Chapter 7

Job security in the higher education sector

Higher education in Australia is primarily delivered through universities in the form of courses that lead to Bachelors, Masters and Doctoral Degrees.1 The broader term 'tertiary education' includes universities, as well as
non-university higher education providers, and vocational education and training (VET) providers.2 While the committee acknowledges that there are significant issues in the wider tertiary education sector, this report is specifically focussed on workforce issues in university higher education.
A number of issues relating to job security were raised by witnesses and submitters to the inquiry, including increasing levels of insecure employment through the use of casual and fixed-term contracts, and issues relating to pay and conditions.
This chapter provides an introduction to the higher education sector and its workforce by looking at:
the structure of the higher education sector;
the size and composition of the workforce;
common employment arrangements; and
earnings and wages of academics.

The higher education sector

Importance of higher education

Australian universities are significant contributors to public good through their ability to: innovate and distribute new knowledge; contribute to economic output and national income; attract global talent and foster international relationships; help address societal change through civic debate; and improve individual lives.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) reported that the tertiary sector was worth $37.4 billion to the Australian economy in 2019–-20, making it Australia's third largest export.3
In 2019, a total of 1.5 million students were enrolled across Australia's 43 universities.4 International students comprised 32.4 percent of all enrolments, a trend that had been increasing pre-pandemic. A 2015 report by Deloitte Access Economics estimated that, of that year's international student cohort, 130 000 skilled graduates would enter the Australian workforce thereafter and the increase in human capital would add $8.7 billion to Australia's GDP. In contrast, domestic student enrolments have been in marginal decline since 2017.5
The significance of the higher education sector was acknowledged by many of the organisations and individuals that presented evidence to the committee. The National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) explained:
Australia relies upon our universities and TAFEs to produce our future professional workforce, to train our teachers, nurses, doctors, mathematicians; our scientists, engineers and architects, and our social workers, psychologists, musicians and business leaders. We rely on our universities to produce ground breaking, innovative research, and to have this research support what our students learn. We expect our universities to be engaged in social issues and in resolving complex problems, to be an active part of our society and to be part of our communities. We want them to lead business innovation and research development, and to be major players on the world stage, leaders in their fields of teaching and research internationally and to be competitive with the top institutions around the world.6
In the National Strategy for International Education 2025, released in 2016, the Australian Government recognised the importance of the sector to Australia's future economic prosperity. The Strategy outlines a 10-year plan for the sector and highlights the importance of maintaining the quality of Australian education institutions and of the international student experience, particularly in relation to employability, to continue growth in the sector.7


The Department of Education, Skills and Employment (DESE) manages the funding, regulation and reporting of the university sector through the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth) (HESA). The federal government supports Australia's higher education sector for both teaching and research through a range of policies, funding and programs. The main funding programs are:
The Commonwealth Grant Scheme (CGS). The CGS is the largest source of government funding for universities which subsidises course fees for eligible domestic students.
Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) payments. The Australian Government through the HELP scheme provides loans to students that are repaid by students when they hit a certain repayment threshold that is income contingent.
Research funding through research block grants, nationally competitive grants, and government supported industry led research initiatives.
Various supplementary grant programs are also funded under HESA to support higher education learning and teaching.8
Total Australian Government expenditure in higher education has almost tripled between 1989 and 2018–19 from $6.7 billion to $18.4 billion per year. HELP loans accounted for the majority of this growth having doubled from less than 16 per cent of total expenditure in 1989 to 35 per cent in 2018–19.9
However, despite the nominal value increase in funding, total spending as a percentage of GDP increased from 0.88 per cent in 1989 to just under one per cent in 2018–19. Furthermore, when HELP loans were excluded, higher education grants for teaching, learning and research had decreased from 0.74 per cent of GDP in 1989 to 0.65 per cent in 2018–19.10
The 2020–21 Federal Budget included additional investment in higher education research, leading to an estimated expenditure high of $11.4 billion in 2020–21. However, this funding increase reflects a one-off temporary increase in research funding which is being provided in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Expenditure is forecast to decline in the years following. Higher education expenditure in 2023–24 is estimated at $9.3 billion, approximately the same as it was in real terms in 2009–10, as illustrated in Figure 7.1.11

Figure 7.1:  Estimated Australian Government expenditure on higher education, 2009–10 to 2023–24

