Finalists’ degrees in danger as KCL staff threaten marking boycott

Reading this, you might be busy finishing your dissertation or revising for summer exams – but all this work may be shunned if a marking boycott goes ahead.

The boycott would lead to the final marks of students being delayed – devastating finalists’ chances of getting a grad job.

But it looks like KCLSU don’t even care – as they’ve failed to condemn the threatening move.

The news comes after a stalemate in a pay dispute between the University and College Union (UCU) and university chiefs.

Despite academic staff at King’s being the 12th most highly paid across UK universities (£50,248), teaching unions have insisted on higher pay.

Lecturers, who refused a 1% pay increase, have claimed they’ve suffered a real-terms pay cut of 13% since 2008.

Sally Hunt, General Secretary of the UCU, has described the boycott as “the ultimate sanction, but an avoidable one if the employers would negotiate.”

The Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) have described the proposed action as “aimed directly at students’ education.”

The boycott, which will include both formative and summative assignments, would affect students in all years.

The last time a marking boycott was implemented was in 2006 – and it lasted for a whole three months.

But KCLSU hasn’t slammed the boycott or the unions that have threatened the action.

Instead, they have instructed students to email the UCEA and “influence them to resolve the pay dispute”.

In KCLSU’s official statement, they have blamed recent strike disruption on “the unacceptable response from management”, not on striking lecturers.

In his weekly President’s email, Sebastian Debrouwere said:

“We’ve joined forces with King’s students to put pressure on the College to negotiate with lecturers and stop the proposed marking boycott. It’s your chance to tell the College they need to put you first.”

Toni Pearce, President of the NUS, has taken a similar line by failing to condemn the boycott, instead describing the pay offer as “measly”.

Eric Laitenberger, KCLSU’s NUS delegate, has spoken out against the SU’s political stance:

“Without any consultation, KCLSU has decided to issue a statement and tout a petition that promotes UCU’s interpretation of events. By choosing to promote a petition that depicts solidarity with UCU’s cause as the only way to resolve this dispute, KCLSU has grossly overstepped the mark. By threatening a marking boycott, the unions have effectively decided to blackmail students into taking a stance in a dispute that is not theirs.”

The petition, which currently stands at 245 signatures, declares support for the strikes and instead blames management for not accepting union demands.

The UCA have declared that the boycott would be launched on the 18th April if no pay deal is made.

A UCEA spokesman has said “institutions will be withholding full pay for any staff who follow such a damaging course of action”.

A poll conducted with Guardian readers has shown that 74% of people support the boycott, whilst 26% oppose it.

These figures differ from the UCEA’s belief that the “overwhelming majority” haven’t supported the recent strikes.