Proposed AUS Amalgamation

Fellow AUS Members,

Below is a paper opposing amalgamtion from Professor Gordon Anderson at Victoria University. It addresses the position of academic staff under the proposed merger. I strongly encourage all members both general and academic to read and consider his arguments before deciding how to vote in the upcoming ballot on amalgamation.

As noted, the paper takes the academic view on amalgamation, so I would like to add these thoughts from the general staff standpoint.


AUS general staff have benefitted from their association with universities (that is, association with academics) far more than we would if we were merely regarded as part of the wider public sector. The advantage of negotiating together with academic staff was spelled out to us by our General Secretary at recent ratification meetings around the country, as she compared our pay increases with those of other general staff within the public sector which were less favourable. It was also made clear that extra funding from government for general staff salaries was provided solely because we were negotiating with the academics. The advantage of the focus of our union being the university sector cannot be underestimated. Universities enjoy a special statutory and cultural status in our society, which does not extend to the rest of the tertiary education sector. This is a strong bargaining point, which both university academics and general staff would lose if we became part of an amalgamated union, in which university academics are a minority.

Given this, I suggest general staff members consider the possible ramifications of an amalgamated tertiary education union which so poorly represents academic interests. Will this force the formation of a new academic only union as suggested by Gordon (and others on the AUS Amalgamation Discussion Forum)? Where would this leave university general staff?

Kind Regards,
Helen Kissell
Law Library (Serials)

Some Arguments Against Union Amalgamation

Gordon Anderson
Professor of Law
Victoria University of Wellington

This document presents an argument against the proposed merger of AUS with other tertiary sector unions. The ballot on this merger will take place in about one month.

The essential argument made is that if university academic staff are to protect the unique characteristics of their role and that of the universities it is vital that they retain a strong independent voice through their own union to promote both professional and employment interests.

It further argues that any amalgamation would seriously disadvantage academics in their employment interests.

This paper does not address the position of general staff. The views expressed focus purely on academic staff. It is for general staff to make their own decisions as to their most effective representation and I do not presume to make comments on this.

Given that AUS is a combined academic/general union it may not be possible to unravel this as would be my preference. If amalgamation is rejected I would hope that the structure of AUS is addressed to deal with the concerns I express.

As everyone is aware there is currently a proposal to amalgamate all tertiary education unions [1]. This proposal seems to being presented as a fait accompli – lets discuss the structure and then have the vote once an atmosphere of acceptance has been developed! As far as I am aware there was minimal discussion and consultation on the original concept. Sparsely attended AUS meetings with even more minimal academic attendance does not constitute an acceptable mandate.

Putting the process aside there are a number of strong arguments to be made against amalgamation. The arguments in this paper are made purely from the perspective of academic staff. Some may or may not be applicable to general staff – the union arrangements of such staff are for them.

The central argument being made is that there be a strong union to represent university academic staff and which recognises the particular nature and culture of universities. The argument is for a union that positively advances both the employment and professional interests of academic staff. It may well be feasible to do that within AUS but the logic below suggests that a serious reconsideration of the current AUS structures would be needed if this objective is to be ensured within the current union.

The unique characteristics of the university

The characteristics of universities generally and academic staff are not common to the tertiary sector as a whole. Historically universities and their academic members have had a unique and characteristic role and voice in society, characteristics specifically recognised in the Education Act 1989 and which clearly differentiate universities from other tertiary institutions.

• Academic freedom is protected in s 161 of the Education Act [2] – a recognition which gives legislative recognition to the unique character of universities. It is not a right to be taken lightly and it is one that must be defended not only in the restricted definition used in the Education Act but also in the wider sense. [3]


• Universities have a particular range of characteristics not fully shared by other tertiary institutions: s 162 of the Act provides:
  

  That universities have all the following characteristics and other tertiary institutions have one or more of those characteristics:

  1. They are primarily concerned with more advanced learning, the principal aim being to develop intellectual independence:
  2. Their research and teaching are closely interdependent and most of their teaching is done by people who are active in advancing knowledge:
  3. They meet international standards of research and teaching:
  4. They are a repository of knowledge and expertise:
  5. They accept a role as critic and conscience of society;



• The same section provides that:
  

  A university is characterised by a wide diversity of teaching and research, especially at a higher level, that maintains, advances, disseminates, and assists the application of, knowledge, develops intellectual independence, and promotes community learning:

University academic staff also have characteristics that distinguish them from staff in other institutions.

