AUS conference paper on amalgamation
At its Council meeting in August the AUS Council discussed the membership feedback to date on the AUS consultation kit entitled “Relationship between the Association of University Staff and the Association of Staff in Tertiary Education”. It was felt insufficient feedback was available from members to determine the way forward.
Feedback received included:
________________________________________________________________
Why Consider Amalgamation?
AUS and ASTE are both unions with membership only in the tertiary sector. Over one quarter of ASTE’s members work in the University sector and, with the integration of the Colleges of Education at Christchurch and Dunedin, this percentage will grow. From a policy and political point of view amalgamation has advantages. AUS and ASTE have much policy in common and both want a strong and complementary public well funded national system of tertiary provision. Currently both unions duplicate precious resources and our collective strength at the political level is diminished by having separate organisations.
1. AUS and ASTE have much in common, including:
*Both are tertiary unions
*Both are affiliated to the NZCTU and Education International
*Both advocate for public provision of tertiary education
*Both are membership driven
*Both hold similar views on employment law, education law and policy and the role of unions both in the workplace and society
*Both hold similar concerns around academic freedom, student access, quality provision, funding, PTEs, salary levels.
*Members in each union face similar employment issues around promotion, salary increases, bullying, restructuring etc
*Both have great potential for growing membership density in their sites
*Women and Maori in the two unions have many issues in common – treatment and workload of Maori staff, ratios of Maori staff, conditions for Maori students, strategies for Maori education, Pay and Employment Equity, family friendly workplaces, promotion of women.
2. AUS and ASTE duplicate many resources in the operation of two unions. Significant savings in time and effort could be generated by amalgamation providing extra capacity to do additional activities. Duplications include:
*Both have paid presidents
*Both have annual conferences
*Both have staff and members present at university negotiations and tripartite meetings
*Both have staff and members present at members meetings in universities.
*Both have women’s and Maori structures
*Both have national councils
*Both have administration systems etc
*Both write similar submissions on Bills and policy proposals
*Both attend the NZCTU meetings and committees
*Both attend Education International meetings and other international meetings
*Both attend meetings with MoE, Ministers etc
*Both have General Secretaries
*Both have organisers attending local CTU meetings etc
*Both rent office spaces and have office equipment
3. Having two unions has the potential to weaken each other’s collective response either by competing against each other or even by co-operating together!
By competing, the two unions put energy into recruiting each other’s members rather than unionising non members. In competition members think of unions as services – choosing which one to join, rather than as communities of workers to which loyalty and commitment is required to make it work. In competition one union can gain members by putting the other union down. In competition workers can get the impression neither union is any good. In competition if one union is the “winner” the implications for the other union and its members can be devastating and weaken the union movement as a whole. Competition is a destructive force and, with union membership as it is, it is not the way resources should be used.
Even by co-operating both unions can be weakened – in an effort to not undermine each other, common areas of universities (e.g. Schools of Education) can become less unionised as employees are unsure which union to join and unions are reluctant to recruit actively. In an effort to accommodate the views of the members of two separate unions (rather than make decisions by voting as you do in a single union), compromises on approaches are sometimes reached which are against the interests of the majority of union membership (e.g. both unions currently hold separate ratification ballots for the agreements – one union could vote “no” by majority and stop the other unions members accepting the deal – even if the majority of those covered by the agreement want to ratify). By co-operating and not amalgamating, duplication continues to occur – all unions feel the need to have staff or delegates turn up to everything to ensure their “brand” is active. When this occurs opportunities for other activities are lost.
But what are the issues around amalgamation and can they be resolved?
Issue one: Will we lose our identity as a university sector union?
A new union will provide a clearer identity for the tertiary sector as a whole. Many unions have multiple sectors and have developed structures to ensure that issues relevant only to a particular sector are able to be advanced and that issues relevant to all workers in the union are advanced with the full voice of the union. The model used by the AUT and NAFTE unions in the UK for amalgamation has one national council but two sector councils underneath the national council for the two parts of the tertiary sector – each considers their own issues and the National Council considers common issues and any issues over which there is disagreement. A new tertiary union could have a university Vice President and a polytech Vice President – or any other structure that ensures the benefits of both unity and identity are protected when necessary. AUS currently operates a similar sort of model for general staff and academic staff, Maori and women – we have separate committees and spokespeople but a common executive.