Source: Parliamentary Library based on Australian Government, Budget strategy and outlook: budget paper no. 1: 2020–21; Australian Government, Final budget outcome, various years, (accessed 30 August 2021).
In evidence to the committee, Dr Alison Barnes, National President of the NTEU, characterised Australian universities as having a 'funding crisis':
We were in a situation pre COVID where $10 billion had been stripped from Australian universities whilst the sector had grown. Universities were in a funding crisis, which was exacerbated by COVID, which saw another $3.5 billion to $5 billion pulled from Australian universities.12
On a global scale, Australia's investment in higher education is below the OECD average.13 One academic submitter who preferred not to be identified offered a perspective as to why Australia's higher education expenditure has remained stagnant:
It is well-known that Australia is extremely risk-averse in terms of such investment, not prepared to invest money that may not provide a guaranteed return, whereas all more developed OECD countries have been willing to provide larger sums of venture capital investment for a broad range of undertakings and to accept that not all such investment will bear expected profits.14
International student fees have been the largest source of revenue growth for universities over the past few years. Analysis by the Australian Parliamentary Library reported that 'over half (58.5%) of the $6.4 billion revenue increase from 2016 to 2019 came from overseas student fees'. Given the drop in international enrolments, revenue would be expected to decrease between 2020 and 2021.15

Recent federal reforms

In October 2020, the Australian Government introduced the Job-Ready Graduates Package. The Hon Dan Tehan MP, then Minister for Education, announced the Job-Ready Graduates Package would 'address the misalignment between the cost of teaching a degree and the revenue that a university receives to teach it'.16
Amongst other changes to existing teaching funding programs, the package legislated a reduction in average funding per-student for domestic Commonwealth-supported students.17
The legislation did not receive bipartisan support. The Australian Labor Party argued that the package 'attacks the core research purpose of universities by funding only teaching'.18
The Job-Ready package was not significantly addressed by inquiry participants. This may be explained by the fact that it is too early to observe the impacts of the legislation. When asked if certain faculties experienced higher rates of employment casualisation than others, Dr Terri MacDonald expressed concern that, some courses that are expensive to teach—such as nursing, education and science—would face 'increased pressure to insecurely hire staff to deliver those courses' as a result of the package.19

Size and composition of the workforce

The higher education sector directly and indirectly supports the employment of thousands of Australians. Different organisations provided varying estimates of the exact number of people employed in universities. These differences extend to the breakdown of employees by role and function, and type of employment contract. As such, there are a range of statistics to consider.
The limitations of current and previous workforce data collections were noted by a number of inquiry participants. The NTEU submitted that 'data on employment in universities is limited and difficult to interpret'.20 The Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations Incorporated (CAPA) referred to the higher education data as 'scattered and incomplete'.21

Government data

Department of Educations, Skills and Employment

The Higher Education Data Collection is collected and published annually by the DESE. All higher education providers that are approved under HESA are required to report data for the Higher Education Data Collection. Approved providers include all public universities and Bond, Notre Dame, University of Divinity and Avondale University College.22
DESE publishes data as at 31 March each year using the following two methods:
fulltime, fractional full-time and estimated casual staff on a full-time equivalent (FTE) basis; and
a headcount for full-time and fractional full-time. 23
The latest full-year data is for 2020, reporting a total of 140 805 employees on an FTE basis and 130 414 on a headcount basis. These figures are broken down in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1:   2020 Staff data
Full time
Fractional full time
Estimated casual
Source: DESE, Selected Higher Education Statistics – 2020 Staff data. (
Universities are not required to collect headcount data on casuals and only provide the department with estimated casual FTE data. Table 7.1 reflects this as the total FTE count is higher than total headcount in both 2019 and 2020. As the department does not collect actual numbers of casual workers in its headcount data, gaining a true figure of the number of employees working in the sector, their work status, and a breakdown of their function, is difficult.
The following year the DESE publishes the data for the previous year's 'actual casual staff', which is 'delayed by one year'. This data includes 'actual staff resources expended by casual staff in the calendar year measured in FTEs'. The data is provided in an 'aggregate' form, rather than by individual 'units'. This means 'a single record may relate to many staff members'.24
The 2020 actual casual data has not been published by the DESE yet. However, using the 2019 data, a trend in the level of casualisation emerges:
full-time FTE was 95 500, or 69.7 per cent of total FTE in 2019―down from 71.1 per cent in 2010;
fractional full-time FTE (made up of part-time workers) was 17 205, or 12.6 per cent of total FTE in 2019―up from 11.9 per cent in 2010;
casual FTE was 24 350, or 17.8 per cent of total FTE in 2019―up from 16.2 per cent in 2010.
Figure 7.2 shows that comparative percentage growth of actual casual and fractional full-time has been increasing since 2010, whilst full-time has been decreasing, with actual casual FTE data experiencing the highest growth.

