A poorly worded notice went out to managers this week which could be interpreted as requiring members to ask permission of managers to attend a paid union meeting. Human resources are correcting this notice.
The legal situation is that unions can have 2 two hour long meetings a year as paid union meetings. In practice the union runs many meetings during the year and the University generously allows some of these during work hours to be paid union meetings.
It is our practice at paid union meetings to gather the names of attendees should the University need attendance to be verified for any particular individual.
Members as a matter of courtesy advise their manager of their intent to attend. Permission from the manager is not a prerequisite to attendance. Members are aware of what needs to happen in the workplace and try to arrange matters so that there is cover.
Should any manager be concerned on "operational grounds" the matter may be raised by HR with the Branch Executive. The "operational grounds" would need to be exceptional to preclude a union member from attending one of these paid meetings.
AUS Branch Committee
Read More...
Summary only...
The debate between David Wiltshire and Nigel Haworth on the proposed amalgamation is continuing on the Amalgamation Discussion Forum.
Read More...
Summary only...
The following was approved by the Canterbury Branch Committee at its meeting on 7th June and submitted on behalf of Canterbury members. Members are also encouraged to make their own submissions, if they wish, by June 20th.
Much of the discussion at Canterbury is still at the stage of considering whether to support an amalgamation at all, rather than on the specifics of the current proposal. At last year’s conference, the Canterbury Branch delegates did not vote unanimously in favour of the remit that the AUS support in principle a merger with ASTE, because some delegates did not believe they had a mandate from their membership to do so. At the time, our Branch President commented that “this is a process that cannot move too slowly”, in order to ensure that no major changes were made without a clear mandate from the members. But we do understand the remit passed by conference and are progressing the discussion to the extent that we can.
AUS Canterbury branch has not formed a single view on the proposed amalgamation. There has been both vocal support for, and opposition to, the idea of amalgamation. As a generalisation, members who support amalgamation are persuaded by the argument that bigger unions may be more effective at advancing the cause of members, and a combined ASTE-AUS-TIASA membership would make for a much larger union.
In general, those who oppose amalgamation do so because they do not believe that AUS members will receive the same level of representation as they currently enjoy, both in terms of representing university staff to external organisations, and in representing sector groups within the union. For example, regarding the present proposal, concern has been expressed at the loss of the national staff sector Vice-Presidents. They are also concerns that the strongly democratic culture of the AUS and level of participation commensurate with this culture, based as it is only seven sites, would be undermined in a much larger organisation.
In addition, we have received the following from our members.
- Would the current proposal lead to a reduction of the number of university staff appointed to university Council?
- Would the current proposal reduce branch representation on the National Council?
- There are representation issues related to the proposed composition of council, and the voting power at conference. AUS Canterbury Branch advocates a position that, at least at the initial stages, has representation of the various sectors in proportion to their membership. Members were generally opposed to any reduction in representation on either of these national bodies.
There is also a large proportion of the membership who are either indifferent to the amalgamation or are not engaged in the current debate. One could speculate as to why this is (don’t care either way, too busy dealing with reviews of their departments, think it’s a fait accompli and so on…) but what is clear is that any amalgamated union needs the support of the majority of its members to be successful and unified. We will be doing our best between now and the vote to ensure that no members at Canterbury are caught by surprise by this issue.
Given this, we recommend that serious consideration be given to the threshold required to pass this proposal. Currently 65% of those who vote in a national poll will be enough to pass the proposal. The proportions who do vote are assumed to be representative of those who do not. AUS Canterbury Branch recommends that there should be a set threshold turnout for validation of the ballot (e.g. 50% + 1 turnout) in addition to the 65% majority to carry the proposal. This is a constitutional matter and should be treated with the gravitas it deserves.
As much of the debate both here and at other campuses centres on whether to amalgamate or not, AUS Canterbury Branch recommends the ballot questions be amended to reflect this. We favour these options for the ballot:
- Do you support amalgamation on the basis of the proposal distributed to members in August 2007?
- Do you support amalgamation but NOT on the basis of the proposal distributed to members in August 2007.
- Do you oppose amalgamation and would not support any proposal to do so.
AUS Canterbury branch committee, wishes to see university staff continue to feel connected to their union and have a strong union which voices the concerns of university staff. We believe these recommendations will help ensure that if amalgamation goes ahead, it does so with the support of the majority of its membership.
Submitted on behalf of the AUS Canterbury Branch.
Read More...
Summary only...
Letter from Dr Andy Pratt, Prof. Leon Phillips, and Prof. Bryce Williamson to Professor Ian Shaw, Pro-VC, College of Science, U of C.
Dear Ian,
In the context of the ongoing financial crisis in the majority of the colleges at UC, and of the related College of Science frugality review, we are deeply concerned about the email that the Vice-Chancellor sent on Thursday regarding the purchase of a Blue Gene Supercomputer. We think that our concerns are relevant for the College of Science review and for wider issues of governance at the University.
- Firstly, a major justification for the purchase appeared to be that the acquisition of this machine somehow puts us in the same rank as top-level international universities such as Harvard and MIT. It does not: investment in academics and academic programmes is what distinguishes such top-level universities and we are being made manifestly aware that UC is not in a fiscal position to carry that out at even a basic level.