Issue two: Now the government is moving to differentiate in the sector why would we merge?
In a sense differentiation makes amalgamation easier. The two sectors are no longer in competition with each other and are able to advocate for each to be strong and able to carry out their essential role in the tertiary system.
Issue three: Doesn’t AUS have a different culture from ASTE?
This is probably an issue for both unions – people like the union they are in. A new union can develop its own culture as AUS did in previous amalgamations. There are parts of both unions that members will want to preserve and parts they want to change.
Issue four: Won’t we lose our branches and branch organisers?
A new structure can change or retain branch and staffing structures. University and polytechnic-based branches work – they make it easy for people to attend meetings, the decisions and issues being discussed are often only applicable to the particular sites and they often discuss local organisation. Branch organisers in Universities are also a very efficient way to organise staff in the university. They are on site, and tied into the work of the branch and the national programme. There is no reason why this can’t be part of a new union. The disadvantage of having branch organisers is that when they are on leave or away for other reasons, there are no back up staff to do urgent work. A bigger union could provide both – branch organisers and support from other organisers during leave periods (branch organisers could also do this for polytech based organisers).
Issue five: What about PSA and TIASA – we still won’t be the only tertiary union?
No we won’t, but we will certainly be the main one. TIASA and ASTE are currently in discussions about amalgamation and PSA may be more inclined to discuss its role in the sector if a new tertiary union covers the full sector (PSA has members in polytechs and colleges of education). Even if this is not the case, there are thousands of employees in the sector not in any union and it is these people a new union could target.
Issue six: Won’t we lose resources organising in polytechs when there are so many of them (23) and they are so dispersed?
ASTE already organisers in these polytechs so much of this work is covered. AUS organisers could also cover Schools of Education staff which would be a resource saving. There will also be savings from a single union which would enable more staff resources to be put into other things (for example organising). It is also not in the interests of university staff or other tertiary staff for large numbers of employees in the sector to not be in the union. If the amalgamation is successful, the total resources available should increase and no single group or member should have less resource.
Issue seven: Because ASTE does not have general staff – won’t academics dominate the new union?
ASTE does have some general staff members and is discussing amalgamation with TIASA. Regardless of this, the new structure could ensure that general staff have positions at all levels. The general staff Vice President position for example would continue to exist, places on the executive could be allocated by general and academic status (at least until the new union determines whether this is needed or not). There are likely to be a number of issues about representation (like won’t university members dominate). A good union structure will ensure all members can be heard. Previous AUS amalgamations have managed this issue successfully.
Issue eight: How will amalgamation impact on the tripartite discussions?
The tripartite forum is a university forum and has as the employer parties the Vice Chancellors of all Universities (including AUT). ASTE and AUS are union parties to the tripartite forum (along with some other unions in the University sector). The settlement in 2006 included all universities and all unions. A single union will not change the focus of the tripartite forum (universities) but will mean a single union represents the majority of member in the forum.
Issue nine: Does ASTE want to amalgamate?
ASTE has policy supporting amalgamation while AUS does not. AUS has not yet formally discussed amalgamation with ASTE as the AUS Council determined that AUS members should discuss the issue internally first. If AUS members adopt the recommendations in this paper we will approach ASTE to determine if it wants to discuss amalgamation.
So what could the new union look like:
National Structure
*A single office with a single National President (perhaps full time rather than half time), and a single General Secretary.
*Current ASTE and AUS national staff working across the sector, without duplication, able to form a policy team and share work on key issues
*Negotiations in the University sector would be managed by the single union in co-operation with unions like the PSA but without the duplication currently between AUS and ASTE.
*Two sector councils – universities and polytechs - would sit under a single national executive made up of representatives from both sectors.
*These councils would have their own Vice Presidents and have decision making responsibilities for their own sector except when conflict arises.
*The national executive and national conference of the new organisation would have final decision making power.