Figure 7.2:  FTE for Full-time, Fractional Full-time and Actual Casual Staff by Work Contract, 2010 to 2019

Source: DESE, Selected Higher Education Statistics—2020 Staff Appendix—Actual Staff FTE, (accessed 30 August 2021).
The level of casualisation among teaching staff is particularly notable. The following time series graphs compare FTE numbers by 'work contract' type across all work functions ('research only', 'teaching only', 'teaching and research', and 'other'), with FTE numbers by work contract type in 'teaching only'. (See Figure 7.3 and Figure 7.4)
The actual casual data for 2020 isn't available until next year, however, from the 2019 data, the following observations can be made:
actual casuals comprised 17.8 per cent of FTE by all work contract types in 2019;
casuals are significantly overrepresented in teaching-only roles at 73.5 per cent and accounting for 13 856 of a total 24 350 FTE, or 57 per cent of all casuals; and
full-time FTE by all work contract types has fallen from 21.6 per cent to 16.6 per cent between 2016–2019.25

Figure 7.3:  FTE numbers by work contract type across all work functions, 2016–2020

Source: DESE, Selected Higher Education Statistics – Staff Time Series, 2021, (accessed 30 August 2021).

Figure 7.4:  FTE numbers by work contract type for teaching only staff,

Source: DESE, Selected Higher Education Statistics – Staff Time Series, 2021 (accessed 30 August 2021).

Workplace Gender Equality Agency

While the DESE does not provide a headcount on casuals in their datasets, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) does. The WGEA requires employers with more than 100 employees, including all public universities, to report staffing profile data on the number and composition of their employees.
Table 7.2 provides a summary of the WGEA's statistics from 2016–2020. It demonstrates that casual staff have persistently made up greater than 40 per cent of the higher education workforce since 2016.
Table 7.2:   Summary of Higher Education
Number of employees
Number of organisations
Percentage of female employees
Employee type breakdown (All employees)
Source: WGEA, 2019-2020 WGEA dataset, (accessed 30 August 2021).
The WGEA describes its data collection as 'from a snapshot date between
1 April of the previous year and 31 March of the current year'. However, the WGEA does not enforce consistency around census dates and allows the universities to choose their own on the basis that it is 'representative of your workforce for that year'.26 This limits the scope of analysis when comparing the WGEA data against the DESE data.
As evident in Table 7.2, another concern with relying on the WGEA higher education datasets is that the number of reporting organisations varies from year to year and includes non-university providers.
However, an independent analysis by Andrew Norton, a professor at the Centre of Social Research Methods at the Australian National University (ANU), found a high degree of consistency between the datasets. Professor Norton analysed a sample of the first ten universities in the WGEA dataset and found that 'in seven cases their reported 2019–20 numbers varied from their DESE 31 March 2020 figures by less than 1 per cent'.27

NTEU estimates

Using only government data, it is difficult to determine the exact number of individuals employed in higher education institutions, and their employment status and function. This data is complicated by the fact that universities do not typically publish their workforce information individually.
In its submission, the NTEU provided its own data analysis—see Figure 7.5 below. The NTEU described its approach:
The Department of Education publishes employment data for universities in numbers of Full Time Equivalent staff (FTEs), rather than number of persons employed. Figures [below] are based on the assumption that 1 FTE of casual employment equates to four persons (excluding those engaged on a one-off basis, such as occasional or guest lecturers or general staff employed for one day). This seems to be a fair, if conservative, estimate based on the analysis of the number of active superannuation accounts that correspond to casual employment, universities' reports to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, and declarations made by employers in connection with the approval of enterprise agreements.28

