Advocate March 2010

Advocate Journal of the National Tertiary Education Union

ISSN 1321–8476

Volume 17, Number 1, March 2010

Representing Employees in Higher Education, TAFE, Adult Education, RACGP, Research Institutes and Universit y Companies

Bargaining gets serious  Latest State of Play p.12  UWS Grinch fails to steal Xmas p.22

Strategic Directions at USyd p.11

A world without lecturers? p. 28

Querying education export earnings p.24  HASS reviewed p.26  Human Rights Act p.27  Finnish reform p.30

Challenge us to find you a better deal.

Union Shopper is all about ensuring members receive great value for money on whatever you are looking to buy.

At no cost to you, we help save time and money, without the hassles and headache.

Be part of the savings and make the most of this valuable money saving service.

Before you make another purchase, remember Union Shopper and challenge us to find you a better deal.

Participating brands include:

Big Savings for Union Members

www.discountnewcars.com.au/unions ACTU Member Connect in association with Discount New Cars have put together a package for union members that will give you tremendous benefits in cost savings when it comes to purchasing a new motor vehicle - in fact over and above what Discount New Cars currently offer to the general public.

Discount New Cars Union Member Service is a unique car buying service, offering discounted prices on most popular makes and models of new cars for union members. Vehicles are supplied through a select group of accredited union dealers Australia wide.

This Union Specials page is where you will find the best prices available on a selected range of new motor vehicles. The complete range of manufacture vehicles available to union members is found on the left hand side of the page. This exclusive member benefit proudly supports the union movement and is a strong supporter of the Australian Council of Trade Unions.

Advocate is published by National Tertiary Education Union, PO Box 1323, South Melbourne VIC 3205 Australia ISSN 1321-8476 ABN 38 579 396 344 ph: 03 9254 1910 fax: 03 9254 1915 email: national@nteu.org.au

Advocate JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL TERTIARY EDUCATION UNION

VOLUME 17, NUMBER 1, MARCH 2010

Publisher......................................... Grahame McCulloch Editor............................................... Carolyn Allport Production....................................Paul Clifton Editorial Assistance.........................Anastasia Kotaidis Feedback and advertising................. advocate@nteu.org.au All text & images © NTEU 2010 unless otherwise stated.

In accordance with NTEU policy to reduce our impact on the natural environment, this magazine is printed on Behaviour–a 30% recycled stock, manufactured by a PEFC Certified mill, which is ECF Certified Chlorine Free.

Advocate is also available online (e-book and PDF) at www.nteu.org.au/advocate NTEU members may opt for ‘soft delivery’ (email notification rather than printed copy) for all NTEU magazines. Login to the members’ area at www.nteu.org.au to access your membership details.

REGULAR FEATURES

Photo: Kaylene Field SPECIAL FEATURES

FROM THE OFFICERS

On the cover: UWS members Maree Gruppetta and Terry Mason supporting NTEU’s successful ‘Vote No’ campaign (see p. 22).

UNIVERSITY INDEPENDENCE 2

How far will the ‘management of performance’ culture go?

20

Carolyn Allport, National President

4

Research misconduct – protecting research integrity Grahame McCulloch, General Secretary

5

Policy, party politics and unions

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING  21

Ted Murphy, National Assistant Secretary

6

22

9 10 11 12 14 17 18

UQ strike; TAFE single bargaining; New ACTU President Back pay for 24/7 on call; UTAS workloads dramatic increase; Deakin ordered to pay employee made redundant IP appeal rejected; NTEU in gender equity study; Tabor Adelaide signs first NTEU Agreement RMIT unfair dismissal win; ‘My Uni’ website proposed NTEU responds to USyd’s ‘Strategic Directions' Bargaining taking time; Bargaining State of Play tables Bargaining too slow, says FWA NTEU submissions Impact of casualisation on academic activities

EDUCATION  24

Beyond estimation: how much are education exports worth to Australia?

In the latest Australian Universities’ Review, Bob Birrell and T Fred Smith outline how the export earning from overseas students are grossly overestimated.

SUSTAINABILITY  25

The climate change paradox Greg McCarthy explores the many paradoxes of climate change, where science vs politics vs public opinion.

HUMANITIES

INDIGENOUS NEWS

UWS: the Grinch that (tried to) steal Christmas When University of Western Sydney management chose to run a ballot for a new Agreement just two days before Christmas, NTEU sprung into action and recorded a massive victory.

Thanks for listening; UniSuper and tobacco; Gay marriage

UPDATE  7

8

Industrial action gets results Actions were held at 7 universities during December.

