All AUS members are invited to a meeting with Helen Kelly, General Secretary AUS who will address the issue of the threatened staff cuts in the College of Arts and answer members questions on this and other developments including changes to funding in tertiary education and the progress under the tripartite umbrella agreement.
Thursday 13 April at 1pm in Central Lecture Theatre C1
Helen Kelly will also be holding a special meeting for all AUS Library staff.
Helen will be available to address any concerns staff may wish to raise and clarify members rights under the General Staff Employment Agreement.
There are some significant HR issues which are being discussed in the Library at present.
The Library Committee encourage you to take advantage of this opportunity and look forward to seeing you all there: Thursday 13 April at 12noon in Arts Lecture Theatre A9
Read More...
Summary only...
"Warning to the VC jet set: prepare for a crash landing" is a Guardian article by Roger Kline, the head of universities, equality and employment rights at Natfhe, the UK university and college lecturers' union.
It can be read online here, or below.
Warning to the VC jet set: prepare for a crash landing
Roger Kline
Tuesday March 28 2006
The Guardian
Higher education is facing its most serious industrial dispute for a very long time. And it is clear that many vice-chancellors and principals have had difficulty coming to terms with the level of support for the action.
Natfhe members are up in arms for four reasons. First, their salaries have radically slipped, by whatever measure is used, compared with other professions. Even the employers accept this. Years of gradual relative decline have led to a grim determination that this is the year that something has to be done.
Second, whatever sleight of hand is used, the employers are struggling to explain why they cannot afford to meet a claim that is fully costed against top-up fee income (where appropriate) and wider funding settlements.
Third, the sector is led by chief executives who appear unable to apply to themselves the standards they expect of others. Why on earth should staff accept less than 23% over three years, at a time of improved funding, when their own leaders have paid themselves 25% over the past three years?
Finally, discontent over pay is symptomatic of a wider concern about excessive workloads, unmanageable administration and unsympathetic management.
A number of vice-chancellors appear to believe academic staff are best managed according to the sort of industrial relations practices usually found in a low-cost airline or on a factory production line. This approach sees trade unions as interlopers, struggles with any form of academic governance, collegiality or consensus, and prioritises at all costs the right to manage.
One of the difficulties in settling this pay dispute is the significant tension between this tendency and other university VCs who respect their staff and whose approach is more pragmatic.
Proponents of the "Ryanair tendency" include what Natfhe members would regard as the usual suspects: Peter Knight of the University of Central England (pay rise of 28% over the past three years), Neil Gorman of Nottingham Trent (39.8%) and Brian Roper of London Metropolitan (35.4%).
Peter Knight wrote in these pages recently: "The unions believe most VCs are fully paid-up members of the Amalgamated Union of Wimps and Woosies ... If pay is stopped, the action will collapse ... It is absolutely essential that their cynical action fails."
When Neil Gorman recently sought to put this rallying cry into practice, it fell flat on its face. An imminent lockout of staff who had confirmed their intention to engage in Natfhe's assessment boycott disappeared when staff threatened to escalate action.
These approaches are in sharp contrast with that of a VC who wrote to me last week, saying: "We value the joint working we have developed in recent years with our staff trade unions. While we deeply regret the forms of action currently being undertaken, we do recognise that when this dispute ends, academic staff will undertake the marking and assessment currently on hold. Therefore ... we will not be withholding monies for partial performance except where work not currently being undertaken is not completed in a timely manner at the end of the dispute."
Macho management has many shortcomings but, above all, it does not work. If there is one thing that demotivates and agitates academic staff, it is management that resists delegated autonomy, debate and expression of difference, and insists on bean-counting and a refusal to be challenged.
Employers have locked out academic unions from negotiations scheduled for today, saying this is because of our continuing non-strike action. But they will meet Unison, despite its strike today on pensions. It is more clumsy provocation.
Natfhe membership has increased since the beginning of the dispute. Our members would rather be at work. Their commitment to the success of students is undiminished. When the dispute is over and we have gained the settlement we seek, universities which understand that debate, difference and challenge need not poison long-term industrial relations will prosper. Those determined to show how tough they are will struggle to maintain the trust and respect of staff.
Roger Kline is head of universities, equality and employment rights at Natfhe, the university and college lecturers' union.
Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited
Read More...
Summary only...
From David Small, the Branch President:
The Minister for Tertiary Education, the Hon. Dr. Michael Cullen, announced the next steps in tertiary education sector reform on Tuesday 4 April.
The new approach is diametrically opposed in both substance and style to the cuurent plans by UC to cut staff in Arts.
Full details are available at this link.
My media release on the subject is below.
Immediate Suspension and Complete Reassessment of Arts Cuts at Canterbury Needed After Government Tertiary Education Announcement
Staff at the University of Canterbury are welcoming today’s policy announcement by the Minister of Tertiary Education, and are claiming that it shows the need for an immediate suspension and complete reassessment of the University’s plans to make further cuts in the Arts.
“At the very time the government is announcing a move away from what it calls ‘the current, overly simplistic, Student Component funding system’, the University is axing staff based entirely on that measure,” said Association of University Staff (AUS) Canterbury President, David Small.
Dr Small said that there is widespread support among staff for Dr Cullen’s view that universities are more effective in their basic mission of serving the public when they organise their research and teaching around a plan that is responsive to the economic and social needs of their community and the country, and that is developed in consultation with the university’s diverse stakeholders.
He said that the university’s plan to cut eight positions in Arts was being implemented without any consideration of factors that the Minister identified as essential for a university, such as fostering “critical thinking and innovation”, acting as “the conscience and critic of society”, and supporting “the flexibility and innovation that comes with independence of thought”.
Dr Small said that Dr Cullen’s statement reinforces AUS’s argument that it is simply unacceptable for a New Zealand university today to be using such a blunt financial instrument to make cuts with profound academic, social and economic costs, and to remain completely unmoved by such widespread opposition from within the university and the wider community.
Last year, the University of Canterbury recorded a financial surplus of $9.2 million, up 50% on the previous year, $2.5 million ahead of budget, and at the upper end of government guidelines on appropriate levels of surplus for a university. Despite this, it is continuing with plans to cut $2million from the Arts, a move that it claims requires forced redundancies among academic staff. The programmes targetted are Russian, Islamic Studies, Asian History, Education, American Studies, English, Chinese, and Music. The cuts are being made in the absence of an academic plan and in the face of a unanimous vote of condemnation from the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. The university released a change proposal on 20 March with submissions closing on 20 April.
Read More...
Summary only...
Members outside the college of arts who wish to peruse the change proposal can do so at this link.
Further comment on its contents by AUS will be forthcoming.
Read More...
Summary only...
Members may like to inform themselves on the implications of restructuring by way of the following article:
Cascio, Wayne F. "Strategies for responsible restructuring." The Academy of Management Executive 19.4 (Nov 2005): 39(12).
The journal can be found in the central library at HD 28 .A168 e (level 11).
The article is a compendium study of 500 US firms, and states: "The purpose of this article is to suggest several alternative approaches to restructuring. In contrast to employment downsizing, a strategy that regards people as costs to be cut, a responsible restructuring strategy focuses on people as assets to be developed. This focus recognizes that people are the source of innovation and renewal, especially in knowledge-based organizations..."
(with thanks to the organiser for the reference)
Read More...
Summary only...
An article by Matt Philp, "Bitter Dissent", reports on our current situation.
The article features commentary from threatened staff, AUS branch president, PV-C Strongman and the V-C.
Read More...
Summary only...
From an email from the branch president today:
All staff will be aware of the stance taken by senior management on the proposed cuts in the Arts. Staff are urged to attend this meeting to continue the campaign against the undermining of academic values and collegiality at Canterbury University.
Thursday 16 March at 1pm in Science Lecture Theatre S4
Read More...
Summary only...
Below is a copy of the appeal letter which members are encouraged to send to prominent people outside the university, as soon as possible.
It can be copied and pasted from this format into a separate document.
Save the Arts at the University of Canterbury
We are seeking your support for a campaign to save the Arts at the University of Canterbury.
University managers have decided to make $1.6 million in cuts to the Arts in 2006 including up to 23 forced redundancies.
