, said British universities boasted about their global reputation while treating staff as second-class citizens.

      “It is really important that senior academics on established contracts make a stand in support of less fortunate colleagues. I will be refusing any invitations to act as external examiner for degree courses until universities address these issues,” Fenton said.

      External examiners are experienced academics such as professors or senior lecturers, who give independent assurance that a university’s assessment system is fair and help to maintain rigorous academic standards.
      Thousands of UK academics ’treated as second-class citizens’
      Read more

      The external examination boycott comes during industrial disputes at many British universities, with the University and College Union leading a strike at 60 institutions last year and more strike ballots being held this month.

      “External examiners resigning their positions, and refusing to take up new ones, are very serious steps and demonstrate the huge levels of frustration that exist,” said Jo Grady, the UCU general secretary.

      “External examiners are vitally important both to protecting educational standards and to the sector’s academic reputation but they want to support colleagues who face pension cuts, insecure contracts, spiralling workloads and pay inequality.

      “Universities must now recognise the strength of feeling that exists across the workforce and make substantial changes in the way they treat staff or they will undoubtedly face not just further industrial action, but also more withdrawals of cooperation.”

      A spokesperson for the Universities and Colleges Employers Association said the protest “does not seem to reflect accurately the issues” in the current industrial disputes.

      “Many universities have also been in dialogue with their unions over the wider employment issues that have been packaged in to one of these disputes and it is wrong to assert that there is any unwillingness within universities to discuss and address these issues,” the association said.

      A spokesperson for the industry body Universities UK said: “It is right that university staff should expect good working conditions, fair pay and an attractive pension. This is what universities are striving to provide.”


    • Picket Line Perspectives: UCU pickets across the UK

      Sixty universities across the UK are taking part in the current UCU strike action over pay, pensions, and poor working conditions. On day 4 of the 8-day strike, six striking historians give us the view from picket lines across the country.

      Royal Holloway, University of London

      Emily Manktelow – Senior Lecturer in Colonial and Global History

      One of the nice things about Royal Holloway’s big Founder’s Building clock is that you can arrive “on the stroke” of things. As such, I arrived on the stroke of 8am Monday morning to join the picket lines of the Egham Campus. The rain was both mizzling and persistent, but I like to think the picket I was on was buoyed by the presence of my dog Teddy, one of the many #dogsonpicketlines up and down the country that morning. Not being a fan of the rain, his big brown eyes really got across the pathos of inequality, low pay and casualisation. Standing at the pedestrian crossing gate opposite student halls, we got a lot of support from students, some encouraging car honks and a round of applause from a passing nurse. We also got shouted at by a man leaning out of his van at the traffic lights. “Get a f***ing education”, he yelled with somewhat pleasing irony. I guess he could have been saying “Give a f***ing education’, but that seems unlikely.

      On the picket line the main talk was of equality: fair pay and casualisation were definitely the issues that resonated most with staff. Whereas during the last strikes the focus was very-much on the pension cuts, this time around there was a certain amount of discomfort with our ‘USS Pension Strike’ signs. This discomfort resonates more widely with the dominance on social media of the second part of the industrial action ballot: pay and working conditions. While RHUL is proud of its roots in female education – indeed, the sports teams’ colours are the suffragette colours and our new library is in the brand-new Emily Wilding Davison building – we have the 7th worst gender pay gap in the sector (24.9%). Our Surrey campus, meanwhile, is much too white for its proximity to Hounslow, Acton and Staines. As staff members and departments these are issues we have been trying to face with student-led BAME initiatives and projects to diversify our curriculum, but both the national and local picture remain alarming at best, and indicting at worst. The national gender pay gap is 15% (2018) while the ethnic minority pay gap in Russell Group institutions is an astonishing 26% (2018). Closer to home for we historians the Royal Historical Society’s ‘Race, Ethnicity and Equality Report’ found that only 11% of history students nationwide are from BAME backgrounds and that 96.1% of university historians are white.

      Casualisation, meanwhile, is also stark. RHUL relies upon 62% casualised labour. Nationally the figure stands at 68% with many institutions even higher. At last year’s Modern British Studies Conference forum on early career casualisation I was struck not only by the devastating figures, but even more so by the feeling of ECRs on the panel that their work wasn’t valued: that their teaching was underpaid and unstable, and even more so that their research was considered pointless or trivial. This really felt like a punch in the gut, and in a stupidly tone-deaf and rambling question I prattled on about imposter syndrome without really interacting with the structural issues that these academics were so eloquently describing. Yes, we all have moments of feeling that we don’t belong. These young colleagues were being both told and shown that they didn’t by university structures and leaderships that relied upon their work at the same time as marginalising their existence. This is deeply shameful, and absolutely worth striking for.

      I don’t know if these issues have got worse since the last strikes, but I do know that their importance has magnified. Colleagues and I have been trying to work out why that is. Our suggestions are undoubtedly only part of the wider picture, but tended to circle around greater visibility through social media and more attention to mental health issues in academia (particularly after the tragic death of Dr Malcolm Anderson at Cardiff University earlier this year). Moreover, for me at least, the last round of strikes burnt up my goodwill towards universities as institutions. I love my job, and I am extremely fortunate to be one of the lucky ones in a permanent position. I joined RHUL in August 2018 and have been extremely happy there so far, with great colleagues, a vibrant department, and enthusiastic and engaged students. But in 2018 university leaderships across the country certainly demonstrated that we are only numbers on a spreadsheet in the corridors of power. Our goodwill is lost in a vacuum of number-crunching, pound signs and recruitment figures.

      Universities rely on our commitment to research and teaching in order to exploit us. They rely on our gratitude for having a job to overwork us. They rely on our commitment to get the job done to cut our pay by nearly 20% in real terms since 2009. They rely on casualised staff who are chronically underpaid, live in a world of instability and insecurity every day, and internalise the sector’s exploitation as a narrative of insufficiency. The money is there: for pensions, for fractional and permanent contracts, for redressing the pay gaps and investing in eradicating student attainment gaps. We don’t need new halls charging exorbitant rent to already over-squeezed students. We don’t need recruitment targets, TEFs, REFs and KEFs. We need equality, security, fair workloads and fair pay. Is that so much to ask?