• Universities are defined by statute as a community of scholars – the academic staff are in this particular sense a major component of the University. For example the VUW Act defines the University in the following terms
  

  “The University shall consist of the Council, the professors emeriti, the professors, lecturers, Registrar, and librarian of the University for the time being in office, the graduates and undergraduates of the University, the graduates of the University of New Zealand whose names are for the time being on the register of the Court of Convocation of the [University], and such other persons and classes of persons as the Council may from time to time determine”



• Academic staff should have both the responsibility and expectation of collegiality in the sense of the following definition CAUT:
  

  Collegiality refers to the participation of academic staff in academic governance structures. Collegiality does not mean congeniality or civility, it means the participation in the governance of the collegium.
  To be collegial, academic governance must:

  1. allow for the expression of a diversity of views and opinions,
  2. protect participants so that no individual is given inappropriate advantage (for example, due to power differentials) with respect to decisions, and
  3. ensure inclusiveness so that all who should be participating are provided the opportunity to do so.

  Collegial governance depends on participants being given and delivering their share of the service workload.



• The need to defend and to prevent further encroachment on these unique characteristics of university employment must be a paramount concern of any organisation of academic staff.


• Academic staff also have a particular role as set out in the Act. This is that their research and teaching are closely interdependent, that teaching is done by people who are active in advancing knowledge and standards of research and teaching must be at an international level.


• In a real sense academics are part of an international community of scholars particularly in the context of their own discipline. They are expected to advance knowledge within their discipline generally and to develop international discipline-related research networks.


• The above factors explain why academics operate in a labour market which is quite separate and has distinct characteristics from those of general staff within universities and from other components of the tertiary sector.


• Generally the academic labour market is international both in terms of the education and training of academics and in their employment. Academics are expected to achieve high international levels of educational achievement at an advanced level, usually requiring several years of highly specialised post-graduate training before being employed. They are expected to continue to meet and maintain high levels of international level achievement in their subsequent careers. This level of training is much higher than that expected of general staff or within other areas of the tertiary sector.

Employment and the Role of the Academic

• In considering the characteristic role of an academic it is necessary to distinguish the role of the academic as a member of a university from that of their role as an employee – although obviously a totally clear distinction cannot be made. Nevertheless the distinction is not artificial and the maintenance of the distinction is important in protecting academic staff.


• The nature of a university as a community of scholars is noted above and it as a member of the university that the research and teaching role is exercised, to which academic freedom applies and to which the obligations of collegiality attach.


• It is important to distinguish the University from the employer (technically the Vice-Chancellor is the employer). The employment relationship is essentially an individual one, although the core terms may be negotiated collectively, and should be seen as separate from the relationship between academics and the university although each relationship should support the other. For example grievance rights as an employee may protect the right of academic freedom.


• This separation is not always obvious and tends to be blurred by increasing managerialism and a management culture that tends to disparage the role of the academic treating the academic role as purely employer-employee. The need to strongly resist and reverse this tendency and culture must be a priority for any organisation representing academic staff. A more appropriate model as far as it can be sustained within a large organisation is that seen in professional firms – professional expert backed by support teams with the “support” being the primary object.

Why would amalgamation damage academics?

1. Taking into account the argument above as well as some trends within AUS as currently constituted and the nature of the proposed amalgamation it seems highly unlikely that there will be any particular benefit for academic staff from the amalgamation and more likely to be serious disadvantages.


2. The proposed amalgamation seems to be driven largely at national level with little prior debate at branch level (the recent AUS meetings I have attended have had low turnouts and virtually no turnout from academics). Moreover the way the debate is being driven seems designed to present a fait accompli to the membership. The firm impression is that the amalgamation is designed for a national union agenda and not that of the membership, and especially the academic membership of AUS.