CORRESPONDENCE

Accountability and autonomy A new funding and regulatory framework will transform higher education and research, but will it be at a cost of university independence?

19

New Director at Batchelor; Indigenous Forum

26

COLUMNS  32

Take one tablet with coffee...

News from the Net, by Pat Wright

33

HUMAN RIGHTS

Copenhagen a step forward but greater leaps required

27

Top issues for NTEU National Executive candidates Regional Focus, by Jenny Austin

35

INTERNATIONAL  28

UCLA imagines a future without lecturers Bob Samuels says a task force rethinking the structure of the humanities division at the UCLA makes several questionable recommendations.

Ominous budget looms in New Zealand Letter from New Zealand/Aotearoa, by Dr Tom Ryan, TEU

YOUR UNION

Time to rally for an Australian Human Rights Act Susan Ryan says it’s time to voice support for a Human Rights Act.

Lowering the Boom, by Ian Lowe

34

HASS needs to ramp up the lobbying Donna Weeks reports from HASS on the Hill, when the Humanities and Arts meet Parliament.

30

University reform – Finland style Ian Dobson reports on higher education reform in Finland.

36 37  38 40

New staff in the Branches and Divisions NTEU Elections in 2010 National Staff Conference; Vivienne Bryant retires Contacting your Union

31

Snapshot: RIP my PhD

FROM THE OFFICERS

CAROLYN ALLPORT, NATIONAL PRESIDENT

How far will the ‘management of performance’ culture go?

2

009 was a watershed for Australian higher education. As part of the 2009–10 Budget, higher education was allocated an additional $5.7 billion over four years in new programs. These new initiatives represented genuine increases in the order of 15 per cent when compared to forward estimates from 2008. The intention of Government to expand educational opportunities are commendable and are best symbolised by their declared target of increasing the number of 25–34-yearolds holding a Bachelor level qualification to 40 per cent by 2025.

The reform agenda

ernment. Minister Carr said about these accountability measures in March 2009: Before anyone accuses me of having a hidden agenda here, let me lay Underpinning the strong commitment to increased participation the agenda bare. The Government will use any additional funding as has been a raft of new evidence-based program initiatives coming a lever to: from the Bradley Review, the Cutler Report and the report on Build• Drive structural reform within institutions and across the sector. ing Australia’s Research Capacity.

• Increase transparency and accountability.

The scope of this reform agenda is now laid out in two major docu• Ensure that resources are allocated rationally and used efficiently. ments, Transforming Australia’s Higher Education System and Powering • Make universities responsible for their decisions.

Ideas. NTEU anticipates the significance of further engagement on • Improve the way universities manage their estate.

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) and MisThese are precisely the same ends we will expect to achieve sion-Based Compacts throughout the year. through mission-based funding Looking on what has transpired compacts. Compacts will increase so far, no-one can accuse the FedThe centrepiece of the new system will be institutional autonomy and sectoeral Government of not promoting ral diversity. systematic engagement with the the student demand-driven model, which The most recent addition is sector, given that the sector has comes into effect in 2012. This reform Minister Gillard’s announcement been involved directly in the procrepresents an unprecedented shift in the of a ‘My University website’; an ess via stakeholder consultation. way Australian universities undertake instrument intended to provide The reform agenda has included transparency about the performnew funding mechanisms for their work. ance of universities and still to be research, ranging from the Sustaindeveloped by sector consultaable Research Excellence (SRE) protion. The Union and the wider community have strong views about gram to teaching and performance indicators. strengthening the public interest and public good role traditionally NTEU members have been strongly engaged with this broad played by universities. These institutions act as guardians of intellecagenda, providing input and guidance within universities, as well as tual exchange and academic freedom, fostering genuine freedom of being involved in providing formal responses and submissions. inquiry.

We know what the reform agenda is intended to achieve and are Unfortunately, the implementation of the Government’s vast reform beginning to see the possible impacts of these changes for those agenda risks becoming a culture of performance management in working in higher education. The centrepiece of the new system which every aspect of the academic task, along with every aspect of will be the student demand-driven model, which comes into effect the university mission, is categorised, analysed and scrutinised. We in 2012. This reform represents an unprecedented shift in the way know what universities should be. Their special status is not an esoAustralian universities undertake their work. A host of issues remain teric ideal but defined in individual university statutes as well as conabout the unintended consequences upon institutional autonomy tained in the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cwth). Most recently and academic freedom. this was echoed in the UWA vs Gray case which reinforced the notion of universities as independent institutions with obligations to the generation of knowledge in the service of the public good.

