As I remember them, lecturers’ strikes in Cambridge used to be faintly absurd affairs. When the “day of action” was called (it was only ever a single day) you would cancel your lectures and supervisions and re-arrange them for later in the week. You couldn’t let the students suffer.
On the day itself, you’d send a letter to the administration telling them you were on strike, so that they could dock your pay. After all, if you don’t have designated working-hours or working-place, it’s hard for the boss to know whether you’re on strike or not. Then you’d toddle off to the library for a solid day’s research, “work” in another sense.
The net result was a ghastly week of rearranged teaching squashed into all hours. You had lost a day’s pay and your employer (against whom you were supposed to be striking) had saved it. All in all, a pretty decisive own goal.
So is the current AUT “action short of a strike” – that is, the exam boycott – any more on target? I really don’t know.
Business or pleasure?
As we landed in Los Angeles, I realised that one of the things I liked about British Airways was the cabin crew. The same would go, I guess, for most hi-cost (ex-)national airlines. Jump onto a budget carrier and you're in the hands of a posse of underpaid, size-8, late adolescents, who are either insufferably jolly or entirely uninterested. At least BA still employs a sprinkling of women of a certain age and a certain size, who appear to be treating the job as a career and -- as they will tell you given half a chance -- are worried about their pensions.
I'm sure that they are all equally well trained in the use of the escape slide (and the lo-cost version may actually be slightly nimbler in the event of landing on water). But, if disaster struck, I would certainly feel safer with these matronly types in charge.
Continue reading "Business or pleasure?" »
Posted by Mary Beard on May 29, 2006 at 05:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)