3. In considering the proposed amalgamation it might be asked why most other education and health sector unions prefer to remain organised on the basis of the professional status of their members? The obvious answer is that their membership sees this model as best promoting both the employment and the professional interests of their members. This is notable in the public profile of those strictly focussed organisations


4. This is particularly obvious when one considers the case of the medical unions (ASMS, Junior Doctors etc) who face very similar challenges to university academics. Both groups consist of professionals with a high degree of professional autonomy and very high skill levels operating in environments where there are increased threats from creeping managerialism, often from managers with a very limited understanding or sympathy for the professional concerns of those persons who are central to the attainment of institutional objectives.


5. The proposed amalgamation will seriously weaken the voice of academics and the ability of academics to advance and protect their professional interests by submerging them within a union dominated by non-academics the majority of whom are likely to have limited or no sympathy for those interests.


6. The professional and employment interests of academics have already been significantly diluted by the amalgamation with general staff. The proposed merger will reduce the academic voice to insignificance.


7. This tendency can already be seen within AUS to some extent. The web page on amalgamation, contains the following:
   

   “How will the new structure ensure that academic issues are not submerged within a committee that is half academic and half general staff? “
   Current AUS does not have any committee only for academics but has an Academic VP position and academic issues are considered in PEPC, Industrial Committee and Council – it is expected issues exclusive to the university sector including those for university academics will be considered by the university sector committee. There is also a university academic VP position proposed.”



8. Apart from indicating a major problem from the merger with general staff, the answer given makes it clear that the officials of the present union have little interest in purely professional academic matters and view academics as purely part of a “university sector” with no different or special interest than general university staff. This mindset is clearly not intended to change with amalgamation. The proposed University Sector Committee has only two named academic representatives (on a committee of 7 but which includes 4 Maori representatives).


9. With the amalgamation it is inevitable that the particular and distinctive professional concerns of university academics will be sidelined. The AUS discussion on the amalgamation strongly suggests that this is either intended or of no concern.


10. For an amalgamated union to succeed it is in its interests to promote a culture that includes the following – and given that the dominant voice in the union will be non-academic staff these trends are probably inevitable. Indeed they are already apparent within AUS.
    1. a “them and us” culture between university management and academics. This may be inevitable in relation to some issues (salaries and grievances and the like). However as noted above academics have an important governance role in universities and this role must not only be protected but enhanced. Equally important the successful accomplishment of the university objectives of the creation and dissemination of knowledge requires a strong collaborative relationship between academics and management.
    2. “We are all really just employees with the same interests”. There is a real tendency within AUS to argue that there is no real or significant distinction between academics and general staff. This is not the case. To argue in this way undermines the historical role of academics and the particular characteristics of academic employment. This is not to deny the contribution of general staff but to recognise the unique characteristics of academic employment.
    3. “We are all just tertiary teachers doing the same job”. Amalgamation will almost certainly promote such an argument in an attempt not only to develop union cohesion but to attempt to argue that non-university members should be employed on the same terms and conditions as university academics. This is likely to seriously undermine the research-teaching characteristic of academic employment as well as terms and conditions of employment.
    4. Equally seriously it will inevitably lead to a situation where other parts of the tertiary sector argue for identical terms and conditions ‘as we are all doing the same job” – the exact argument that has taken place within the primary/secondary sector. This is likely to hold back improvements in academic conditions of employment and as likely to result in the undermining of some existing conditions. It is naive in the extreme to believe that this development will not be inevitable in a union dominated by non-academics and which will increasingly marginalise the voice of academics both in relation to their professional and employment interests.


11. Elements of the this type of argument can already be seen on the discussion form on the AUS website in response to a posting by David Brown[4]. One response states “From where I sit, the academic staff are considerably more privileged and powerful both in the Universities and in the AUS”, and another states that “the postings from our university sector counterparts overstates the distinction between our respective sectors”.


12. Finally there is no reason that an academic based union cannot represent academics nationally including at governmental level. One argument made is that this can be best done through a combined union. On the contrary the case that New Zealand needs first rate, internationally comparable universities can be best made by a union whose entire membership is committed to this goal. For similar reasons a single focus union is best placed to push for the conditions to achieve this within the universities.