As a union, we need to ask ourselves where the ‘management of In contrast, the relationship between universities and government performance’ culture will go. What impact will this have for the integis far clearer. Policy initiatives currently being implemented through rity of Australian universities? If we do not come to terms with this the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (DIISR) issue, amidst the reform process, we may inadvertently lose the very provide a window of insight into the increasing transparency measidea of the ‘university’. ures and systems of accountability between universities and gov-

Us and them

2

NTEU ADVOCATE

FROM THE OFFICERS

CAROLYN ALLPORT, NATIONAL PRESIDENT

Phasing of Budget initiatives Left: The Phasing of Budget Initiatives table provides some insight into the scope of overlapping program reforms intended by the Rudd Government at the time of the 2009-10 Budget, and the significance of 2012 as the intended start date for the student demand-driven system.

Note that it does not include all program reforms, for instance, the implementation of ERA and Transparent Costings (TC) as the basis for the allocation of funding through Sustainable Research Excellence (SRE) by the start of 2011.

Other listed reforms are not yet implemented, such as TEQSA and the intended Student Support Income changes.

Source: Transforming Australia’s Higher Education System, Commonwealth of Australia 2009.

Reprinted with permission.

MARCH 2010 www.nteu.org.au

3

FROM THE OFFICERS

GRAHAME Mcculloch, general secretary

Research misconduct – protecting research integrity T

he Union has been engaged in an arm-wrestle with the research funding agencies (NHMRC and ARC) for over two years, about the implementation of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research.

Unlike those who appear before properly constituted tribunals, witnesses before such a public ‘Inquiry’ would have no protection from defamation actions arising from their evidence. Therefore, NTEU would have to advise its members that it would be very unwise to give evidence, as it could lead to further expensive legal action against them as individuals.

Instances of serious research misconduct are rare. However, when However, the silliest aspect of Part B of the Code is that the research results are falsified, or research subjects are harmed, the NHMRC and ARC propose that the External Inquiry happen in addistanding of all researchers can be impugned. The funding and career tion to the Misconduct Investigation/Review Committee which pressures on researchers are well known, and the corporate or instioccurs under the Enterprise Agreements we have negotiated with tutional interests at stake in research outcomes can sometimes mean each University. This would require two inquiries and in some cases that research integrity comes off second best. contradictory findings.

With this in mind, the Code was published in 2007. Part A of the NTEU has been very critical of Code is recommended reading these proposals as bad policy, for all researchers. It sets out basic and as unfair and unworkable. principles of research integrity, and Legal representation would be very Most universities have privately establishes clear responsibilities expensive for employees – a reasonable indicated that they agree with the for institutions and researchers. As ‘defence’ before this tribunal would Union’s critique. The Code is incoma representative of the professional cost between $25,000 and $100,000. patible with our existing Enterprise interests of university staff and Agreements, which have their own other researchers, NTEU welcomed Moreover, whistleblowers – those who comprehensive discipline procethe Code, as it supports all meashave made allegations – would also need dures. Any attempt by a University ures to maintain public confidence legal representation, at a similar price. to implement the Code’s procein Australia’s research effort. dures would be against the law, and the NTEU would take appropriate action to protect its members’ interests.

NTEU has also made it clear that it will not agree to changes to Enterprise Agreements to give effect to the research misconduct procedures set out in the Code and, so far in this round of enterprise barDespite this, there are serious problems with the Code. Part B of the gaining, no university has sought to incorporate the Code’s unwieldy Code sets out procedures for dealing with allegations of research misprocedures into Enterprise Agreements. conduct. Under these procedures, most allegations of research misconduct should be dealt with by a ‘mini-Royal Commission’ called an Independent External Research Misconduct Inquiry, with: • Legal representation of all the parties.

• ‘Counsel assisting’ the Inquiry, as in a Royal Commission/ICAC. NTEU remains willing to negotiate with funding bodies, universities • No members of the Inquiry Panel to be an employee of the instituand other research institutes, on workable procedures to ensure that tion, and all to be appointed by the management. allegations of research misconduct are properly investigated. The • Hearings potentially in public and all findings to be made existing procedures in our Enterprise Agreements, while not perfect, public. provide a fair and workable basis for these discussions.

