Notes from meeting to discuss proposed AUS amalgamation with ASTE and TIASA Wednesday 29 August

Some notes from the meeting to discuss proposed AUS amalgamation with ASTE and TIASA, Wednesday 29 August:

When voting, consider whether we will be a bigger or a denser union. Will the merger increase the proportion of those who belong to a union? Is this the best way to actually grow the union?

Is a large Union a more effective voice for social change, including raising awareness of the need for research? Or is lumping Universities into the tertiary (read: teaching) sector undermining our value in the research sector (ie, where CRIs live)?

• The pre-tertiary education sector is successfully represented by different unions (NZEI, PPTA). Why can’t tertiary sector do the same?
• How can we have more strength in numbers if polytech and university staff aren’t able to strike in support of each other?
• Arguments on issues are strengthened by union representing clearly identifiable sector, not by strength of numbers.
• University librarians doing very different job to those in polytechs, but recognition of this specialisation could be lost if all lumped together.
• Is this a cost-saving exercise? What resources will be freed up?
  • Many areas of duplication – e.g. each union prepares own submission on common issues; costs of two separate offices, two national presidents.
• Need to keep clear we’re not talking about merging universities and polytechnics (which would be disastrous), just the unions. Are we a union or a snooty professional body wanting to distance ourselves from those beneath us? Wrong assumption that polytech staff don’t care about academic freedom.
  • “Snooty” label is red herring – each type of institution has its value, but doesn’t mean we need to merge.
  • Views on academic freedom very different in different institutions. e.g. College of Education – acceptance that government decides what students need to know. Polytechs told what to teach by employers. Universities unique – lecturers anticipating what knowledge will be needed in future, so academic freedom vital.
• In our interest that polytechs are well funded, and in polytechs’ interest that universities are well funded. Can’t let government play one off against the other.
• Will still be structures to represent different sectors in merged union.
• Mindset that we are just in education sector. Merger with CRIs would be equally valid: competing for funds just as much as with polytechs.
• Issues like career development of postdocs don’t get pushed enough in present structure, would be even less emphasis in merged union.
• AUS has done good job for members, but times have changed – merger unavoidable. 25% of ASTE membership now in universities. Duplicated representation = wasted resources. AUS could steal ASTE members, but then ASTE loses 25% of membership = weakened union in polytech sector, bad for all tertiary sector.
• Polytech sector not strongly unionised, and radical restructuring likely, leads to further weakening of status of degrees. Best way to defend degrees is to persuade colleagues in polytechs that degrees backed by research are worth defending.
  • Shouldn’t NZQA be ensuring polytechs have infrastructure to support teaching degrees?
  • Polytechs very varied set of teaching programmes – staff who want to research to back up teaching degrees struggling against government, management, and even own colleagues who only want to teach applied skills.
• Some elitist university staff already don’t join AUS because don’t want to be in union with general staff. Even more will leave merged union.
• Why can’t AUS support ASTE without merging? e.g. joint submissions, collaboration, statements of support.
• Merging with weak union could lead to under-resourced collective body that loses sight of unique issues of university sector, at a time when differences need to be defended vigorously.
• All arguments for merger seem to be about protecting polytech sector, but could weaken university sector. First responsibility of AUS should be university staff, so decision should be made on basis of what’s best for universities, not what’s best for polytechs.
  • Shortsighted to only look at what’s best for universities. After polytechs restructured, next target will be universities. Merged union not altruism to polytechs, but in material interests of university staff.
• Some general staff already unhappy when academic staff get larger pay increases. Dissatisfaction will increase with more groups in union.
• Are general staff in polytechs and universities paid the same?
  • Librarians paid less in polytechs – weakens case for pay increases for university general staff.
• Will different groups be as well represented in merged union?
  • No way of knowing – has to be leap of faith.
• Have to consider general election next year. Best decision under Labour government might not be the same as best decision under National.
  • But government only three year term, merger would be permanent.