      University of Cambridge

      George Morris – PhD Student in History

      As in the last strike, the solidarity shown by undergraduate students, and the presence of postgrads on the picket lines, has been of huge value, not just in boosting numbers and morale – and providing sustenance in the form of tea and cake – but in showing the strength of feeling, and the deep care and support, on which the university runs. The practical solidarity shown between staff and students (and, here in Cambridge, a visiting Billy Bragg) is an expression of more everyday solidarities, which function despite the pressure of poor working conditions. If it seems like the strike offers an alternative idea of the university, it is because of this; people gathering, meeting, and talking in ways we don’t have time to otherwise.

      At many universities, students have been misleadingly told that they aren’t allowed to join the picket lines. The fact is that staff and students care about one another more than VCs care about either. Despite the cynical co-option of a language of care, more or less direct threats to discipline students, particularly those who might fall fowl of visa restrictions, suggest the limits of management’s feeling for students affected by the strike.

      Though the issues at dispute have now broadened, this in basically a continuation of the last wave of strike action, the longest in the history of British universities. The strike proved to be effective, to have the support of students, and to have highlighted working conditions in a sector too easily dismissed by observers as a world of ivory towers. Though the methods of the dispute are traditional ones – pickets, student occupations, Billy Bragg – the realities of university employment differ radically from the workplaces for which such tactics were devised. This doesn’t mean that universities are out of touch; on the contrary, these dispersed institutions, in which employees are expected to work for love not money, have much in common with seemingly very different occupations in contemporary Britain.

      Everybody on the picket lines is fighting for pensions, fair pay and an end to precarity. But, as was the case last time, they’re fighting for the future of universities too. For those of us who are doing graduate work, and who look ahead to a future of precarious employment, it may well be that our biggest ‘contribution to the field’ is the fight for the future of higher education.

      University of Bristol

      Will Pooley – Lecturer in Modern European History

      This is What Winning Looks Like

      I’m fortunate to work with many colleagues who recognize the importance of the union, and of this strike.

      But before the strike began, I spoke to several colleagues who weren’t members, and weren’t planning to join us. One of them told me, ‘I don’t think we can win this fight.’

      I’ve been thinking a lot about this on the first few days on the picket.

      No one is pretending that the issues are simple. Different union branches are on strike on either one of two different grounds – pensions and pay – or on both. The ins and outs of the pension dispute are hard even for staff to understand, let alone members of the public and students. And the pay dispute is not just about stagnating pay or pay devaluation, but also covers pay inequality, job insecurity, and rising workloads.

      Resolutions to all of these disputes are unlikely to be simple or quick. Precarious employment practices and unsafe workloads are so ingrained in how modern universities work that undoing them is going to take sustained work over the long term.

      But if victory is a process, not a moment, then there are signs that we are already winning.

      Winning is recognition in national media coverage that the current system is broken.

      Winning is the incredible support our students have shown us.

      Winning is our democratically-elected representatives coming down to the pickets to hear directly from staff about the strike.

      Winning is the creativity and camaraderie of the picket.

      Those of us who were also on strike in 2018 remember how uplifting it was to just spend time talking to our colleagues and students. In our current broken system, who has time for that?

      Winning is the Vice-Chancellor of our university coming out on to the pickets and the marches to speak to staff, and even to listen to our concerns. (When I heard him, he was being roundly criticised by hourly-paid teachers about their working conditions.)

      And winning is the growing group of Vice-Chancellors speaking out to support greater pension contributions from employers.

      Of course the fight is not over.

      Vice-Chancellors talking to picketers, or even publicly declaring their sympathy is not the same as Vice-Chancellors taking concrete steps to address our concerns. Some of the fixes could be a lot faster than university ‘leaders’ sometimes pretend. I’d like to see my own employer adopt the approach to pay gaps championed by the University of Essex. To close their gender pay gap among professors, they simply increased all female professors’ pay.

      We can hope, can’t we? My overwhelming memory of the 2018 strikes is anger. But what I’d like to say to my pessimist colleague – and indeed to any other colleagues who have not yet joined – is something about how hope is replacing my anger.

      We are slowly winning this, and it’s never too late to join us.

      University of Edinburgh

      Fraser Raeburn – Lecturer in Modern European History

      Last time around, striking felt liberating. The picket line seemed to be the first space capable of overcoming the atomisation of academic life, a place where conversations could happen spontaneously, unhurriedly and across subject borders and hierarchies, the kinds of conversations most of us became academics to have. The result was a sense of solidarity that felt exhilaratingly unfamiliar, an emotional high that pushed people through a long series of strikes to their successful conclusion.

      This time, that exhilaration seems to be gone. Not because there are fewer people out, or because there is no solidarity to be found – quite the contrary. Part of the reason, inevitably, is the sheer awfulness of Edinburgh’s November weather, which has had a quite literal numbing effect. I also suspect that the novelty for most participants has worn off somewhat – the sense of giddy surprise at the power of the picket as a human space was never going to be fully recaptured. Perhaps above all though, we are all tired. This has been a long, difficult semester, perhaps only incrementally more difficult than the last one (which was only a little more difficult than the one before) but we are all reaching or approaching the end of our tethers. We are simply exhausted.

      This exhaustion is why we’re striking. Many of us – particularly those of us on temporary, precarious contracts – feel like we’re being pushed to breaking point, working unsustainable hours, pushing through illness and lack of sleep to deliver teaching on a scale that seemed unimaginable a generation ago. Exhaustion, on this picket line, is not weakness, it is determination: we can’t go on like this, and the only option we have left is to challenge the system itself.

      Pensions were a strong rallying point, as they affected our collective futures so tangibly, and the deal being offered was so transparently, unnecessarily cruel. It became clear during that strike, however, that this was the tip of the iceberg when it came to structural issues in UK academia. The ambition of this strike is, well, striking. We are attempting not just to address the lingering issue of pensions, but the much wider problems of workload, precarity and the pay gaps along the lines of gender, race and disability.

      These are issues that require different conversations than last time around. Much of the debate around pensions was technical – what can really be afforded, how to calculate contributions and risk, what assumptions are built into the models. This time, we need to communicate truths that are more personal and emotional, lifting the curtain not just on what is happening behind the scenes of our universities, but what is happening behind the facades we put up in the classroom as we perform our roles as enthusiastic, engaged and energetic teachers. These are facades we’ve often built up just a little too well – we are good at our jobs, after all – but if we want students to understand why we’re striking, they need to come down.