Legal representation would be very expensive for employees – a However, having outside bodies – even the NHMRC or ARC – dicreasonable ‘defence’ before this tribunal would cost between $25,000 tate the terms of an Agreement negotiated between the Union and and $100,000. Moreover, whistleblowers – those who have made alleeach University, is a practice that should have died with Brendan gations – would also need legal representation, at a similar price. As Nelson’s Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements one University has put it to the Union, ‘Obviously employees would (HEWRRs). have to pay for their own representation’.

At stake is the integrity of our Enterprise Agreements and effective procedures for dealing with allegations of research misconduct.

Research misconduct – a serious issue

Unwieldy and unfair procedures

Unscrambling the mess

4

NTEU ADVOCATE

FROM THE OFFICERS

ted murphy, national assistant secretary

Policy, party politics and unions E

lection years are more interesting than others because of the release of new policies (or the re-release of dressed up old ones) and the pressure-cooker political atmosphere. This election may also have the extra spice of an interesting Coalition policy on paid maternity leave. highlighting the risk to working conditions well before the release of a detailed Coalition industrial relations policy. But this does not alter the fact that Abbott’s parental leave plan is an improvement on the Rudd Government model and warrants union support.

For unions, a federal election year when Labor holds government should be a time for assessment of the Government’s record on issues of particular interest, for lobbying for changes to the Government’s policy where it is deficient, and for independent assertion of key union objectives which are not accommodated by the Government despite the lobbying. Furthermore, regardless of which party is in government, there will be other mainstream parties to the left of Labor, and in rare instances mainstream parties to the right of Labor, that support a policy that better [NTEU] makes representations to reflects union aspirations.

In the lead up to a federal election, the NTEU normally publishes a scorecard of the main parties’ policies and promises. Should Abbott’s plan remain Coalition policy, the NTEU scorecard would have to rank the Coalition ahead of Labor on paid maternity leave given that it proposes six months pay at the normal salary rate of the primary caregiver, capped at salaries up to $150,000.

Even if the plan is dropped, it has highlighted different perspectives in the union movement about how to respond when the Coalition offers a better policy than the ALP.

No party affiliation

The NTEU isn’t affiliated to the ALP. More to the point, given that affiliation occurs at the State and Territory level, no Division of the Union whichever party is in government and is affiliated. The Union makes reprehas worked with and maintained a sentations to whichever party is in good relationship with minor parties government and has worked with The Labor Government’s reaction supportive of our views on higher and maintained a good relationto Abbott’s paid maternity leave education and other matters. ship with minor parties supportive plan was to attack the scheme of our views on higher education as a new tax on business. This and other matters. response may say something The significance of ALP affiliabout the contemporary ALP, but ation for union attitudes and behaviour can be overstated. Many it may also be about opposing a tax when a party, other than your affiliated unions have had very public brawls with State or Federal own, proposes it.

Labor governments over matters ranging from privatisation to the Until the Government releases the Henry Report on taxation and existence and powers of the Australian Building and Constructhe tax transfer system, it is not possible to judge whether Abbott’s tion Commission. Moreover, peak union councils with a significant proposed levy on business would add to the amount of tax paid by number of affiliated unions that are also affiliated to the ALP may large businesses, or slightly limit the gains from a reduction in the differ on particular issues. current corporate tax rate. Whether accurately or otherwise, Henry Abbott’s parental leave scheme has been endorsed by Unions is widely expected to have proposed such a tax cut, along with a NSW as well as the Greens. Yet the ACTU has argued that Abbott’s rationalisation of the tax deductions available for business spendproposal is ‘a dishonest smokescreen for the reintroduction of Working to help pay for it. Abbott has indicated a preference to introduce Choices’, a ‘pie in the sky’ scheme, and that Abbott is an unreconthe maternity leave levy at a time when the corporate tax rate is structed traditionalist seeking to court women voters. The ACTU reduced. also contrasted Abbott’s announcement with his statement in 2002 It remains to be seen if the business reaction to the Abbott plan is that compulsory paid maternity leave would be introduced over the about avoiding an effective tax increase or locking in anticipated dead body of the Howard Government. gains from the Henry Review, and also if Abbott sticks to his plan if Against the background of the WorkChoices period, other recent either Henry’s recommendations, or the Government’s response to statements by Tony Abbott about seeking a mandate for statutory them, are below expectations. non-union contracts and removing the ‘unfair dismissal monkey’ from the back of small business have set the alarm bells ringing in the union movement. In light of these remarks, the ACTU is justifiably

Higher tax or a lower cut?

