1/2010

Editorial

Personnel must not be made to pay for university reform

Kerttu Pellinen
Chairman of the Association of the Finnish University and Research Establishment Staff (YHL)
Photo Markus Sommers

The new, fantastic university reform, which is supposed to rescue the Finnish economy, was implemented a few months ago. So far, it has been difficult to assess what effect the reform will have in reality on the highest education of the nation and on scientific basic research or on the universities and university communities on which university operations and their results rest.

The initial experiences are, however, horrifying. Even before the implementation of the reform, it was clear that the government did not do what it had promised to do. The intention was to strengthen the universities’ operational preconditions equally, there would be no obligation to improve productivity by personnel cuts, new financial obligations resulting from the change in the universities’ administrative position such as value added tax, insurance and unemployment insurance payments were to be covered fully by government funding. The reality is different. There are gaping gaps in financing. No theoretical, a one-time lump sum addition to improve liquidity, a share in a property company or a promise of government capital financing if the university has managed to gather more private financing is going to cover the deficit. It was especially emphasized when the universities act was drafted and enacted that the status of personnel will be safeguarded when the reform is carried out. There was supposed to be nothing to worry about and the concerns of personnel organisations were widely dismissed. The concerns have proved to be justified. Barely a month after the act became into force, University of Oulu began co-operation negotiations relating to all of the university’s support personnel and a number of entire units. University finances are balanced by reducing the number of personnel. This directly intervenes with resources producing the university’s results. The strategy of the university is not complete nor have future focal points been determined so it can be assumed that it has not been possible to prepare a personnel plan based on the foundations of the operations. Starting cooperation negotiations at this stage is an ill-conceived measure. A finance deficit is a fact, which is not caused only by the shortage in appropriation caused by the reform. However, its importance for the resulting situation is crucial.

The idea of those who advocated the university reform that it would enable autonomous universities to have strong financial positions has proved to be a delusion. The status of an  independent employer has brought with it responsibilities for which no preparations were made. Personnel must not be made to pay for miscalculations.