Figure 7.5:  The growth in insecure employment in higher education

Source: National Tertiary Education Union, Submission 47, p. 7.
From this analysis the NTEU identified the following trends:
the sector employed 221 780 individuals in 2019;
the number of casual and fixed term staff in the sector has increased by
89 percent since 2000;
the number of permanent staff has increased by only 49 percent over the same period; and
casual and fixed term staff now account for 66 percent or two-thirds of all persons working in higher education, versus 60 percent in 2000.29
The NTEU advocate for greater transparency in public reporting to avoid data discrepancies and ambiguity:
Universities should be required to report accurate figures for insecure (contract and casual) employment, including by function and gender, such is currently collected for fixed term and ongoing staff, by headcount. The levels of labour hire and third party contract staff working within our universities should also be accounted for.30

Insecure workers as a proportion of the workforce

During the inquiry, the committee heard evidence of increasing levels of insecure employment in universities through the use of casual and fixed-term contracts.
Dr Barnes argued that universities 'are characterised by one of the highest levels of insecure work in our economy':
Only one in three jobs in our universities is permanent or ongoing – that means that the vast majority of our teaching, research and professional support services are undertaken by workers who are not permanently employed.31
The DESE data, provided below for 1996–2008 (Figure 7.6) and 2006–2015 (Figure 7.7), show a steady increase in the proportion of FTE over time that is casual. The trend can be observed in the following snapshots:
in 1996, actual casual employment made up 12.5 per cent of FTE;
by 2008, actual casual employment was 15.3 per cent of FTE;
by 2015, casual work was 17.2 per cent of FTE; and
by 2019, casual work was 17.8 per cent of FTE. (See Figure 7.2 in the government data section above.)

Figure 7.6:  FTE for Full-time, Fractional Full-time and Actual Casual Staff by Work Contract, 1996 to 2008

Source: DESE, Selected Higher Education Statistics – 2008 Staff Appendix – Actual Staff FTE, (accessed 13 August 2021).

Figure 7.7:  FTE for Full-time, Fractional Full-time and Actual Casual Staff by Work Contract, 2006 to 2015

Source: DESE, Selected Higher Education Statistics – Selected Higher Education Statistics Staff 2007 report and tables, (accessed 13 August 2021).
When asked whether the levels of casual employment differed from ten to twenty years ago, Mr Stuart Andrews, Australian Higher Education Industrial Association Executive Director, identified a plateau in permanent employment and a 'continuing increase in casual employment':
I would think in broad terms, if you're looking at the number of individuals employed on a casual basis, it would be 60 per cent or more of the headcount of the university because there are so many who are engaged for small components of time. So if you're looking on a headcount basis, if that's what it's referring to, headcount of casuals, you're probably looking in excess of 60 per cent as a generalisation.32
However, Mr Andrews argued that this shift was not necessarily to the detriment of the university or the employees, and that to simply look at the rise in the whole figure of casual higher education sector employees was to present a 'distorted' view of the nature of casual employment in the sector.33
The increase in these forms of employment has been a 'well-documented shift'.34 The report of the Independent Inquiry in Insecure Work in Australia, published in 2012, stated that tertiary education had one of the highest levels of precarious employment of any sector.35
Dr Yaegan Doran, a member of the Casualised, Unemployed and Precarious University Workers, echoed claims that insecure workers make up an overwhelming percentage of all academic and professional staff. Dr Doran gave university-specific examples:
At The University of Sydney, according to figures tabled in questions on notice to the NSW Legislative Council Inquiry into Tertiary Education in October 2020, of the 19,000 staff employed in 2020, around 10,000 were on casual contracts and another 4,140 were on fixed term contracts, totalling 74% of staff in insecure work.
... At the University of Melbourne, according to its 2019 annual report, of its 18,463 staff, 13,454 were on insecure contracts, totalling 73% of staff. In terms of full-time equivalent numbers, around 50% of the work at both The University of Sydney and at The University of Melbourne is done by casual and fixed term staff.36