MARCH 2010 www.nteu.org.au

5

A

CORRESPONDENCE

Correspondence

Have something to say about issues in Australian higher education? Want to comment about something you’ve read in the Advocate? We’re happy to hear from you! Email advocate@nteu.org.au.

Please keep word count to a minimum. Max words = 400

Thanks for listening

Thank you for confirming [my discontuation of union membership].

I look forward to rejoining the Union when I secure a new job. I spoke to about 3 different people from the Union over the last 6 weeks or so. Although my employment position became untenable in the end, I found the Union representatives to be incredibly supportive and helpful.

They were reassuring, good listeners and helped to provide reality checks when things got bad. It was a very stressful time during the last two months of my work and your organisation helped to reduce some of that stress. name and university withheld

I would encourage NTEU members who belong to UniSuper to voice their opposition to the fund’s tobacco investment policy. Further, if UniSuper refuses to change its position, members should consider switching to an industry fund which has a policy to avoid tobacco shares such as the Local Government Superannuation Scheme (LGSS).

Conjoint Associate Professor Raoul Walsh, University of Newcastle

Same-sex marriage, against I concur with the viewpoint put by Lujer Santacruz in the November issue of NTEU Advocate. When did NTEU members as a whole have the opportunity to indicate that they were in favour of same-sex marriage or this campaign?

While I agree strongly that homosexuals should not be discriminated against by way of access to legal rights or transfer of benefits to nominated same-sex partners, I doubt

UniSuper and tobacco investments Most NTEU members would be well aware that smoking remains the major preventable cause of premature death in Australia, and that the tobacco industry has fought long and hard to circumvent controls on its products. Less members would know that UniSuper (advertised in the Advocate, November 2009) maintains a policy which permits investing in the tobacco industry. In recent years, UniSuper has established two socially responsible investment options, however, the fact remains that most of its fund are invested in six other options which do not utilise tobacco share screens.

Recently, we published data showing that most community members (77%) agreed it was unethical for superannuation funds to invest in tobacco, and a majority of fund members (64%) did not want their own funds to invest in this area, even if it was profitable.

Although the sample of UniSuper members in the study was low, the results suggested they were even more strongly opposed to such investments.

6

that the policy of same-sex marriage would be approved as being equivalent to the traditional sense by a majority vote of NTEU members. The issue is bound to be highly divisive and I prefer not to see my NTEU subscription used to support a campaign illogically based on equal rights, given the policy could be unsustainable as its consequences become obvious.

Marriage as the main social institution for raising children is in enough trouble already (e.g. 35,000 state wards currently in Australia) without further diminishing its significance and responsibilities.

The NTEU should stick to bread-and-butter issues such as employment conditions or matters of clear academic or educational principle where it has recently been proving its worth, if it wishes to retain its membership.

Ivan Kennedy University of Sydney NTEU’s response was printed in the previous issue of Advocate. Correspondence on this topic is now considered closed

Professional Academic Editing Service www.eliteediting.com.au Having your thesis, article or book professionally edited will correct and improve your: • • • • •

Grammar, punctuation and spelling Expression, vocabulary and writing style Organisation, structure and flow Clarity and consistency Format, layout and referencing

Submit your document to be edited by one of our professional and experienced editors now!

(All editing conforms to relevant university guidelines)

Contact Dr Lisa Lines: 0402 361 452 Email: info@eliteediting.com.au Web: www.eliteediting.com.au

NTEU ADVOCATE

UPDATE QUEENSLAND

NATIONAL

ANF Sec. to be next ACTU President

A Photo by Ross Gwyther

ustralian Nurses Federation (ANF) Secretary Ged Kearney has been endorsed as the next President of the ACTU.

Braving the rain to send a message to UQ management

Single bargaining for TAFE

D

A

ue to a lack of progress and an insufficient pay offer, NTEU members at the University of Queensland took action in the first week of semester, Wednesday 3 March. Despite the heavy rain, members were out distributing leaflets in the lead-up to the strike, and again to form picket lines on the day itself.

There were pickets at the three main entrances and members then congregated outside the Brian Wilson Chancellery to get the message across to the Vice-Chancellor and the Senior Executive.

One member, Paul Henman, read out an email from one of his students which said ‘Good luck to you Paul Henman and all the other NTEU Members. Your cause is well worth striking for, and I look forward to meeting you and the teaching team next week.’

Some members had donated their translation services in order to get the message across to some of the hundreds of international students studying English as a Second Language at UQ. There has never been any doubt that NTEU members are tough, but they are amphibious in Queensland! A Michael McNally, Branch Organiser, UQ MARCH 2010 www.nteu.org.au

VICTORIA

t the Victorian TAFE Branch meeting held on 5 March, delegates endorsed a campaign to pursue a single Agreement for PACCT employees across Victoria.

