WHO IS TO PAY THE 70% SALARY INCENTIVE?

The only benefit I saw in the 70% increment undertaken between MUASA and council is that it quickly dissolved the terse uncertainty of our university’s closure. Indeed! so soon, excited students exchanged and propagated messages through phones, facebook, twitter-social media was awash with the news, “all is settled, we will soon be back to campus, 7^th freshers and 14^th for continuing students” That is what we said. We still say so.

   Well, poor Makerere student, all is not yet settled. All is still on. The MUASA game is, though seeming at rest or a compelling limbo, still in play. We must recall so vitally that the 800% increment that had earlier been recommended by some committee in 2011, is not yet – by any speck – eroded off their money-thirsty memories.

Mak lecturers negotiating on the salary incentives

   Even Luis Kakinda, the MUASA spokesperson, hinted on it slightly, during a boycott arguing that of the initially promised sum in 2011(800%), they presently want at least 100% (I hope we don’t need rocket science to explain to us what the word “at least” means. For better interpretation the battle has in simple terms, just begun.

  The MUASA hawks have chosen to relay it in phase form and their half achieved success of the 70% of council’s move. Here, the greatest question is, “who will pay the money?”  Government? Hands up those who say ‘yes’; then, shame on you for you are greatly mistaken. Government priority is so distant from Makerere (keep in mind that Makerere is not part of the military nor an NRM party structure).  All through, it is the MUK private student that will settle the score by coughing more tuition and other fees.

   Don’t take my word for it. Let’s make some simple hypothesis; government is only paying for less than 10% of all MUK students’ tuition and if our lecturers are to have 70% increment, (or even 800% as the trend seems driving to that) then it will still only cater for 10%. In this case, it will offer 7% of the promise and the remaining 63% and the remaining is on us the students.

  At this point I will partially agree with Prof Venansius Baryamureba (whom we, in unison, excommunicated from our home of ‘intellectuals’) who argues that the demands were unfair on account of the uneven nature in which they were relayed. It is hard truth to tell here, but it’s a fact. Our teaching assistants (Bachelor’s level) are paid an average of UGX 1.7 M (USD 654) which is simply an overpayment in comparison to other teachers at that level.

   Now, if teaching assistants are to ascend to 800% increment, will it still be fair? Hands up, again, those who back MUASA. Well, we may argue they are a special case (MUK being 4^th in Africa.) But of all the staff below the rank of ‘senior lecturers’, less than 1% have had a single publication or meaningful research; so, what quality have they contributed to our continental score?

   Those who deserve increment are senior lecturers, associate professors because these have gross underpayment if we were to make any appropriate comparison. After all, each of these senior staff has published at least three books and is more active in research, and that is what matters in university qualitative assessment. So those are a special case.