Characteristics of university workers


The committee heard that women were disproportionately employed in insecure work in the higher education sector and are therefore more susceptible to the impacts of insecure work.
From the DESE data, women accounted for 66 897, or 57.2 per cent, of the total workforce in 2020 and were:
slightly under-represented in full-time work contracts at 53.4 per cent;
significantly overrepresented in fractional fulltime work contracts at 78.1 per cent;
marginally overrepresented in the teaching-only function at 60 per cent, and;
notably underrepresented at higher-duty classification levels―women's representation increases as you move down duty classification levels, accounting for 36.2 per cent of Level E and 54.4 per cent of Level A. 37
Dr MacDonald explained that, despite universities typically having a higher number of women employed, the 'bulk of the women' working in universities are in the lower levels, and that men typically hold roles in upper management and at the senior levels.38
The NTEU provided further evidence, arguing:
Research has consistently shown that both insecure and under employment in tertiary education is gendered, with women over represented in all categories of casual and contract work (be this as academic, research, general or professional and technical staff), in part time roles and, most persistently, in the lower levels of both academic, general/professional and technical classifications.39
A 2016 report entitled, Women, careers and universities: Where to from here?, from Griffith University, which examined gender and equity in higher education, showed that 'clear patterns of gender inequality remain' in the sector. The major issues uncovered were:
women were more likely than men to be employed on fixed term or casual contracts;
women were not equal to men at senior levels;
the initial appointment level is lower for women than for men; and
women were more likely than men to access flexible work provisions in relation to childcare.40
The trends identified in the report have continued, as evidenced in the 2020 WGEA data. As illustrated in Table 7.3, the data confirms that since 2016 women have consistently accounted for a larger percentage of the casual workforce than men, making up 59.4 per cent of the of 2020 casual figure.

Table 7.3:   Gender composition division
Full time
Part time
Source: Source: WGEA, 2019-2020 WGEA dataset, (accessed 30 August 2021).


In the higher education sector there is a 'clear and unequivocal trend' for casual workers to be younger.41 Junior classifications are typically held by those without substantial researching or teaching experience. Such individuals are typically young people in the early stages of their career.42
While the DESE data does not provide information specifically by age, it does provide a breakdown of work status by Current Duties Classification. In 2019, casual staff comprised 46.7 per cent of 'Level A' classified workers―removing non-academic staff from the equation, this figure grew to 75.2 per cent. In comparison, casual staff comprised only 2 per cent in total—or 3.2 per cent minus non-academic staff—of 'Above Senior Lecturer' classified workers.43
Moving up the duty classification hierarchy, it is clear that the proportion of casuals decreases. Full-time staff comprised of only 6.8 per cent of 'Level A' classified workers, or 16.9 per cent minus non academics. The data makes it clear that casuals make up a large proportion of junior level academics.44
Science & Technology Australia submitted that, in STEM faculties, insecure work disproportionately affects early-career individuals as they are more likely to be part-time or casual. Between 2012 and 2016 the proportion of young people, working in full-time STEM positions decreased from 62 per cent to 54 per cent―well above the all age average of 25 per cent in 2016.45

Employment arrangements

Broadly speaking, there are three categories of staff in universities; 'permanent or continuing employment, fixed term employment and casual employment'. These categories fall within two 'fundamentally discrete areas'; the academic cohort and the professional or general staff cohort.46 The bulk of evidence presented during this inquiry concerned the experiences of academics and teaching staff.
Australian universities typically outline employment provisions in their enterprise agreements. Enterprise bargaining was introduced in 1991 for the purpose of facilitating 'improvements at individual enterprise level in wages and conditions in return for efficiency gains or productivity offsets'. They are negotiated every three years by the universities and the NTEU, and are voted on by employees.47
The full-time academic has traditionally had their workload divided according to a model of 40 per cent research, 40 per cent teaching and 20 per cent administration and broader university service.48
Within the higher education sector, fixed-term academic employment is typically used to staff specific research projects funded by government grants. For this reason, and the fact that under the Higher Education Industry (Academic Staff) Award 2020 fixed-term employment is prohibited for teaching roles, fixed-term employees are overwhelmingly research-only academics.49
Mr Andrews mentioned that fixed-term employees are afforded the same entitlements as permanent employees. However, he said that there is 'obviously uncertainty' that impacts fixed-term employees at the end of a fixed contract when they are 'waiting on advice as to whether their employment is going to continue'.50
Casual employment often takes the form of staff employed on a
semester-by-semester basis which inevitably results in periods between semesters of no employment. Casual employees do not have leave or severance entitlements and can be dismissed without notice; however they receive 25 per cent loading.51
CAPA asserted that both casual and fixed term contract types 'deprive the employee of protections given to permanent employees'.52
The use of employment through labour hire companies in this sector is not currently well understood. Dr MacDonald expressed the NTEU's desire to have greater clarity on the prevalence of labour hire in the sector:
We also have the introduction of labour-hire companies. We know they exist but we don't know how many there are. The labour-hire companies usually come in after a university has done a mass round of redundancies. Usually the redundancies, in the first instance, are targeted at general and professional staff. But the work doesn't go away. So, to fill the gaps, they will bring in labour hire to get the work done. The problem is that there is no reporting of those numbers. So we only know when we hear from our members that a university has an extra 30, 40, 70 or 150 people coming in under labour hire. That's an area we would like to have a bit more transparency about.53
The Australian Higher Education Industrial Association (AHEIA) told the committee that they were 'not aware of any data relating to persons who might be engaged by universities on an “outsourced or independent contractor” basis'.54