      University of Cambridge
      Elly Robson, Research Fellow
      The mood on the pickets in Cambridge has been buoyant – bolstered further by celebrity visits from Ai Weiwei and Billy Bragg. No one wants to be on strike, but there is widespread recognition among students and staff that the future of higher education is at stake. The tripling of tuition fees under the Lib Dem-Tory government in 2009 accelerated a restructuring of the university sector along highly marketised lines. This same trend has profoundly degraded the conditions, pay, and pensions of workers in the university – those whose labour is the very lifeblood of these institutions. This strike poses the question of who and what the university is for. It also widens the terms of the struggle to highlight how the young and precarious, women, BME and disabled academics and staff are hit hardest by pay freezes, short-term and zero-hours contracts, and escalating workloads.

      What cabinet ministers, university managers and pension actuarialists failed to factor into their calculations was the potential for these shared struggles to converge. This week, I have watched horizontal solidarities, forged in the 2018 strikes, deepen and grow on the picket lines in Cambridge. The picket is a radical pedagogical space, in which learning takes unexpected forms and militates against the hierarchies of the classroom. We stand to learn a huge deal from the energy, organisation and vision of the students supporting the strike. The strike doesn’t just demand that “another university is possible”, but brings it into being at the level of practice: in tea-runs and teach-outs, creative placards and the political education of collective action. And there is so much that can be brought back into, and enrich, the classroom from this shared experience. Most strikingly, as Billy Bragg reminded our large rally yesterday, activism is the antidote to cynicism. Without it, we are lost.
      University of Manchester

      Misha Ewen – Research Fellow in Political Economy

      I joined the University of Manchester last year and this is my first experience of the picket line. What I’ve witnessed so far is solidarity. Solidarity between students and staff, with students also recognising that the casualisation of academic labour impacts the education that they receive. With the rise in tuition fees, it seems to me that students are also frustrated with the increasing marketisation of university education, and with a general election looming it feels like both on and off the picket line there’s a chance for real change.

      I also see the strike as an opportunity to educate students about the realities of academic labour, pay and conditions: some academic staff, who teach their courses and supervise their dissertations, are on precarious contracts, might not receive the same pay as colleagues doing equivalent work, and do work (including teaching) that is not in their contracts and goes unpaid. In this highly competitive job market, Early Career Researchers (ECRs) are often made to feel that they should be grateful for any employment and experience that strengthens their CVs, even when the conditions they face are unethical and exploitative. So, for me, fighting for fairer pay and conditions is deeply personal. I’m proud to say that over the past two days senior staff, ECRs and students have stood side-by-side in the rain (it’s Manchester, what did we expect?), but it hasn’t dampened the feeling that we’re all in this together.


    • University employers say union demands on pay are unaffordable

      Employers appeal to union to go back to members with latest revised offer in hope of averting strikes

      Union demands on pensions, pay and conditions are unaffordable and will put vulnerable institutions that are already in deficit at even greater risk, university employers have said.

      Speaking before strike action planned for this week on 74 campuses across the UK, the employers said many institutions that had already reported shortfalls were being asked to go beyond what they could afford to meet union demands.

      They appealed to the University and College Union, which represents lecturers, librarians, technicians and other academic staff, to go back to their membership with the latest revised offer in the hope of breaking the deadlock between the two sides.
      Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
      Read more

      UCU members are due to go out on strike on Thursday for the first of 14 days of industrial action in what is being described as the largest wave of strikes ever seen on UK campuses. It is expected to impact on more than a million students, many of whom are now veterans of university industrial action.

      It is the third time higher education staff have taken industrial action since 2018, most recently before Christmas when 40,000 staff at 60 universities went out on strike for eight days over the same issues. Staff at a further 14 universities subsequently voted in favour of industrial action after being re-balloted by the UCU, taking the total number of institutions up to 74.

      Mark E Smith, vice-chancellor of the University of Southampton and chair of the Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) said employers had moved a long way to meet the demands of union members, particularly on casualisation, gender pay and workload.

      “We know that in many institutions they are at the edge – or beyond – what they can really afford. If you look at the number of institutions that have reported deficits this year, it’s a very difficult position for them.”

      Universities pay more than half of their overall income on staff costs. “Therefore if your major cost is inflating further, the logical conclusion is those institutions which are under financial pressure will be under increasing pressure,” said Smith. “I would not want to be as alarmist as to say some will go under, however you can join the dots up and see where the logical conclusion of that lies.”

      Smith called on the UCU to go back to their members with the detail of the final offer.
      “The employers have moved a long way on this, but according to the negotiating team of the union it’s not enough, but that’s their view,” he said. “We don’t know what their members think.”

      Students, meanwhile, are becoming increasingly concerned about the impact on their studies, with many launching petitions urging universities to address what they see as legitimate staff concerns and others demanding compensation for lost tuition.

      A UCU spokesperson said: “The reason staff are walking out and education is being disrupted from Thursday is because universities have failed to move the conversation forward and address the concerns of staff.”


    • The Senior Management Survey: auditing the toxic university

      Our thematic analysis of the qualitative data revealed seven major themes:

      Dominance and brutality of metrics
      Excessive workload
      Governance and accountability
      Perpetual change and loss of institutional memory
      Vanity projects
      The silenced academic
      Higher education work as a mental health hazard



  • Il Rapporto Beveridge

    Wikiradio del 01/12/2015 - Rai Radio 3 - RaiPlay Radio

    Définition de wikipedia :
    Le #rapportBeveridge, officiellement intitulé Report on Social Insurance and Allied Services (« Assurance sociale et les services connexes »), est un rapport parlementaire britannique publié en novembre 1942. Rédigé sous la direction de l’économiste libéral William Beveridge, il eut une influence déterminante sur la mise en place de l’État-Providence au Royaume-Uni après la Seconde Guerre mondiale."

    #wwii #assurancesociale #uk #podcast #wikiradio #RaiRadio3

  • Stress, anxiety, harassment: huge survey reveals pressures of scientists’ working lives

    Global study highlights long hours, poor job security and mental-health struggles.

    A survey of more than 4,000 scientists has painted a damning picture of the culture in which they work, suggesting that highly competitive and often hostile environments are damaging the quality of research.