The clear conclusion to be drawn from the above is that if the professional and employment interests of university academics are to be properly and forcefully represented this can only be done through a union which focuses entirely on academics. Nothing in the case for amalgamation undermines this argument or offers a better alternative.

Personal statement

1. I have been a member of AUS (and previously AUT) since becoming an academic over 30 years ago. During this time I have been both branch president and secretary and a member of the national council.
2. I was opposed to the amalgamation of general staff into the union as I believe that both groups have different interests that are best represented by their own organisations.
3. Finally I have devoted my working life to being a university academic and regard myself as employed in a university – not an amorphous tertiary sector. I have a passionate belief in the need to protect and enhance the values that have historically created universities as the institutions they are today. The university is not the employer – the academics are the university!
4. I am aware that the arguments above are likely to be attacked as elitist. This does not concern me as the point of a university is to educate our best minds and to provide the environment in which our best minds can conduct high quality research.

Appendix: Academic freedom

CAUT Policy Statement on Academic Freedom

(1) Post-secondary educational institutions serve the common good of society through searching for, and disseminating, knowledge, truth, and understanding and through fostering independent thinking and expression in academic staff and students. Robust democracies require no less. These ends cannot be achieved without academic freedom.

(2) Academic freedom includes the right, without restriction by prescribed doctrine, to freedom of teaching and discussion; freedom in carrying out research and disseminating and publishing the results thereof; freedom in producing and performing creative works; freedom to engage in service to the institution and the community; freedom to express freely one’s opinion about the institution, its administration, or the system in which one works; freedom from institutional censorship; freedom to acquire, preserve, and provide access to documentary material in all formats; and freedom to participate in professional and representative academic bodies.

(3) Academic freedom does not require neutrality on the part of the individual. Academic freedom makes intellectual discourse, critique, and commitment possible. All academic staff must have the right to fulfil their functions without reprisal or repression by the institution, the state, or any other source.

(4) All academic staff have the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, expression, assembly, and association and the right to liberty and security of the person and freedom of movement. Academic staff must not be hindered or impeded in exercising their civil rights as citizens, including the right to contribute to social change through free expression of opinion on matters of public interest. Academic staff must not suffer any institutional penalties because of the exercise of such rights.

(5) Academic freedom requires that academic staff play a major role in the governance of the institution. Academic freedom means that academic staff must play the predominant role in determining curriculum, assessment standards, and other academic matters.

(6) Academic freedom must not be confused with institutional autonomy. Post-secondary institutions are autonomous to the extent that they can set policies independent of outside influence. That very autonomy can protect academic freedom from a hostile external environment, but it can also facilitate an internal assault on academic freedom. To undermine or suppress academic freedom is a serious abuse of institutional autonomy.

Education Act

(1) It is declared to be the intention of Parliament in enacting the provisions of this Act relating to institutions that academic freedom and the autonomy of institutions are to be preserved and enhanced.
(2)For the purposes of this section, academic freedom, in relation to an institution, means—

(a)The freedom of academic staff and students, within the law, to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions:
(b)The freedom of academic staff and students to engage in research:
(c)The freedom of the institution and its staff to regulate the subject-matter of courses taught at the institution:
(d)The freedom of the institution and its staff to teach and assess students in the manner they consider best promotes learning:
(e)The freedom of the institution through its chief executive to appoint its own staff.

(3)In exercising their academic freedom and autonomy, institutions shall act in a manner that is consistent with—

(a)The need for the maintenance by institutions of the highest ethical standards and the need to permit public scrutiny to ensure the maintenance of those standards; and
(b)The need for accountability by institutions and the proper use by institutions of resources allocated to them.

(4)In the performance of their functions the Councils and chief executives of institutions, Ministers, and authorities and agencies of the Crown shall act in all respects so as to give effect to the intention of Parliament as expressed in this section.]

---

1. Apart from the discussion on the AUS website also see http://aus-canterbury.blogspot.com/
2. See the appendix for the definition
3. For a wider definition see CAUT policy in the Appendix.
4. http://www.aus.ac.nz/Current/amalgamation/DiscussionForum/ShowMessage.asp?ID=13