These cuts are being made in a context where:
- There is no academic strategic plan for the Arts
- Staff morale throughout the university is at an all-time low;
- The university increased its surplus from $6 million in 2004 to $9.2 million in 2005, putting it at the upper end of the government guidelines for universities
This university has a long and proud reputation in the Arts and is a valuable public institution serving the people of Canterbury. The current managers are its short-term custodians and should not be allowed to do long-term damage.
If you oppose these cuts, please support this campaign by endorsing this letter and sending a copy of it to us and to the Vice-Chancellor.
Name
Address:
Signature: Date:
Additional Comments:
College of Arts Campaign
AUS Office
University of Canterbury
Private Bag 4800
Christchurch
Fax: 364-2733
aus@canterbury.ac.nz
Prof Roy Sharp
Vice-Chancellor
University of Canterbury
Private Bag 4800
Christchurch
Fax: 364-2856
roy.sharp@canterbury.ac.nz
Read More...
Summary only...
Below is the memorandum of support which members can sign in support of the ECLC campaign, introduced by a rationale from the Steering Group of the University Staff Childcare Action Group.
Dear Colleagues
Proposal to Outsource the University Creche to UCSA
You will recall that the University is considering a proposal that UCSA take over the running of the University Creche (ECLC), and possibly buy the buildings as well. A University Staff Childcare Action Group (USCAG) has been formed to oppose the proposal. It is made up of members of University Staff, including parents currently using the Centre, those who have used it in the past, and other staff who oppose the UCSA proposal. This is a diverse group from all walks of the University!
The purpose of this message is to ask you to consider becoming a signatory to a Memorandum of Support for the current staff childcare service provided by the University, and for continuation of that service. The memorandum is set out underneath some questions and answers which may be of assistance to you in deciding whether to give your support. They show how this proposal affects all University staff in some way or another.
Important Questions and Answers
Why should the UC maintain a childcare learning facility as part of its services?
For the following reasons:
- ECLC is essential to the University’s commitment to improving the equity and diversity of its staff, in particular, attracting and retaining more female staff;
- The ECLC maximises parents’ ability to do their job and to support their colleagues;
- The University Equal Opportunities Policy (2004) provides that "Childcare facilities will be provided by the University for the children of staff and adequately resourced";
- The University is a public service institution, in which a not-for-profit childcare service is entirely appropriate. The Ministry supports such models;
- The University has an obligation as a good employer to provide the service itself and should be seen to be acting on this;
- The service provided by ECLC is a term of current employment contracts;
- The ECLC is part of the University’s core function because it enables the University to attract and retain excellent staff, particularly from overseas.
Why is the outsourcing proposal not a good option for childcare provision?
Because it is inadequate and inappropriate:
- The UCSA proposal is deficient on detail but reveals a strong profit motive, based on staffing cuts, equipment cuts and possible expansion of unit sizes. This would destroy the current service the University provides to its staff and their children;
- Outsourcing would mean loss of any control and accountability which University staff currently have over the childcare provided;
- Although one reason given for outsourcing the service is financial, the University is currently unable to supply updated and accurate information about the present and projected financial position of the ECLC, and cannot say when it will be able to. Any decision made on this basis would be negligent;
- The UCSA proposal makes no mention at all of child or parental welfare.
Is there a need to change the ECLC management structure?
Improvements can, of course, be made, but they do not require outsourcing:
- In 19 years of operation, ECLC has experienced one year with losses (2004) (arguably outside its control) but appears to be currently running to budget, and will be receiving increased government funding;
- ECLC has always received excellent ERO reports, which recognise the value of current unit sizes and the unique unit providing for toddlers;
- What is required is competent staffing and adequate resourcing of ECLC, combined with effective and engaged oversight from within the University.
Should the UC continue to subsidise the ECLC?
Yes, if necessary, for all the above reasons, and because:
- At the most in the past, the subsidy has been only $25,000 per year;
- The University does not hesitate to subsidise other services it values or has a legal obligation to provide, such as disability services and the staff club.
Memorandum of Support
Below we have set out a simple statement of support. If you agree with it (whether a member of USCAG or not), please copy and return it by email as soon as possible, together with your name and some professional details, either by email or manually, to Ursula Cheer, Law. The Memorandum will be used by USCAG in the consultation process.
Memorandum of Support for University ECLC
The University must directly provide, properly resource, and oversee, quality childcare that meets the needs of its staff, as it has done since 1987.