    Around 80% of the survey’s participants — mostly academic researchers in the United Kingdom — believed that competition had fostered mean or aggressive working conditions, and half described struggles with depression or anxiety. Nearly two-thirds of respondents reported witnessing bullying or harassment and 43% said they had experienced it.

    “These results paint a shocking portrait of the research environment — and one we must all help change,” says Jeremy Farrar, director of Wellcome, a major research funder in London that conducted the study with market-research agency Shift Learning. “A poor research culture ultimately leads to poor research.”

    Farrar says that Wellcome — which supports some 15,000 people working in science worldwide — is committed to addressing the issues highlighted by the survey, and calls on the entire research system to get on board. “The pressures of working in research must be recognized and acted upon by all, from funders to leaders of research and to heads of universities and institutions,” he says.
    Unsustainable environment

    Wellcome conducted the survey, published on 15 January, as part of a broader drive to improve working environments in science. It says the push for excellence has created a troubling culture. “It’s more than clear that our current research practice is not sustainable,” says Beth Thompson, who leads Wellcome’s research-culture initiatives. “We knew things were not right, from our own discussions with scientists, from high-profile bullying cases, reports of misconduct and irreproducibility.”

    The results come from an online survey open to all researchers, which was answered by around 4,300 people across career stages and disciplines. Respondents hailed from 87 countries; three-quarters were in the United Kingdom. Workshops with 36 UK-based researchers and in-depth interviews with 94 also informed the findings.

    Most researchers reported having pride in their institutions and passion for their work, but spoke of the high personal toll of their environment. Many accepted that pressure and long hours came with the territory — two-thirds of respondents said they worked for more than 40 hours a week. But researchers said that the situation was worsening and that the negative aspects were no longer offset by job security and the ability to work autonomously, flexibly and creatively. Barely 30% of respondents felt that there was job security in research careers.Many blamed funders and institutes that emphasize performance indicators and metrics such as number of publications and the impact factors of journals in which researchers publish. They said that the importance of these metrics is often stressed in ways that reduce morale and encourage researchers to game the system. Some said that good management could shelter scientists from such distorting pressures, but that it was too seldom applied.

    One-quarter of respondents thought that the quality of research suffered in the unsupportive environments. The same proportion had felt pressured by their supervisors to produce a particular result.


    #recherche #stress #recherche #université #science #travail #conditions_de_travail #anxiété #harcèlement #sondage #dépression #UK #Angleterre

  • Britain’s poisoned legacy in Palestine | The Electronic Intifada

    The narrative of Legacy of Empire revolves around two central questions.

    First, why was Palestine relevant to the British Empire in 1917? And second, why did British colonialism remain faithful to Zionism, even in the wake of concerted Arab resistance such as the major revolt of the 1930s?

    Thompson answers the first question by writing that the declaration was a “wartime exigency” and “a tale of coincidences and contingency.” Under H. H. Asquith, British prime minister from 1908-1916, Palestine was not “a strategic priority.”

    The author questions historical accounts that say Britain collaborated with Zionism under Asquith. What made Palestine relevant, he argues, was the ascension of David Lloyd George to the premiership in December 1916, along with military setbacks that risked Britain losing the world war.

    Thompson’s case for contingency and coincidence rests with Lloyd George, a Christian Zionist who was charmed by Chaim Weizmann, one of the leading figures in the Zionist movement.

    Weizmann convinced Lloyd George that “the Jews in both Russia and the US were crucial to their respective countries remaining in the war.” The promise of a Jewish homeland would result in Jews pressuring Tsarist Russia to remain in the war and ensure that the US would become fully involved in it.

    In short, Weizmann sold Lloyd George on what was essentially an anti-Semitic trope of the power of “international Jewry.”

  • L’#or_vert ou la stupéfiante odyssée du #khat

    Le khat est consommé dans de nombreux pays d’#Afrique_de_l'Est. Vendue sous la forme de feuilles et de tiges, cette plante psychotrope provoque une sensation stimulante d’#euphorie impulsée par une accélération du rythme cardiaque. Mais le khat crée aussi des effets d’accoutumance et de manque, doublés de déprime, de léthargie, et chez certains, notamment les enfants, de troubles mentaux. Ancien dépendant au khat, #Abukar_Awalé, membre de la diaspora somalienne en Grande-Bretagne, a alerté les autorités britanniques et milité pour la fin de la tolérance. Ce film suit son combat courageux, remonte la filière du khat à travers le monde et en expose les ravages et les enjeux économiques.

    #film #documentaire #film_documentaire
    #drogue #UK #interdiction #Corne_de_l'Afrique #Ethiopie #Awaday #Londres #café #traumatisme #guerre #conflit #santé_mentale #Somalie #Somaliland #argent #revenu #prix_du_café #accord_international_sur_le_café #Dadaab #Kenya #réfugiés #camps_de_réfugiés #toxicomanie #dépendance #femmes #hommes #oubli #alternative #Angleterre #genre #qat

  • No Fixed Abode

    This book will finally give a face and a voice to those we so easily forget in our society. It will tell the highly personal, human and sometimes surprisingly uplifting stories of real people struggling in a crumbling system. By telling their stories, we will come to know these people; to know their hopes and fears, their complexities and their contradictions. We will learn a little more about human relationships, in all their messiness. And we’ll learn how, with just a little too much misfortune, any of us could find ourselves homeless, even become one of the hundreds of people dying on Britain’s streets.

    As the number of rough sleepers skyrockets across the UK, No Fixed Abode will also bring to light many of the ad-hoc projects attempting to address the problem. You will meet some of the courageous people who dedicate their lives to saving the forgotten of our society and see that the smallest act of kindness or affection can save a life.

    This is a timely and important book encompassing wider themes of inequality and austerity measures; through the prism of homelessness, it offers a true picture of Britain today – and shows how terrifyingly close to breaking point we really are.


    #SDF #décès #mort #UK #Angleterre #livre #sans-abris #sans-abrisme

  • Le #Brexit et les deux Irlandes

    En 1998, l’Accord du Vendredi Saint a mis fin à trente ans de guerre civile en Irlande du Nord. Pierre angulaire du traité, l’ouverture de la frontière avec l’Irlande du Sud a facilité l’application du #processus_de_paix. Mais le Brexit menace de la rétablir.