- Secondly, such a major infrastructural investment has been made with little consultation with the wider University community. As members of a university department that is touted in press reports as a possible end-user, we have no knowledge of any such consultation. Furthermore, it is clear that there are insufficient resources in Chemistry to fund the software licences that would be required for us to use the facility. What is the rationale for providing state-of-the-art computing facilities at a University without any effort to balance such provision against competing demands and when the resident academic programmes are too impoverished to make use of them?
- Thirdly, it is stated that this acquisition will not impact on other expenditure, but that is at least disingenuous. This purchase reflects a clear priority for expenditure. The contribution margin, which threatens to cripple the ability of the College of Science to carry out delivery of our core responsibilities, evidently is non-negotiable but the strategic financial reserves that are being built on this excessive taxation are available for the purchase of a specialized multi-million dollar computer.
At a time when the University had ample funds to resource its core teaching and research we would be delighted at the acquisition of such state-of-the-art technology. Against the present backdrop of financial strife for all of us who are actually delivering the core outputs of the university, the purchase of such an managerial status symbol sends yet another signal that the SMT have lost touch with the core business of the university.
How can we possibly be expected to agree to the cutting of core College of Science personnel and programmes to the bone in the face of this gratuitous excess?
Read More...
Summary only...
Email from Nigel Haworth:
I have been enjoying the exchanges in the Canterbury blog. As many of you will know, I believe that the amalgamation decision should involve the widest possible participation of AUS members. The Canterbury blog is an excellent opportunity for that participation.
I must, however, respond to David Wiltshire, with whom I had a pleasant and courteous discussion when I was last in Canterbury. Subsequent to that discussion, David wrote in the blog:
'For me, however, the telling point came in the conversation with Nigel afterwards, when having given lip service to the values of a university in terms of research and the critic of society, he talked about the actual arguments that he had to use in face-to-face meetings with Michael Cullen. There was a moment of recognition when Nigel realised that he himself had come to adopt exactly the thinking of the line-managers that I was criticising. He himself was no longer representing the values that I take define a university, if a university wants to remain a good university for 800 years. If an academic, who has been too long involved in the cut-and-thrust of the tactics of union politics, himself ceases to instinctively represent university culture, how can I expect a union leader to whom this culture is alien to represent me? I cannot bring myself to swallow that pill.'
I am surprised at this interpretation of our conversation. I'm not inclined to provide an account of my last thirty years as an active academic and unionist, in which, contrary to David's suggestion, I have adhered to the 'critic and conscience' model, whilst opposing the corporatisation of our institutions. Nor will I respond in detail to the interesting suggestion that it is activity in the union, which undermines adherence to a 'university culture'. I will say that, on the contrary, one of the delights of being the AUS President is the opportunity to meet the extraordinary staff, academic and general, who make up our union and sustain our institutions, and who so obviously value that university culture.
However, members must understand the arguments that are used in the national tripartite discussion, for, if David's interpretation is accepted, they are at odds with that university culture. Let me be clear. The arguments taken into the tripartite discussion, and elsewhere, are fundamentally and consistently based on the need for a properly funded, high quality, research-based university sector, which precisely values academic freedom and the critic and conscience role. At no stage has that ground ever been ceded in any negotiation and discussion led by the AUS.
Equally, any government putting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into universities will, quite legitimately, ask what New Zealand receives in return for that, or increased, expenditure. This means, for me, that the AUS has to take seriously issues of performance and quality, which are also important for the Minister. These are important issues for discussion, within and outwith the AUS. I argue that AUS members want to work in a high quality university system. Moreover, we, AUS members, have excellent insight into what a quality system might look like in New Zealand. It is because we have such insight that we can, for example, make professional and sensible criticisms of the PBRF. What I said to David, and continue to believe, is that issues of performance and quality are vital issues for the sector, are on the Minister's agenda, and are on the AUS agenda, too. This is a debate in which we have to engage. To do so, however, in no way rejects the critic and conscience role of universities or their responsibility to conduct research free from political intervention or vetting. And to engage in this debate does not lead to the adoption of a 'line manager' mentality.
I look forward to reading the Canterbury blog over the coming weeks
Best wishes
Nigel Haworth
Read More...
Summary only...
Email from Leon Phillips in response to the AUS submission:
Dear Jack -
The AUS submission needs to go straight back to the drawing board because the projected $2M shortfall in the College of Science budget is not a cumulative amount that reaches $2M in a couple of years, it is an annual amount that will be cut from the College budget every year from a couple of years hence.
The College finances have almost no room for slack right now, so this is a much more serious matter than you appear to realise. Think of it in terms of about 20 full-professor's salaries.
Once you have got that point straight in your mind, I think you need to undertake a serious effort to get the VC to reconsider the planned increase.
In my opinion that might be best achieved by causing a public outrage sufficient to make Council issue a cease-and-desist order.
The managerial decision to purchase a supercomputer without any academic case being made is a particularly sickening piece of bad timing that might usefully be exploited by AUS.
Cheers
Leon
Read More...
Summary only...
