Thursday, November 02, 2006
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.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Working for Families – Ensuring Entitlements Resources and Information Meetings for Unions
Following anecdotal evidence from unions, and from the CTU and Government Forums, that not all eligible people are accessing Working for Families, CTU has discussed with the Minister of Social Development and MSD and IRD officials the role CTU could play in ensuring that working people are getting their full entitlements.
Workers and families may be missing out on entitlement for various reasons. Some people may find the system too complicated and/or bothersome, others may not have received the right assistance or information. Some just may not have got around to it. Others may have found their entitlements have changed as a result of changes to jobs or income.
The MSD has produced some attractive resources which are available in Maori, Samoan, Tongan, Cook Island and English. They may be useful for union delegates and organisers. We will have copies at the CTU for affiliates.
In response to the role CTU that could play, it has been suggested that MSD and IRD host some informal breakfast meetings with a presentation by officials about the WFF package as well as discussion about entitlements and means of accessing entitlements and providing some resources.
This email/note asks that you:
Queries on this issue should be directed to Eileen Brown at the CTU – social policy analyst - who is coordinating this work. Ph 04 802 3813 or email Eileen (click on the link for her email address).
October 2006
Branch President's Report
Branch President’s Report
Canterbury Branch AGM of AUS
26 October 2006
David Small
Colleagues,
We have come to the end of a momentous year. It has been a year of some significant achievements, some unfortunate losses and some new challenges. The three issues I’d like to discuss today are: College of Arts Campaign, the MECA campaign and the merger with the college of education.
The early part of the year was dominated by senior management’s assault on the arts at Canterbury. Flush with a $9.2 million dollar surplus, and in the absence of an academic rationale, the Vice-Chancellor insisted that the College of Arts increase its rate of surplus (contribution margin) by an amount that would require radical cuts including forced redundancies amongst academic staff.
This move was roundly condemned. It was widely recognised as ill-considered, unnecessary and being pursued with indecent haste. It struck at the heart of what it means for an institution to call itself a university.
Although management insisted that redundancies would be a last resort, it became increasingly clear that they were in fact a preferred option. This, we were told, was the way the university would be run in future, an ongoing process of nibbling round the edges. Management makes the decisions and the rest of us obey, but only for as long as our services are required.
Management steadfastly paid no heed to the many persuasive and well-documented arguments pointing out what a bad decision they were making. We organized a national panel to review the proposals which met on campus for two days. The debate surrounding this issue brought the Minister for Tertiary Education (Michael Cullen) to meet with us (and the University) to listen to our concerns. The University tried to stifle debate by, for example, refusing to provide basic figures about comparative contribution margins across the whole university. When we followed this up with the Ombudsman, the Vice-Chancellor told him that the figures did not exist; the figures that were the entire basis of the university’s financial crisis. That despite a large surplus the university can go on to claim that redundancies were unavoidable.
At one level, the AUS campaign against the College of Arts cuts was a failure The final implementation plan barely deviated at all from the original change proposal. Management stuck to their guns, made the cuts they wanted, and hoped that the message that staff would derive from this, and any other management plans we opposed, was that resistance is futile.
At another level, however, it had many positive elements. It galvanised and unified the entire university community. Students bypassed the UCSA and organised against the cuts. Community groups from Canterbury and further afield expressed their opposition. And staff, even those who were the supposed beneficiaries of the cuts, came together in a way that I have never seen before at this university.
There is now a deep rift in this university. The Vice-Chancellor stands isolated from his staff, convinced that only he and SMT know what is best for the University of Canterbury and that the rest of us are out of touch with reality and living in the past. Time and again, over the past year, we have seen this man-alone model of management. It was shown at the VC’s Forum early this year and at his second one last week. And it was unmistakable in the staff survey we conducted during the year, in which only around 12% of academic staff agreed with the proposition, that the Vice-Chancellor is a good leader of this university.
As staff, we want to feel a commitment to and a pride in our university. But the longer we are excluded from decision-making and treated as mere units of revenue, the longer the University of Canterbury will be without a heart or soul.
On a more positive note, this year saw the first fruits of our long campaign to address the salaries crisis in New Zealand universities. The tripartite forum involving government, the AUS and the vice-chancellors (with Roy Sharp, by all accounts, playing a leading and constructive role) saw the first of what we hope will be a series of direct injections of government funding into university salaries. This is a very significant breakthrough, and a tribute to the effectiveness of the AUS on each of the campuses and nationally. After years of campaigning and some quite protracted and acrimonious industrial action, we now have a mechanism and a degree of political will to begin to address this very serious problem.
This has meant that for the first time in many years we have been able to secure a substantial salary increase and have not had to engage in industrial action to get it. It is also a crystal clear demonstration of the value of the union. At Canterbury, we still enjoy one of the highest rates of union membership in the country. But the cuts in the Arts and the endless rounds of Reviews have resulted in a loss of members. We need to recruit more members and, with such an obvious direct benefit to staff from our MECA campaign, now is a very good time to ask your colleagues to join. I am sending out a letter to everyone who joined Canterbury in 2006 and is still a non-member.