    #Irlande #UK #Angleterre #frontières #paix

  • Leave to remain as a stateless person in the UK

    A stateless person, as defined by the 1954 Convention (https://www.unhcr.org/uk/un-conventions-on-statelessness.html) relating to the Status of Stateless Persons is “a person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law”.

    Although the UK signed up the 1954 Convention, there was no formal mechanism for recognising and providing protection to stateless people until 2013.

    After tireless campaigning from Asylum Aid and other organisations, the UK government introduced a procedure through which people could be recognised as stateless and granted the right to remain in the UK because of their statelessness.

    Initially, there was an incredibly low rate of success on applications under the new procedure. As of April 2016, only 39 applications had been granted.

    Legal aid is not generally available for the procedure in England and Wales. You may, however, be able to apply for Exceptional Case Funding which would mean a legal aid lawyer can take on your case.
    The immigration rules

    The Immigration Rules (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-part-14-stateless-persons) set out the criteria and requirements the Home Office will use when making decisions on application for leave to remain as a stateless person.

    The rules define a stateless person as:

    - a person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law;
    – is in the United Kingdom; and
    – is not excluded from recognition as a Stateless person (see section below).

    Since 6 April 2019, the Immigration Rules also says that you have to have:

    sought and failed to obtain or re-establish your nationality with the appropriate authorities of the relevant country; and
    in the case of a child born in the UK, has provided evidence that they have attempted to register their birth with the relevant authorities but have been refused.

    Statelessness and asylum

    The Home Office guidance says

    “If you can’t return to another country because you fear persecution there, you should claim asylum first.”

    Read more about claiming asylum in the Right to Remain Toolkit here: https://righttoremain.org.uk/toolkit/asylumintro.

    If you’ve already claimed asylum or have an outstanding human rights claim, the Home Office says you must wait until you have a decision on that claim before applying for the right to stay as a stateless person.

    You can apply to stay as a stateless person if the claim refused.

    How to apply

    To apply for leave to remain as a stateless person, you apply online here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/application-to-extend-stay-in-uk-as-stateless-person-form-flrs.

    There is no fee for the application, and you do not need to pay the immigration health surcharge (read more about the surcharge here: https://righttoremain.org.uk/toolkit/enteruk/#ihs).

    You will need to submit evidence to show why you believe you are stateless and any evidence to show that you are not a national of your country of birth or ancestry (or any other).
    Documents to include

    As well as including 2 passport photos, the application form states that you must provide certain documents – if you have them – for you and your dependents:

    – current passports and other travel documents, such as visas; and also any national identity cards you have and expired passports/travel documents
    – official letters confirming your immigration status in the UK (with the reference number ASL.2150, ASL.2151 or ASL.2152)
    – marriage certificates

    Documents about your life before coming to the UK:

    – documents that prove where you lived before coming to the UK
    – identity documents (for example, birth certificate, extract from civil register, national identity card, voter registration document)
    – documents regarding applications to acquire nationality or obtain proof of nationality, and any previous responses by States to enquiries about your nationality
    – certificate of naturalisation
    - certificate of renunciation of nationality
    – military service record/discharge certificate
    - school certificates
    - medical certificates/records (for example, attestations issued from hospital on birth, vaccination booklets)
    – sworn statements from neighbours:
    - identity and travel documents of parents, spouse and children
    documents from your applications for citizenship or requests for proof of nationality in other countries – the application form specifies that you need to provide a letter from the Embassy/High Commission (of the country in which you were born or any other country with which you are connected by residence) showing that they have refused to recognise you as a citizen and/or confirmed that you are not entitled to reside there.

    The process

    After submitting your application, you may be interviewed.

    The Home Office Policy Instruction (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/843704/stateless-leave-guidance-v3.0ext.pdf) has this to say on the issue of interviews:

    An interview will normally be arranged to assist the applicant to fully set out t heir case for being considered stateless and to submit any other relevant evidence. In other instances, questions about evidence submitted as part of the application may be resolved through additional written communications. Where the applicant does not complete all relevant sections of the application form, caseworkers may request the missing information by writing to the applicant or their legal representative if they have one.

    A personal interview will not be required if there is already sufficient evidence of statelessness, it is clear that the individual is not admissible to another country, and is eligible for leave to remain on this basis.

    An interview will not be arranged, and the application may be refused, where recent and reliable information including the applicant’s previous evidence or findings of fact made by an immigration judge, have already established that the applicant is not stateless or is clearly admissible to another country for purposes of permanent residence and where no evidence to the contrary has been provided.

    So far, the Home Office has been slow in making decisions on statelessness applications.

    If you are destitute (homeless and/or without money) at the time of making the application, you may be entitled to accommodation and financial support provided by the government, known as Section 4 support. Read more here: http://www.asaproject.org/uploads/Factsheet-2-section-4-support.pdf.

    If you are refused

    There is no automatic appeal right for Home Office refusals of applications for leave to remain on the basis of being stateless.

    You have the option of an administrative review. Read more about administrative reviews here: https://righttoremain.org.uk/toolkit/refusal/#adminreview.

    It may be possible to pursue a judicial review of the refusal. Read more about judicial reviews here: https://righttoremain.org.uk/toolkit/jr.
    Barriers to succeeding with an application

    As was mentioned above, there is generally no legal aid available for the applications in England and Wales (though exceptional legal funding might be a possibility: https://publiclawproject.org.uk/what-we-do/current-projects-and-activities/legal-aid/exceptional-funding-project).
    A case at the Court of Appeal established that someone who cannot immediately be admitted to any other country but could be if they took certain steps is not entitled to leave to remain as stateless. Read more in this Free Movement blog post: https://www.freemovement.org.uk/stateless-child-uk-refused-leave-to-remain.
    The Home Office Office will consider “findings of fact established in previous decisions on any applications you have made for international protection, leave to enter, or leave to remain, together with the information about your circumstances which you submit with “. This means that “poor credibility” findings by the Home Office (read more on this here: https://righttoremain.org.uk/credibility-in-asylum-claims) or by a judge in a previous asylum claim for example, may count against you if the decision is reliant on your testimony; or documents submitted for a stateless application may be doubted if the Home Office or judge stated that false documents had been submitted in a previous application.
    It is useful to review all the documents/evidence you have submitted to the Home Office (including for previous immigration applications if applicable), and to request a copy of the Home Office’s file on you. This could be useful if it turns out the Home Office has internally already made a finding of statelessness in your case; or alternatively if you need to deal with previous statements you might have made that suggest you have citizenship somewhere.
    There is a lengthy section in the application form about criminal convictions. This, and information obtained by the Home Office from elsewhere, could be used to refuse applications if they can argue that your convictions would exclude you from stateless recognition (on the basis of “war crimes, crimes against humanity or other serious criminality” – see below), and/or “danger to the security of the UK or a risk to public order” (again, see below) OR even through the “general grounds of refusal” which include convictions of certain lengths. See the grounds here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-part-9-grounds-for-refusal.
    The Home Office’s criteria for excluding someone from protection because of statelessness goes beyond the criteria of the 1954 Convention. The UK immigration rules (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-part-14-stateless-persons) state:

