Tetris tactics at Canterbury

Dear Fellow Unionists

We again face massive losses of both general and academic colleagues. I know that all members of this Union will join me in a sense of the sadness with the news of 21.5 forced redundancies effective 1 January 2009.

Unlike previous rounds of “change”, this round signals a new approach from senior management. AUS characterised the past change events as “decimations”. True to the word, staff were plucked from many places simultaneously creating both angst and frustration across campus. I would characterise the present approach as a “tetris tactic”, where entire blocks are being removed from the College in an attempt to not disturb the overall stability of the structure.


The rationale is again one of finance. We are asked to accept that finances are unchallengeable. Like laws of physics, they are not negotiable. As framed in financial terms, the Change Proposal requires that blocks justify their existence relative to other blocks. With tetris tactics, the workers are split against one another depending on which blocks they are a part of. Threatened colleagues are made impotent when they try to argue for their jobs because they in essence must nominate other colleagues for the same fate. AUS still believes that finances are challengeable. The University’s books should be entirely open to scrutiny.

The nuance of the latest change is that programmes to be axed are not “core”. Such terminology is distracting at best and destructive at worst. First, defining someone’s academic discipline as “not core” is waving a red flag to a bull. What is the core of the University, and how do you know when you’ve bitten into it? Academics especially will be tempted to spend hours fighting such characterisations. But even if argument were to prevail, it would still leave the arguer in a block v. block situation. Second, the language suggests that Colleges, which are THE CORE of the University, are composed of units that are and are not core. This is preposterous in an institution composed on the one hand of Colleges and their immediate supports, such as the Library, that perform the defining mission of the University, and on the other hand different units, such as technology transfer, that support other University activities (which may not be core, even if they are valuable). To elevate these latter units above the status of teaching and research units within colleges using this terminology is perhaps symptomatic of why such cuts seem to be necessary year in and year out.

it must be evident that senior management is not removing duplicate kidneys from the Uni- versity body, but is instead mining its stem cells

The UC’s present financial surplus overall comes from two factors. The first is the new government funding for salaries under the AUS-lead tripartite agreements. I’m quite secure in asserting that this money was not going to come to us as a consequence of any Vice-Chancellor’s Committee strategy of the day. The second is the cannibalisation of the University itself. Over these past few years, senior management has been converting salaries into “savings”. This short-term approach to creating surpluses is illusory because, in the long-run, the University earns its keep through teaching and research, activities that only staff and students can do. The strategy is also unsustainable. We cannot predict the future and therefore the University must be diverse enough to adapt to the interests of students and the strategic needs of the nation. The future has a way of making currently unpopular disciplines indispensable. Surely by now it must be evident that senior management is not removing duplicate kidneys from the University body, but is instead mining its stem cells.

Perhaps it is time for a new approach to budgeting. How could it be worse than this slow but methodical starvation? One model might be for senior management to propose budgets that are reviewed and ratified by a central senate composed from an amalgamation of the faculties. Such a system could improve buy-in, priority setting and increase understanding of the institution’s finances. It may be time to open a debate on governance at this level.

How can we end this vicious spiral of cuts? First, senior management must finally articulate a clear and inspirational vision for what this University is about and where it is going. We deserve it, the public should expect it, and the University Council should demand it. I believe that our membership would get behind a shared vision that was truly world class. Second, we should see the senior management in the public arena, duly inspiring the public with their vision and the value of the University. That arena should take them to the steps of the Beehive, where we witness them being effective at bringing new money into the sector. After all, AUS created the platform for the tripartite agreements, the first to bring in any sizable new money for staff salaries. Senior management drank at this trough, but now it is time for them to help fill it.

Submissions on the Change Proposal must be completed in the next few weeks. I encourage members from other Colleges to take an active role. It is sometimes easier to serve in support roles, such as editor, when it is not your job on the line. Why not ring a colleague in Arts today, and make an offer of support?

AUS Action
The AUS Canterbury Branch will host meetings over this period to facilitate member-initiated submissions. In addition to one or more “AUS submissions”, members can organise into programme/department groups to make submissions, and submit as individuals. Information sharing might be helpful to all types of submissions, so for this purpose please make use of the blog (http://aus-canterbury.blogspot.com/) or the email lists, as well as more private communication channels when necessary.

For more information and assistance with coordination, please contact:

Suzanne McNabb
Association of University Staff
Phone (03) 364 2485
Mobile 021 995 013
Fax (03) 364 2733

Let’s make the future of the Arts a shared one.

Jack Heinemann
Branch President