AUS-ASTE Amalgamation

Response from Helen Kissell to the proposed merger:

Fellow AUS members,

I am writing to you to express my opposition to the proposed merger with the polytech, college of educations, wananga etc unions, ASTE and TIASA.


Having read all the documentation and attended several meetings at which it has been discussed, I remain convinced that this would not be a good thing for AUS members.

There appears to be NOTHING TO GAIN from the merger for individual members but rather SIGNIFICANT RISKS.

The central concern is whether a union which is no longer focussed on the university sector can adequately represent university staff.

The strength of AUS is and remains its university focus. How can we continue to make our arguments as effectively for better funding for university salaries, when we also have to make the argument for polytech funding? Lets be clear about this, despite the current rhetoric about differentiation in the tertiary sector, the polytechs etc are still our competitors for funding.

This closer association with polytechs may have a particularly negative effect on claims for academic salaries...

AUS is a financially strong union. We do not need an amalgamation to ensure our survival.

AUS is proud of being a member-driven union (although, it must be asked who is driving this merger proposal? It certainly isn't the membership). A larger union, where the membership is even further from the national decision-making bodies, runs the very real risk of becoming out of touch with its members.

Our union leaders have advised us that no AUS member will receive less representation under the new union than they do now. Is this good enough? Surely for us to agree to such a radical change to our union there needs to be a gain for members?

At a recent meeting here at Canterbury, our National President, admitted that although there will be no changes to the staffing levels in the short term, that the new union may look for "efficiences" to be made in a couple of years time. This could include our branch organisers, organising across both the university and polytech sectors. Do we want this?


Fortunately, whether we merge or not is still OUR DECISION TO MAKE. There will be a ballot held in August as to whether we accept or reject the merger proposal.

If, like me, you oppose the amalgamation you must VOTE NO in the ballot.

Under the current proposal a 65% threshold of those who vote will be enough to decide this ballot i.e. there is no minimum turnout of the membership required-10% of the membership voting could make this decision for the rest of us. Shouldn't there also be a majority of branches in favour of the proposal before we make such a radical change?

In the meantime you can let your opposition known by sharing your veiws with your branch committee, your national officers and with fellow AUS members.

Kind Regards,
Helen Kissell
Law Library (Serials)