    A person is excluded from recognition as a stateless person if there are serious reasons for considering that they:
    (a) are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations, other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, protection or assistance, so long as they are receiving such protection or assistance;
    (b) are recognised by the competent authorities of the country of their former habitual residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of that country [even if you do not have nationality of that country];
    (c) have committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provisions in respect of such crimes;
    (d) have committed a serious non-political crime outside the UK prior to their arrival in the UK;
    (e) have been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.


    The Home Office policy instruction states that you will be refused if you do not meet the definition of statelessness but also if they think:

    there are reasonable grounds to consider that you would be a danger to the security of the UK or a risk to public order; or
    you fall under any of the general grounds for refusal that are set out in the Immigration Rules.

    If your application is granted

    You will receive leave to remain for five years. Before 6 April 2019, the leave to remain granted was a period of 30 months, which was then renewable.

    With this leave to remain, you are allowed to work and have access to public funds (such as benefits and homelessness assistance).

    After five years, you can apply for indefinite leave to remain.

    After that, you can apply for British citizenship, but there are significant financial obstacles to this. Read more here: https://www.freemovement.org.uk/citizenship-for-sale-at-a-cost-stateless-people-can-ill-afford.

    Travel document

    If you are recognised as stateless and given leave to remain in accordance with this, you can apply for a Travel Document (like a passport) which will be issued in accordance with the UK’s obligations under the 1954 Stateless Convention.

    Read more here: https://www.gov.uk/apply-home-office-travel-document.

    Family members

    The application form says that you must include your partner and children under 18 (your “dependants”) in your application if they’re already in the UK with you (they do not have to be stateless).

    If they’re outside the UK, they can apply for permission to come to the UK (“entry clearance”) once your application has been approved.

    Family members will be granted leave to remain for the same period as you.

    Further help

    You can find a best practice guide produced by ILPA and written for lawyers making stateless applications, here: http://www.ilpa.org.uk/resource/32620/statelessness-and-applications-for-leave-to-remain-a-best-practice-guide-dr.

    Liverpool Law clinic have a specialist service for stateless applications (though are limited in the number of cases they can take on). Find out more here: https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/law/liverpool-law-clinic/immigration-and-asylum.

    Asylum Aid have a referral form for legal advice for people who are stateless here: https://consonant.org.uk

    #UK #Angleterre #apatridie #apatrides #loi #asile #migrations #réfugiés

  • C’était #2016... à Calais on construisait des #barrières_frontalières


    Calais jour après jour : Londres va construire un mur anti-migrants

    Migrants de Calais : « Un #mur_végétalisé » pour sécuriser la rocade portuaire

    Migrants : Londres construit un mur anti-intrusion à Calais

    Migrants : la France cessera-t-elle de garder les frontières du Royaume-Uni ?

    Migrants : l’extension des grilles anti-intrusions de la rocade de #Calais a débuté

    Rocade et Mascarade

    Je mets ci-dessous les infos de l’époque, car c’est une fil de discussion non initié par moi-même (https://seenthis.net/messages/499021) et par peur de perdre d’info, je préfère mettre l’info ci-dessous, dans un fil de discussion initié par moi...

    Et des #grillages plus anciens détruits par le #vent...

    signalé par @cela

    #murs #barrières_frontalières #Calais #France #UK #Angleterre #militarisation_des_frontières #migrations #asile #réfugiés

  • Le 20 décembre 2019, je reçois, par mail, ce message de "pub" d’une formation qui nous est proposée dans notre #université (#Université_Grenoble_Alpes) :

    L’#UGA nous informe de la mise en place à la formation #communication_assertive et bienveillante dans les relations professionnelles .

    Deux sessions au choix sont ouvertes :

    Soit les 29 & 30 juin 2020
    soit les 03 & 04 décembre 2020

    La date limite d’inscription est : j - 15 avant la date de la formation

    La formation est placée sous le thème " #efficacité professionnelle ".

    Objectifs de la formation :

    A l’issue de la formation, les participants seront capables de :

    – Décoder leur comportement et celui des autres dans les relations professionnelles

    – Communiquer avec #tact et #diplomatie

    – Etablir des #attitudes_positives au quotidien

    – Développer des relations professionnelles harmonieuses et efficaces

    Programme :

    1. Prendre conscience de son comportement

    – Identifier les raisons de ne pas de comprendre

    – Comprendre l’image que l’on renvoie à ses interlocuteurs

    – Prendre conscience de l’image de sa communication écrite

    – Identifier son comportement dans les situations relationnelles

    2. Savoir dialoguer avec tact et souplesse

    – Pratiquer l’écoute active et savoir utiliser les 5 types de questions

    – Utiliser les 3 techniques de reformulation

    – Améliorer sa communication non verbale

    – Etre congruent entre son langage verbal et non-verbal

    – Ajuster sa communication à son interlocuteur

    – Choisir son vocabulaire pour communiquer avec précision et tact à l’écrit

    3. Savoir soutenir une position claire et diplomate

    – Etre assertif : utiliser la méthode DESC

    – Exprimer son avis sans juger l’autre

    – Formuler des critiques constructives

    – Faire face aux critiques

    – Formuler un refus sans provoquer de tension

    – Faire et accepter des compliments dans le monde professionnel

    Durée : 2 jours

    Public : Toute personne souhaitant optimiser sa communication afin d’améliorer ses relations professionnelles


    Sur ce, je réponds à une collègue, en colère :

    Plus de moyens, moins de compétition, moins de darwinisme social résoudrait la moitié des problèmes sans formations à la communication bienveillante !