*A single and bigger Maori and Women's structure able to deal with issues common to Maori and Women workers
Branch Structure
*All members in a university sector would meet together in a single branch (currently ASTE has its own branch in each university).
*Regional teams of organisers would be allocated specific sites (branch organisers would stay in Universities) but could help each other at times of high demand (strikes, action and campaigns, leave periods etc).
*Members covered by the university collectives would make combined decisions about the strategy and direction for the negotiation of these agreements
*Some form of regional structure could also meet from time to time on common issues (e.g. election campaigns, lobbying or changes to law)
What would be the process if we endorse the concept of amalgamation?
The process will be determined by both unions but could include the following:
November 2006 – AUS branches discuss this paper with branch members, conference delegates get indication of issues/branch views.
November 27 2006 – AUS conference discusses paper and recommendations. AUS approves amalgamation in principle as per recommendation.
December 2006 – ASTE informed of decisions and invited to enter into discussions.
January/February 2007 – working group formed and process for discussions developed. Report back to members for adoption of process by Council.
March/April 2007 – Joint working party meetings for discussions on possible structures and issues. Progress report to members for endorsement/comment late April.
May/June 2007 – Members comments, concerns etc considered from meetings, proposals further developed. Report back to members late June for endorsement/comment.
July/August 2007 – final proposal developed incorporating June feedback. Distributed to members for full discussion and consideration late August.
September/October – members feedback and decisions considered by AUS Council for a final position to be put to the AUS and ASTE conferences October and November.
November 2007 – AUS members determine acceptability of proposal at AUS annual conference.
December to March 2008 – If accepted at AUS conference in 2007, rules be developed for new union, circulated to members during process, with special meeting to agree new union rules in June 2008
November 2008 – first meeting of new union.
Recommendations for conference:
1. That AUS support in principle an amalgamation with ASTE.
2. That the timetable and process as outlined in this paper be adopted for discussion with ASTE and that the final process and timetable be agreed by the AUS Council following these discussions.
Reminder: This paper does not represent the views of anyone in the union – it is to provoke discussion leading up to the AUS conference.
Feedback received included:
- amalgamation is a low priority,
- a significant lack of interest and enthusiasm,
- concerns about loss of focus,
- suspicion that it was a quest for more members,
- issues around the roles of TIASA and the PSA,
- support for a single national tertiary union,
- concern about different cultures,
- conflict with strong polytechnic interests
- the likelihood of a greater emphasis on academic concerns ( a view from general staff members), and a possible increase in private-sector influence.
________________________________________________________________
Why Consider Amalgamation?
AUS and ASTE are both unions with membership only in the tertiary sector. Over one quarter of ASTE’s members work in the University sector and, with the integration of the Colleges of Education at Christchurch and Dunedin, this percentage will grow. From a policy and political point of view amalgamation has advantages. AUS and ASTE have much policy in common and both want a strong and complementary public well funded national system of tertiary provision. Currently both unions duplicate precious resources and our collective strength at the political level is diminished by having separate organisations.
1. AUS and ASTE have much in common, including:
*Both are tertiary unions
*Both are affiliated to the NZCTU and Education International
*Both advocate for public provision of tertiary education
*Both are membership driven
*Both hold similar views on employment law, education law and policy and the role of unions both in the workplace and society
*Both hold similar concerns around academic freedom, student access, quality provision, funding, PTEs, salary levels.
*Members in each union face similar employment issues around promotion, salary increases, bullying, restructuring etc
*Both have great potential for growing membership density in their sites
*Women and Maori in the two unions have many issues in common – treatment and workload of Maori staff, ratios of Maori staff, conditions for Maori students, strategies for Maori education, Pay and Employment Equity, family friendly workplaces, promotion of women.
2. AUS and ASTE duplicate many resources in the operation of two unions. Significant savings in time and effort could be generated by amalgamation providing extra capacity to do additional activities. Duplications include:
*Both have paid presidents
*Both have annual conferences
*Both have staff and members present at university negotiations and tripartite meetings
*Both have staff and members present at members meetings in universities.