I support the above statement
Name or signature:…………………………………………………………………………….
Member of academic staff? (Choose one): Yes/No
Member of general staff? (Choose one): Yes/No
Female staff member? (Choose one): Yes/No
Former ECLC user? (Choose one): Yes/No
Current ECLC user? (Choose one): Yes/No
Staff member recruited from overseas? (Choose one): Yes/No
Read More...
Summary only...
A selection of recent correspondence between the Canterbury branch president of AUS, David Small, and the UC V-C, Roy Sharp, gives some context to current campaign against the cuts to staffing in the College of Arts.
David Small to Roy Sharp, 21 February 2006:
Dear Roy,
Further to our meeting last week, I'd like to suggest a course of action.
My suggestion is based on the following assumptions:
Financial:
1. That UC has already all but reached the target of your financial recovery plan
2. That this plan is based on a rate of surplus at the higher end of the TAMU guidelines
Academic Morale:
3. That morale among academic staff in the College of Arts (and possibly other parts of UC) is alarmingly low.
4. That a significant feature of that low morale is a very widely held perception among academic staff that a) management does not consult with them and b) there is insufficient long-term academic planning behind the latest moves to cut staff.
5. That this low morale is giving people a sense of disillusionment with UC and undermining their commitment to the institution, and that this has adverse financial consequences.
Academic Planning:
6. That the PVC Arts has initiated a thorough process of developing an academic strategy for the Arts and Social Sciences at UC.
Suggestion:
That the target date for the College of Arts meeting its contribution margin be pushed back by two years.
This would allow for the bulk of the financial improvements to be achieved by means other than forced redundancies. It could be achieved over this longer period by either slowing the transfer of resources to the College of Business and Economics, or generating a surplus not quite so close to the top of the TAMU guidelines or a combination of both these measures.
It would also mean that the adjustment could be made in conjunction with or, better still, in response to the academic strategic planning process in the College of Arts.
A move like this would, I am sure, go a long way to addressing the malaise and disenchantment felt by so many staff who were previously proudly committed to this university.
If such you were prepared to adopt such an approach, I would recommend to members the following:
a) that we do not obstruct the reduction/redistribution of staff in the College of Arts through a combination of attrition, voluntary severance, and flexible employment options; and
b) that the results of our morale survey remain confidential to Matthew and me.
Sincerely,
David Small.
David Small to Roy Sharp on 23 February 2006:
Dear Roy,
Just a quick note to ask whether you are any closer to a response to my suggestion about relaxing the time-frame for achieving the internal adjustments you are seeking. Pressure is mounting from members wanting to release the survey results.
Sincerely,
David
Roy Sharp to David Small on 27 February 2006:
David
Thanks for sending your suggestions.
The College of Arts will have to try and live within its 2006 budget. The Senior Management Team will have a chance to review and confirm the budget parameters and framework for the 2007 budget during this year. Before any final decision regarding the extent of the cuts is made there will be discussion about that at the Senior Management level.
I am not prepared to operate on the principle that there will never be any redundancies and that voluntary severance and attrition will be able to achieve the balance of staff numbers across the University that we need.
Roy
David Small to Roy Sharp, later on 27 February:
Roy,
At our recent meetings (15 Feb and 21 Feb), we presented you with the results of our morale survey and with a proposal for achieving your target contribution margins over a time period longer than you had originally proposed. You said that you would consider these matters and get back to us.
I note that our representations have not asked you for a guarantee of no redundancies. Rather, we proposed ways of giving effect to your stated view that redundancies should be used only used as a method of last resort, and your view that you attach considerable importance to staff morale.
Is this message your official and full response? If it is not, we would appreciate hearing what your response is by 5pm this Tuesday.
I still hope that we can work cooperatively to resolve these important matters.
Sincerely,
David Small
Roy Sharp to David Small, later on 27 February:
David
I am at an all-day meeting tomorrow until 5pm and then at a function. I don't have time before then to give "an official and full response" my full attention. I will try and respond before 5pm on Wednesday.
Roy
Roy Sharp to David Small, 1 March 2006:
David
I am happy for you to take my response as an official and full response. If you want clarification about any aspect of it then I would be pleased to talk further about it with you.
Roy
Read More...
Summary only...