    –-> je fais évidemment allusion aux propos tenus par #Antoine_Petit (à la tête du #CNRS) qui a appelé à une loi « darwinienne » pour le financement de la #recherche. « Une loi ambitieuse, inégalitaire — oui, inégalitaire, une loi vertueuse et darwinienne, qui encourage les scientifiques, équipes, laboratoires, établissements les plus performants à l’échelle internationale, une loi qui mobilise les énergies. »

    #formation #bienveillance #communication_bienveillante #travail #relations_professionnelles #inégalités #performance #compétition #attitude_positive #harmonie #hypocrisie #image #tact #souplesse #écoute_active #techniques_de_reformulation #communication #communication_non_verbale #langage_verbal #langage_non-verbal #vocabulaire #méthode_DESC #critiques_constructives

    • Et parallèlement à l’#Université d’#Amsterdam... la week of #work_stress !

      Message from the works council

      Dear all,

      The week of 11th of November is the week of work stress. It is the week where the university brings out its petting puppies, makes you bikeblend your smoothie, and has you beat a few djembe tunes to let go of your #stress. Some might argue that it is a nice gesture of the employer, but we of the FNV in the OR find it a slap in the face of the employee. It adds insult to injury.

      This waste of money again shows that the faculty is not taking work pressure seriously. We said it last year, and we said it again this year: “stop monkeying around and actually deal with the causes of work pressure”. Work pressure is not that difficult. There are either too many tasks for the number of people, or there are not enough people for the number of tasks. So the answers are also simple. If an organization is financially healthy, you hire more people. If the organization is financially unhealthy, you are stuck with reducing the tasks. There is no rocket science involved.

      Yet as you can see in this week of work stress, the faculty seems keen to responsiblize the individual for the work pressure he or she is experiencing. This leads to offers such as #time_management (we just received an email that there are two spots still available), #yoga, and #mindfulness. But these are just bandaids ("lapjes voor het bloeden" as the Dutch expression goes) that obscure the structural faults of the system. There are too many administration processes. There is too much institutional distrust that you are not doing your work correctly leading to for instance to ’#jaargesprekken' being moments where you defend yourself instead of discussing how you would like to grow as a professional. There are criteria for promotion that seem to change during the process. We have to accept budget cuts in our teaching programme while at the same time the faculty wants to start new programmes that make new claims on budget and staff.

      Recently, our support staff at EOSS was confronted with a report that was framed as research about the high work pressure they are experiencing. Yet it actually placed all the blame at the staff of EOSS and suggested their so-called inefficient work and non-conformance to instructions from management was the cause of their work pressure. Another signal that work pressure is not taking seriously by management and the individual employee is again responsibilized for his or her work’ stress’. The Works Council will keep pushing the Faculty and the UvA to make meaningful structural changes that address work pressure instead of blaming the victim. Namaste.

      XXXX (FNV Works Council Representative)

      Reçu via email d’une amie/collègue qui y travaille...

    • Et petit exemple d’#Angleterre (#UK):

      Universities have driven their workers into the ground. That’s why I’m striking

      Our eight days of action are in response to a marketised sector that has prioritised profit over the welfare of staff and students.

      Workers in higher education across the UK are on strike. One of the reasons we are striking is because of the poor conditions we face today – which were, in large part, decided by the 2010 election.

      Nearly a decade ago, the Tory and Lib Dem coalition government conspired to transform higher education, unleashing the forces of marketisation. The physical and emotional landscape of the university has fundamentally changed in the intervening years. The devastation wrought cannot be overstated. Contrary to justifications for reform by Tories and Lib Dems, the contemporary university is not sustainable, and reforms have reduced standards and entrenched inequality.

      In public discussion of the – shameful – tripling of student fees and mounting student debt, the changes to university funding that this brought about are often neglected. The 2010 coalition government replaced the old system of block grants with money paid per student per course, and lifted the cap on the number of student places available. Now, universities compete for funding by competing for students, with each other, and between their own departments.

      Most remarkably, this was done in the name of improving standards. It has left its scars on the physical landscape of universities, no longer able to fit in the number of students they have enrolled, and the springing up of new buildings, luxury accommodation and gyms all designed to attract prospective students. If the modern university has a soundtrack, it would be constant drilling for the construction of new, shiny buildings, temples to “student satisfaction”.

      Marketisation does not mean the immediate insertion of the profit motive into previously public goods. It means, at least in the first instance, making those public goods profitable. Students are in more and more debt, workers are paid less and less, while private companies and developers are given access to a potentially lucrative market.

      What does this mean for workers in higher education? They face a proliferation of perverse incentives: instead of research and teaching, lecturers are expected to take part in a perpetual recruitment drive. Instead of supporting students emotionally and academically, staff in student services, often facing cuts and “restructures”, are expected to act as the vanguard of “employability”.

      With more students, permanent staff are expected to take on more and more work. Temporary staff are expected to paper over structural gaps, providing a “flexible” workforce who are hired and fired in response to fluctuations in student numbers. Research shows that part-time staff and those on hourly rates are only paid for 55% of their work. Staff in general work, on average, the equivalent of two days unpaid per week. Given these low wages, many temporary staff are effectively paid less than the minimum wage.

      The expectations placed on staff cannot be met. It is not possible to produce the kind of work expected in the amount of time we are paid to do it. New methods of evaluation and student metrics create even more work, and overlook the key fact that asking students if they enjoyed a course reveals very little about whether that course was well-taught. Student services are stretched to breaking point, and instead of releasing the tension by, for example, increasing funding, services are instead outsourced, with trained counsellors replaced by generic “advisers” and, even, apps.

      When we say that the expectations on staff cannot be met, we mean that it is not possible to live under these conditions. There is nothing else left to squeeze. The doctrines of flexibility and precarity are in no way specific to higher education. They are paradigmatic of contemporary working practices. This means the struggle against precarity is not just a struggle for better conditions for academic workers – it is the insistence that a better life is possible for all of us. The disruption to teaching that comes from workers’ poor health, unnecessary pressure and precarity is much, much greater than the disruption caused by the cancellation of classes.