*Both have women’s and Maori structures
*Both have national councils
*Both have administration systems etc
*Both write similar submissions on Bills and policy proposals
*Both attend the NZCTU meetings and committees
*Both attend Education International meetings and other international meetings
*Both attend meetings with MoE, Ministers etc
*Both have General Secretaries
*Both have organisers attending local CTU meetings etc
*Both rent office spaces and have office equipment
3. Having two unions has the potential to weaken each other’s collective response either by competing against each other or even by co-operating together!
By competing, the two unions put energy into recruiting each other’s members rather than unionising non members. In competition members think of unions as services – choosing which one to join, rather than as communities of workers to which loyalty and commitment is required to make it work. In competition one union can gain members by putting the other union down. In competition workers can get the impression neither union is any good. In competition if one union is the “winner” the implications for the other union and its members can be devastating and weaken the union movement as a whole. Competition is a destructive force and, with union membership as it is, it is not the way resources should be used.
Even by co-operating both unions can be weakened – in an effort to not undermine each other, common areas of universities (e.g. Schools of Education) can become less unionised as employees are unsure which union to join and unions are reluctant to recruit actively. In an effort to accommodate the views of the members of two separate unions (rather than make decisions by voting as you do in a single union), compromises on approaches are sometimes reached which are against the interests of the majority of union membership (e.g. both unions currently hold separate ratification ballots for the agreements – one union could vote “no” by majority and stop the other unions members accepting the deal – even if the majority of those covered by the agreement want to ratify). By co-operating and not amalgamating, duplication continues to occur – all unions feel the need to have staff or delegates turn up to everything to ensure their “brand” is active. When this occurs opportunities for other activities are lost.
But what are the issues around amalgamation and can they be resolved?
Issue one: Will we lose our identity as a university sector union?
A new union will provide a clearer identity for the tertiary sector as a whole. Many unions have multiple sectors and have developed structures to ensure that issues relevant only to a particular sector are able to be advanced and that issues relevant to all workers in the union are advanced with the full voice of the union. The model used by the AUT and NAFTE unions in the UK for amalgamation has one national council but two sector councils underneath the national council for the two parts of the tertiary sector – each considers their own issues and the National Council considers common issues and any issues over which there is disagreement. A new tertiary union could have a university Vice President and a polytech Vice President – or any other structure that ensures the benefits of both unity and identity are protected when necessary. AUS currently operates a similar sort of model for general staff and academic staff, Maori and women – we have separate committees and spokespeople but a common executive.
Issue two: Now the government is moving to differentiate in the sector why would we merge?
In a sense differentiation makes amalgamation easier. The two sectors are no longer in competition with each other and are able to advocate for each to be strong and able to carry out their essential role in the tertiary system.
Issue three: Doesn’t AUS have a different culture from ASTE?
This is probably an issue for both unions – people like the union they are in. A new union can develop its own culture as AUS did in previous amalgamations. There are parts of both unions that members will want to preserve and parts they want to change.
Issue four: Won’t we lose our branches and branch organisers?
A new structure can change or retain branch and staffing structures. University and polytechnic-based branches work – they make it easy for people to attend meetings, the decisions and issues being discussed are often only applicable to the particular sites and they often discuss local organisation. Branch organisers in Universities are also a very efficient way to organise staff in the university. They are on site, and tied into the work of the branch and the national programme. There is no reason why this can’t be part of a new union. The disadvantage of having branch organisers is that when they are on leave or away for other reasons, there are no back up staff to do urgent work. A bigger union could provide both – branch organisers and support from other organisers during leave periods (branch organisers could also do this for polytech based organisers).
Issue five: What about PSA and TIASA – we still won’t be the only tertiary union?
No we won’t, but we will certainly be the main one. TIASA and ASTE are currently in discussions about amalgamation and PSA may be more inclined to discuss its role in the sector if a new tertiary union covers the full sector (PSA has members in polytechs and colleges of education). Even if this is not the case, there are thousands of employees in the sector not in any union and it is these people a new union could target.
Issue six: Won’t we lose resources organising in polytechs when there are so many of them (23) and they are so dispersed?
ASTE already organisers in these polytechs so much of this work is covered. AUS organisers could also cover Schools of Education staff which would be a resource saving. There will also be savings from a single union which would enable more staff resources to be put into other things (for example organising). It is also not in the interests of university staff or other tertiary staff for large numbers of employees in the sector to not be in the union. If the amalgamation is successful, the total resources available should increase and no single group or member should have less resource.
