We need to talk about sabbatical pay

One of the things we get asked about a lot at Wonkhe SUs towers is whether there’s any data around on sabbatical pay.

Back in the days of the SU emailbases, it was one of the hardy perennials – up there with “does anyone have any course rep training materials” and “can we pay our part time officers”.

It’s therefore no surprise to learn that there’s data being collected by an SU in the North East, and the NUS Charity has kicked into gear to gather info on pay and benefits too.

That will doubtless be helpful – but it’s worth setting the question into its historical and policy contexts before rushing in to argue for an increase if you end up below the average.

Nothing going on but the rent

There are some things we get asked to write about quite often – but some of them just don’t feel like the right sort of thing to be talking about in public.

It’s certainly the case that when students are struggling, a long and detailed discussion about the pay and conditions of student leaders can feel… uncouth.

But in recent months as well as endless findings on how hard students are finding the cost of living crisis, we’ve heard worrying tales of student officers missing meals, taking on second jobs or finding it hard to pay the rent too. They simply won’t be in a position to serve their members effectively.

Although the resultant “pay in the pocket” amount is vastly different, the way the process usually goes is actually quite similar to the way the remuneration committee at your university determines the VC’s pay.

Unless sabbs are allocated to an SU or university pay scale point, a national exercise will, from time to time, gather the data on raw salary and other bits. The board will then look at the issue (usually asking sabbs to leave the room).

If the data shows that sabbs are on less than the average, the decision (if affordable) is often to pay sabbs more than the average but less than the ostentatious maximums seen in a handful of London SUs.

That add-on bit can be quite deceptive, mind. Expenses policies vary wildly. A small number of sabbs get free campus accommodation. Many get clothing or food allowances. And a small number are still risking prosecution by getting a council tax exemption certificate out of the university’s registry.

The big problem is that “a bit more than the average” is how VC pay ended up so out of control – and it lacks an “anchor” or “frame” that can be used to determine the right amount at the right time.

And while sabbatical pay packages are no longer agreed by union councils for some political accountability, there is the question – if you had to justify the amount to the membership, what would that justification be?

The frame game

As ever, many frames are available.

Boards could use comparison as outlined above – the role of a sabb is arguably at least sufficiently similar across the country to justify that kind of approach.

You could use inflation to determine increases – although the measure of inflation and the timing of the measure matter, and this may not match the increases you’re paying staff.

Similarly you could use average wages in the voluntary sector or average wages in the economy – although both this and the above approach would mean having confidence in the base amount you’re increasing from.

You could use the (real) Living Wage, the amount calculated by the Resolution Foundation based on the “real cost of living”. It’s currently £10.90 (£11.95 in London), which works out as about £22,672 (£24,856). But the complex method used by RF to come to a figure is sufficiently different to the realities of sabbatical life to call that way of doing it into question.

You could compare to average graduate salaries – although again that might not match the amounts you’re paying your own staff and you’d need to think about which type of graduate job to benchmark against, as they can vary wildly from sector to sector.

You could use the old “commensurate with the responsibilities” frame – although once you’;re there you might reasonably argue that sabbs should be paid 5 or 6 times more than they actually are, which wouldn’t be a good look.

So perhaps the best place to start would be where it all began – the student frame.

That 70s show

Back when sabbs were invented in the 70s, students had enough money to live on – so the basic idea was that sabbs be paid the amount they would have got in grant and housing benefit if they were still on a programme.

This is, incidentally, a principle and methodology that lives on in some countries – in the Netherlands, for example, sabbs actually incur semester or year’s worth of additional maintenance loan debt to take on the employment-boosting privilege of being a full-time elected officer.

The problem is that over the years the expected parental contribution, expectation of taking on additional part-time work, removal of housing benefit and general deterioration of the student finance package means that this anchor is effectively untenable as a basis for calculating up sabbatical pay.

But it’s worth remembering that the “give them what students would get” was grounded in a wider principle – the idea that the student finance package at the time was enough to live on, and more importantly the idea that a “full-time volunteer” in a sabb role should neither end the year in profit, nor end the year in debt. It should be enough to live on and do a good job – and no more. Notwithstanding that UK tax law treats the sabb salary as a sewage to be taxed, no profit/no debt is the same principle that is often used to think about other volunteer out of pocket expenses.

Tights spot

If we start with that principle that takes us to interesting places.

Years ago when I worked at NUS, a group of the then 21-strong FTO team came to see me about the amount of money they were shelling out on tights. I was dismissive at first – but their case was that the volume of formal meetings and train journeys causing laddering made that particular and significant expense a work one that needed to be recompensed. They were, in principle, absolutely right.

So of we started there we might look at what a sabb needs to live on – rent in the area (where being close to campus is actually often quite important), the travel that has to be done, the times and weeks when it’s not reasonable to expect a sabb to make or prep their own food, and the endless occasions when a sabb needs to cough up for a coffee for a colleague, student or university manager.

There’s also council tax to pay, often visa fees to factor in, clothing that need to be purchased, data plans on phones and equipment that sabbs might need to be effective while on the move.

Some sabbs will also be parents or have caring responsibilities, or may be disabled, where the state’s financial assistance doesn’t cut it.

Gathering all of that might well result in a basic salary, some freebies or benefits in kind that would be taxable, a fresh look at what the SU supplies to the officer for work purposes, and some additional allowances that some sabbs could claim.

The bottom line is that that sort of exercise, however flawed, would almost certainly be a better bet than averages – and would uphold the original principle that no sabb should end the year in profit or debt in service of other students. It’s also, if you think about it, exactly the sort of exercise governments should be doing to determine the appropriate level of student financial support that should be on offer.

Do let us know if you have a stab at doing a calculation – and let us know if you need a hand.