      Despite the deprivations of the picket line – early mornings, hours standing in the cold, lost pay – I have rarely seen colleagues so happy. The lifting of the neoliberal impulse to be constantly working, every interaction a chance for self-development, every minute a chance to get something done, has profound effects. Reclawing time from management’s extractive demands gives us a glimpse of how the university could be.

      The University and College Union dispute, which runs until next Wednesday, is about pay and pensions for some 43,000 members of the union, all working in academia. Even if we won on both counts, our futures, and the future of higher education, will not be secure without a fundamental rethink of the way in which universities are funded in the UK.

      We cannot afford to merely attempt to reform a marketised sector, based around fees. Almost 10 years on from the seismic higher education reforms of 2010, we face another general election. The only party now offering a rethink of fees and funding, rather than the shuffling of proverbial deckchairs, is Labour.

      We must not let students’ interests be pitted against workers. They are one and the same. So far during the strike, universities have bribed students to cross the picket line with gimmicks like free breakfast and free parking. They have attempted to ban solidarity action by students with a sustained campaign of misinformation, including the suggestion that joining picket lines is illegal and that students must cross them because they are members of NUS and not UCU. We are warned that students might feel anxious about the strike and that by picketing our workplaces we are letting them down.

      In these moments, management attempts to call upon a sense of duty we might feel towards our students. But as workers in higher education, we should not be content to merely provide a better version of the kind of education-as-commodity that management insists on.

      With our strike and the election, we have a chance to start fundamentally re-imagining the university. It’s the only thing that might save it.


  • #Grèce : 1956-2008 « CHRONIQUE D’UN RAVAGE » Documentaire d’Angelos Abazoglou (France, 2018, 56mn)

    Comment un petit pays comme la Grèce a pu déstabiliser l’économie de l’Europe entière ?
    Pourquoi le déferlement médiatique qui a suivi la crise de la dette de la zone euro a prétendument déposé le sort de l’UE dans les mains des Grecs ?


    Passé le "choc affectif", l’arrivée de Syriza au pouvoir a porté tous les espoirs, mais les déceptions politiques et économiques du peuple grec ont resurgi.
    Le 20 août 2018, après dix ans de tutelle, la Grèce est sortie du plan d’assistance financière mis en place par Bruxelles et le FMI. "Un nouvel horizon se profile", s’est félicité le gouvernement grec. Vraiment ?
    Ce film en deux parties tente de comprendre comment la Grèce, et derrière elle toute l’Europe, a pu arriver à une faillite aussi foudroyante. Avec l’appui d’experts, d’historiens et d’économistes, il analyse également les grands récits politiques de la Grèce et questionne la relation intime qu’elle entretient avec le "grand frère" américain.

    1956-2008 Fondateur du Pasok, le parti social-démocrate, Andréas Papandréou accède au pouvoir comme Premier ministre en 1981. Il s’engage à "moderniser la société et socialiser l’économie" et à "la libérer de la domination impérialiste de l’Otan et de la CEE".
    Ce ténor de la lutte contre la dictature des colonels (1967-1974) reprend à son compte le mythe de la libération de la Grèce de sa condition de "protectorat" des grandes puissances. Mais suite à différents scandales, la droite conservatrice Nouvelle Démocratie gagne les élections en 1990…

    Grèce, chronique d’un ravage, 1956-2008 Documentaire d’Angelos Abazoglou (France, 2018, 56mn)

    Un des deux épisodes du réalisateur grec Angelos Abazoglou, « Chronique d’un ravage » (1926-1955, 1956-2008), qui aborde l’histoire très contemporaine de la Grèce et de son peuple, victimes durables des impérialismes dominants.
    Une ample documentation archivistique et des interviews d’historiens de divers pays.

    #ravage #économie #dictature #capitalisme #idéologie #histoire_contemporaine #société #néolibéralisme #crise_financière #ue #union_européenne #Angleterre #USA

  • EU net migration continues to decline as UK heads towards the general election, but impact of manifesto promises on migration can’t be predicted

    Today’s data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/november2019) show that EU net migration had continued to decline, reaching the lowest level since before EU enlargement, as the UK heads towards the general election, the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford said today.

    Today’s data suggest that net migration of EU citizens in the year ending June 2019 was 48,000, 78% below the pre-referendum peak of 218,000 in 2015. In separate population estimates also published today, Poland lost its place as the top country of birth for migrants living in the UK (although the difference between Poland, at 827,000 residents in YE June 2019, was not statistically different for figures from India, at 837,000).

    Non-EU net migration was broadly stable at 229,000 in the year ending June 2019, after steady increases since 2013. This makes non-EU considerably higher than EU net migration, although the precise contribution of EU vs. non-EU to the total remains uncertain due to problems identified in the data (see editor’s notes, below).

    Madeleine Sumption, Director of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford said: “EU net migration has fallen dramatically since before the referendum, and is now at its lowest level since before EU enlargement. The reasons for this will include things like the lower value of the pound making the UK less attractive, improving economic prospects in EU countries of origin, and potentially the political uncertainty of the prolonged Brexit process.”

    There has been much discussion of migration policies outlined by the main political parties as the general election approaches. The Conservatives and the Brexit party have committed to ending free movement and introducing an “Australian style” points based system, the features of which are yet to be announced; Labour has signalled that it would consider free movement as part of a negotiations on the future UK-EU relationship, while the Liberal Democrats have promised to end the Brexit process and maintain free movement.

    Sumption added: “What will happen to migration in the coming years is highly uncertain, regardless of which party is power. It’s easy to imagine that migration policies are the only things that affect migration, but in reality, policies act more like a filter than a tap. The state of the economy, demand for workers by UK employers, conditions in countries of origin can have a big impact on migration, in some cases even more than changes in policy. That’s one reason why we’ve seen such a big drop in EU migration since 2016, despite the fact that policy has not yet changed at all.”

    Currently, the relatively low levels of EU net migration mean that restricting free movement now would be expected to have a much smaller impact on overall migration levels than it would have done in the past. However, this will not always be the case. EU migration has fluctuated up and down over time, and there is no reason to assume this would not continue to happen if the UK were to maintain free movement in the future. Recently revised ONS figures suggest that EU net migration made up a majority of the total from YE June 2013 to YE June 2016.

    #migrations #Brexit #UK #Angleterre #statistiques #chiffres #citoyens_européens #migrants_européens