Issue seven: Because ASTE does not have general staff – won’t academics dominate the new union?
ASTE does have some general staff members and is discussing amalgamation with TIASA. Regardless of this, the new structure could ensure that general staff have positions at all levels. The general staff Vice President position for example would continue to exist, places on the executive could be allocated by general and academic status (at least until the new union determines whether this is needed or not). There are likely to be a number of issues about representation (like won’t university members dominate). A good union structure will ensure all members can be heard. Previous AUS amalgamations have managed this issue successfully.
Issue eight: How will amalgamation impact on the tripartite discussions?
The tripartite forum is a university forum and has as the employer parties the Vice Chancellors of all Universities (including AUT). ASTE and AUS are union parties to the tripartite forum (along with some other unions in the University sector). The settlement in 2006 included all universities and all unions. A single union will not change the focus of the tripartite forum (universities) but will mean a single union represents the majority of member in the forum.
Issue nine: Does ASTE want to amalgamate?
ASTE has policy supporting amalgamation while AUS does not. AUS has not yet formally discussed amalgamation with ASTE as the AUS Council determined that AUS members should discuss the issue internally first. If AUS members adopt the recommendations in this paper we will approach ASTE to determine if it wants to discuss amalgamation.
So what could the new union look like:
National Structure
*A single office with a single National President (perhaps full time rather than half time), and a single General Secretary.
*Current ASTE and AUS national staff working across the sector, without duplication, able to form a policy team and share work on key issues
*Negotiations in the University sector would be managed by the single union in co-operation with unions like the PSA but without the duplication currently between AUS and ASTE.
*Two sector councils – universities and polytechs - would sit under a single national executive made up of representatives from both sectors.
*These councils would have their own Vice Presidents and have decision making responsibilities for their own sector except when conflict arises.
*The national executive and national conference of the new organisation would have final decision making power.
*A single and bigger Maori and Women's structure able to deal with issues common to Maori and Women workers
Branch Structure
*All members in a university sector would meet together in a single branch (currently ASTE has its own branch in each university).
*Regional teams of organisers would be allocated specific sites (branch organisers would stay in Universities) but could help each other at times of high demand (strikes, action and campaigns, leave periods etc).
*Members covered by the university collectives would make combined decisions about the strategy and direction for the negotiation of these agreements
*Some form of regional structure could also meet from time to time on common issues (e.g. election campaigns, lobbying or changes to law)
What would be the process if we endorse the concept of amalgamation?
The process will be determined by both unions but could include the following:
November 2006 – AUS branches discuss this paper with branch members, conference delegates get indication of issues/branch views.
November 27 2006 – AUS conference discusses paper and recommendations. AUS approves amalgamation in principle as per recommendation.
December 2006 – ASTE informed of decisions and invited to enter into discussions.
January/February 2007 – working group formed and process for discussions developed. Report back to members for adoption of process by Council.
March/April 2007 – Joint working party meetings for discussions on possible structures and issues. Progress report to members for endorsement/comment late April.
May/June 2007 – Members comments, concerns etc considered from meetings, proposals further developed. Report back to members late June for endorsement/comment.
July/August 2007 – final proposal developed incorporating June feedback. Distributed to members for full discussion and consideration late August.
September/October – members feedback and decisions considered by AUS Council for a final position to be put to the AUS and ASTE conferences October and November.
November 2007 – AUS members determine acceptability of proposal at AUS annual conference.
December to March 2008 – If accepted at AUS conference in 2007, rules be developed for new union, circulated to members during process, with special meeting to agree new union rules in June 2008
November 2008 – first meeting of new union.
Recommendations for conference:
1. That AUS support in principle an amalgamation with ASTE.
2. That the timetable and process as outlined in this paper be adopted for discussion with ASTE and that the final process and timetable be agreed by the AUS Council following these discussions.
Reminder: This paper does not represent the views of anyone in the union – it is to provoke discussion leading up to the AUS conference.
0 comments:
Post a Comment