The third issue I would like to address is the merger with the Christchurch College of Education. This was formally approved this year and will officially occur on 1 January 2007. In anticipation of the merger, however, there have been numerous restructuring plans and reviews, the latest of which was released only two days ago. This has had a major impact on many staff, in the library, in the school of education, in IT, in student services and in many other areas. It is also clear that the merger will create ongoing disruption and uncertainty in the coming year or two.
For the AUS, one of the most significant aspects of the merger is that we will have on campus a large number of members from our sister union, the Association of Staff in Tertiary Education (ASTE).. This has occurred at most other universities as well and is part of the impetus behind a broader discussion about the future relationship between AUS and ASTE. Essentially the question being addressed is whether the changing tertiary landscape calls for a change in the relationship between the two biggest tertiary unions. Put simply, the issue is whether the two unions should merge. This will be an important area of discussion in the coming year, and one that we want members to actively engage in. We are holding a pre-National Conference meeting of members on 14 November to discuss this issue and other issues prior to conference.
Finally, I would like to thank all of those who have contributed in so many ways to the work of the AUS at Canterbury over the last year.
I’d like in particular to thank those who have served on the branch committee and are now stepping back. Manja Pieters, Andrew Maples, Ghazala Anwar, Megan Clayton, and Bill Rosenberg.
I’d also like to thank all those who have agreed to join or continue their involvement in the branch committee.
I’d also like to thank our staff - Sarah Walters and Carol Grant who’ve worked in the office, Marty Braithwaite (National Office) and Cindy Doull (Lincon Organiser) who are very helpful to have around, and especially Matthew Fitzsimons our organiser. This has been an incredibly busy year with a constant stream of reviews and, in addition to the usual number of personal cases the organiser works on, many more cases of negotiating severances.
On that note, I’d also like to pay tribute to those members who have been forced in various ways to terminate their employment with the university in the past year. Many of us have lost valued colleagues. We wish you all the best in your lives beyond the university.
For me, I began serving as Branch President by sharing the position with Tanya Gant. For the last two years, I have held the position on my own. A few weeks ago, I was elected to be Academic Vice-President of the AUS nationally (thanks very much to those who voted for me). So this year, I will be sort of sharing and sort of handing over the role of Branch President to the very capable hands of Jack Heinemann. I am very grateful to Jack for agreeing to increase his involvement in this way and I trust that he will find the position as rewarding as I have.
As I noted earlier this has been a year of some significant achievements, some unfortunate losses and some new challenges. If we can continue to find ways to celebrate our achievements and learn from our losses, we will remain vibrant and healthy and in a good position to meet the new challenges before us.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
AUS UC Morale Survey and Report
These two documents, which can be downloaded below the fold, are also available from the permanent menu at right.
UC Morale Survey
Report on the Survey
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Differentiation Presentation
A powerpoint of the presentation at the recent workshop on differentiation in the tertiary sector can be found at this link.
The presentation was written by Rebecca Matthews and Camilla Belich, AUS Policy Analysts.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
General Staff workshop on valuing the contribution of general staff
A workshop on valuing the contribution of general staff will be held on Tuesday 29 August from 11 30 am-12 30 pm in Laws 108 .
This paid one-hour workshop open to all AUS general staff will be conducted by Cate Wartho (AUS Vice-President, General Staff) and Rebecca Matthews (National Office, Policy).
Human Resources request you notify your manager in advance if you are attending. Please also let AUS know if you might attend, as we will have refreshments available following the meeting and need to gauge numbers. The email address is canterbury.admin@aus.ac.nz.
Friday, June 30, 2006
Bargaining Newsletter, updates and links
A downloadable pdf of the combined university unions' latest bargaining newsletter, which brings news of increased government funding for staff salaries, can be found here.
Note that bargaining meetings at Canterbury will be held on Thursday 13 July in S3 at 1:10 and 2pm.
A pdf of the media statement by the Minister for Tertiary Education can be found here, while the AUS media release regarding the funding can be found here.
The AUS website has also linked to a Radio New Zealand interview with Helen Kelly to discuss the increased funding; this can be listened to at this link.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Ballot of AUS and PSA members on proposed variation of the General Staff Collective
The Academic Skills Centre members and AUS have been in discussion with Human Resources since September 2004 to address a situation similar to what prevailed at UC Opportunity: members have been employed on fixed term agreements and although their role is teaching they are classified as general staff for remuneration purposes.
All the members are now on continuing appointments and after a lengthy process a pay scale reflecting their role as teachers has been adapted from the Senior Tutors pay scale in the Academic Collective.
The proposal is to attach the schedule below as a variation of your collective agreement.
Process:
Ballot papers will be sent out this week and must be returned by 5pm on Monday 3 July to the AUS Office
The returning officer is: Matthew Fitzsimons AUS Organiser
The result of the ballot (a simple majority of the votes returned) will be announced on Tuesday 4 July.