Earnings and wages

The Higher Education Industry (Academic Staff) Award 2020 outlines the terms and conditions of employment in universities. Full-time and fixed-term employees are paid on a scale from classification level A-E and casual staff are paid an hourly rate including 25% loading for work performed such as lecturing an tutoring.55
Registered Enterprise Agreements take the place of the Award for the majority of Australia's public universities, and are typically negotiated by the NTEU.56 Remuneration rates between universities therefore differ and universities publish their salary scales individually, however most universities pay above the Award rate.57

Wage theft

Inquiry participants indicated that underpayment and 'wage theft' are systemic in the sector and are exacerbated by the overuse of casual workers.58
The University of Sydney Casuals Network claimed that underpayment is structural in the sector and is not an accident. In its submission it specified that 'wage theft is the business model that university managements are pursuing', and that there is a 'growing body of anecdotal and indicative evidence' to support this claim. 59
Dr Joe McCarthy, a lecturer at the School of Sociology at the ANU, concurs. In an article published in November 2020, he argued that:
This theft is embedded and normalised within [enterprise] documents because university pay rates attribute incorrect levels of workload to academic tasks. In other words, casuals regularly cannot finish their work to a standard befitting an academic institution within the hours set by management.60
AHEIA strongly refuted the claim that wage theft is systemic, arguing the notion of wage theft being rife in the sector is 'perverse'.61 Mr Andrews told the committee that the universities follow the correct procedures when confronting payment irregularities and that they 'should be applauded' in instances where these irregularities are investigated on the university's own volition.62
In its 2020 report, Over-Worked and Worked Over: Casual Academics Bear the Costs of Covid-19, the University of Sydney Casuals Network found that '74.1% of respondents were stressed about the amount of unpaid work they completed', and that 'casual workers did an average of 50.58 unpaid hours over the semester'.63
This is supported by evidence that of Australia's 43 universities, 21 are currently being investigated for underpayments.64 In August 2020 the University of Sydney admitted to underpaying casual professional staff almost $9 million and the University of Melbourne agreed to repay almost $6 million in unpaid wages to casual academic staff.65

Piece rates

Casuals are commonly paid for some of their work using 'piece rates', a term used to describe the rates of pay prescribed to casuals. These rates are mainly used in teaching roles to pay for the marking of exams, essays and other assessable work. Mr Andrews described piece rates:
That regime effectively involves an estimation of the ancillary work associated with the face-to-face tutorial or lecture or whatever. It's an estimation that they've set as the standard, being two hours of other work associated with one hour in front of students—so three hours are paid for.66
Dr Doran explained that under the piece rate scheme the employee gets 'paid by a task done … not by how many hours it takes'.67
Piece rates were overwhelmingly identified as a key facilitator of wage theft within the sector. This is because piece rate formulas and classifications often don't reflect the nature, level or actual hours of work required, meaning casual and sessional staff often effectively render much of their labour unpaid.68
Despite the fact that tasks such as administrative duties, attending meetings and pastoral care are core and expected within a casual teaching role, they are often not remunerated:
I get no pay for administration hours—for example, meetings—but I have to attend meetings to have fairness across different contracts. I'll get an email saying, 'I know you're not going to be paid for this one-hour meeting, but please come.'69
The next chapter of this report discusses the impacts of the employment arrangements detailed in this chapter on universities, academics and teaching staff, and students.
The impact of COVID-19 on the sector and its workforce is discussed in Chapter 9, followed by a discussion on proposed reforms and the committee's views in Chapter 10.

 |  Contents  |