Proposed variation:
The proposed variation is as follows:
Schedule A: Academic Skills Centre Lecturer Tutor Salary Scale
Lecturer Tutor Salary Scale
This scale shall apply to Lecturer Tutor positions in the Academic Skills Centre employed in terms of the General Staff Collective:
| Steps | Salary Proposed backdated to 1. 01. 06 | For comparison Senior Tutor |
| 01.01 01.02 01.03 | 41,670 43, 949 46, 228 | 41,670 44,017 46,251 |
| 02.01 02.02 02.03 02.04 | 48, 507 50, 789 53, 065 55, 344 | 49, 268 51, 503 53, 848 46, 194 |
| 03.01 03.02 03.03 03.04 | 57, 623 59, 902 62, 181 64, 462 | 59, 769 62, 115 64, 462 |
Regard will be made to movements in the Tutors Scale (E.4) when reviewing the Academic Salary Scale in the future.
Criteria for promotion and movement across bar and within steps
Progression in Step 1 shall be based on having a relevant post-graduate or specialist qualification and individual merit, including level of performance, skills and value to the University.
Progression from Step 1 to Step 2 shall be on demonstrated ability and performance in providing specialist input, teaching and contribution across more than one component of the Academic Skills programme and the Centre’s goals.
Step 02.02 to Step 02.30: Criteria
High level of performance in one or more specialist areas, demonstrated ability to successfully contribute across more than one component of the Academic Skills programme and to contribution to the required administration of the programme
Progression from Step 2 to Step 3 shall be based on individual merit, including high level of performance, skills and value to the University.
Step 03.02 to Step 03.03: Criteria
Individual merit, including high level of performance in one or more specialist areas, supported by the ability to successfully contribute across more than one components of the Academic Skills programme, demonstrated leadership skills, research and value to the University.
Friday, June 09, 2006
June members' update
A copy of the update recently emailed to members can be found below the fold.
National Bargaining
The Umbrella Agreement parties continue to meet to discuss the allocation of the salary funding set aside as contingency funding in the recent Budget by the Minister of Tertiary Education Michael Cullen.
Nigel Haworth (AUS National President) said, “There is a sum of money clearly on the table and it is a question of the distribution.” Haworth said he would discuss the deal with members “as soon as we’ve got things tied up in a way that everybody’s comfortable with”.
The AUS bargaining team is meeting in Wellington on Friday 15 June. Member meetings will be held towards the end of June.
Deloitte Report
The Deloitte Report found that international salary comparisons provided a case for a much stronger salary claim for academics than for general staff. The full report can be found hereThe focus for the international comparisons is on academic salaries and benefits. Not only does New Zealand face competition for academic staff who may be domiciled in those countries, but it also faces competition from those countries for recruiting academic staff who may be domiciled in other countries. Whilst limited international competition exists for some specialist general staff, the principal competition for general staff is between universities within New Zealand and between university and other potential public and private employees. Information is also provided on salaries and benefits for non university positions which may be comparable to university academic staff positions.
Morale Survey
We have had a good response to the morale survey. The original pilot (sent out to academic staff in the College of Arts last December) was modified to include all staff.
This survey represents our conviction that morale is important for a productive workplace. Our initial survey set out to test the anecdotal evidence of low morale among academics in the university. It was always our intention, following the redundancies in the College of Arts, to test morale across campus. We hope to work constructively with the university to address the findings.
A feature of this survey is the large number of responses (60% of the returns to date) in the comments field. These will provide invaluable qualitative data and enhance the utility of the survey. We hope to report the outcome of the survey by July.
Early Childhood Learning Centre
The Vice-Chancellor wrote to the Campaign Action Group to defer the review of the Centre until the merger of the University and the Christchurch College of Education. One of the proposals was a merger with Te Ao Tamariki Childcare Centre at the College. Meanwhile all continuing staff vacancies in the Centre will be filled. The Action Group is to be congratulated for pursuing a cogent campaign.
College of Arts Redundancies
The College of Arts wrote to affected staff in the School of Education and Chinese Programme to say that a selection pool process to determine who would be made redundant was no longer necessary, owing to the retirement of two members of staff.
Only one person has been made redundant. Dr Ghazala Anwar is exploring the option of external funding to retain her position in Religious Studies.
Annual Leave
For clarity we wish to advise academic members that they can request annual leave in advance (anticipate leave) and if they have leave remaining from 2005. They can use it this year. Although the academic collective agreement provides that annual leave cannot be accrued without the prior written approval of the Human Resources Director, it is our view that where leave is not or cannot be taken within the year, the entitlement cannot be forfeited unless University management have complied in full with the Holidays Act.
In general, the Act provides that agreement must be reached between an employee and employer regarding the timing of leave, but if agreement cannot be reached, the employer may require the leave to be taken. Not less than fourteen days’ notice of the requirement to take annual leave must be given.
It is also our view that a general edict to take leave does not satisfy the requirements of the Act, so that unused leave will remain as an entitlement for up to seven years.
It should also be noted that an employer may allow an employee to take an agreed portion of his or her annual holiday entitlement in advance.
Latest additions to the main AUS website:
PBRF - Feedback on use of PBRF data by TEC
PBRF - Feedback on the 2006 Guidelines
Post 2005 Ministerial briefing
Submission – Differentiation within the Tertiary Sector
Submission - Strategic Review of the Tertiary Education Workforce
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)