The Agreement would be similar to the Victorian TAFE teachers’ single Agreement.

In the last bargaining round, the then Education Minister, Jacinta Allen, refused to treat PACCT staff the same as their teacher colleagues within TAFE. Victoria now has a new Minister for Education, Bronwyn Pyke. The TAFE branch will commence its campaign for a single Agreement by opening up discussions with Ms Pike shortly.

During the first week of May, TAFE sub-branches will celebrate the work of PACCT employees by holding barbecues, morning teas and lunches across all TAFEs in Victoria.

Victorian TAFE Agreements expire in February 2011. TAFE sub-branches will start holding log of claims meetings around July, August and September this year. A Angela Barnes, TAFE Branch President

Current ACTU President Sharan Burrow has indicated that she will nominate for the position of General Secretary of the Brussels-based International Trade Union Confederation this year. Ms Kearney was endorsed as the preferred candidate if the ACTU President’s position becomes vacant as a result.

‘I am truly honoured and very grateful to have been nominated by my union colleagues to take over from Sharan, if the position becomes vacant,’ Ms Kearney said.

‘Sharan has done an extraordinary job for the ACTU. This is such an important position, with the ACTU representing the rights of over two million Australian workers.’

Ms Kearney is a registered nurse, with more than 15 years experience in general surgery and clinical education. She has been part of the ANF’s leadership team for the past six years. The ANF represents over 170,000 nurses, midwives and assistants in nursing, in the public and private health sectors.

‘I look forward to the opportunity of working with all ACTU affiliates, the small and big unions, to develop innovative campaigns to grow the union movement and also work with the wider Australian community on issues which affect the lives of workers and their families,’ Ms Kearney explained.

‘We need to focus our energy on campaigning for social change. A crucial part of this will be around the federal election, due during 2010.’ A

7

UPDATE VICTORIA

VICTORIA

Member wins back pay for 24/7 on call

I

n a major victory, NTEU has won a claim in the Victorian Magistrates Court for $91,000 in back pay and interest for a member at RMIT University.

Nigel Phelan (pictured), a security technical officer was responsible for responding to breakdowns in equipment and was required to be on standby 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, even during his annual leave.

The University was not paying the on-call allowance to which he was entitled.

NTEU raised the matter with RMIT and attempted to settle it directly through discussions and negotiations. When all attempts failed, and the University told the Union to take the matter to Court, we filed a claim in the Melbourne Magistrates Court.

The Court found that the employee was entitled to an on-call allowance and

RMIT was guilty of failing to pay that allowance for over two-and-a-half years. RMIT was fined $13,000 and ordered to pay to Nigel $91,000 in back pay and interest.

NTEU hopes this will be a lesson to all employers to comply with their obligations or be more conciliatory in resolving disputed matters rather than wasting time and money in the Courts defending unlawful actions. A Sam Maynard, Branch Organiser, RMIT University

TASMANIA

NTEU protests dramatic increase in workloads at UTAS Faculty of Education

N

TEU has called on University of Tasmania (UTAS) to adequately fund the Faculty of Education, where staff have been told that their workloads will dramatically increase this year because of a funding shortfall of $2 million.

Tutorials will balloon from the accepted class size (in the current workload allocation) of 25 students to over 30 students, and in some cases over 40 students. Many smaller classes offered at different times have been compressed into one, and online learning classes have also swelled.

NTEU is concerned that the quality of education for the State’s teachers in training will suffer because of the increased class sizes.

The current financial situation at UTAS is very positive; it is better off than most other Australian universities. NTEU says the funds generated are not reaching students because of the way senior management is structuring the Faculty’s budget.

NTEU Tasmanian Division President, Dr Kelvin Michael said, ‘This is nothing more 8

than creative accounting by university senior management, there is no doubt that they have the financial capacity to ensure that all the class sizes remain at the recommended level of 25 students per tutorial’.

‘The NTEU finds it disturbing that UTAS senior management are punishing staff with increased work loads and reducing the quality of education for students by imposing larger class sizes’, said Rob Binnie, NTEU Industrial Officer. The Union is calling on UTAS senior management to urgently review the way it funds faculties at the University.

On all available data, NTEU estimates that for every dollar raised in teaching revenue by the Faculty of Education, only 45 cents is returned to the Faculty. Enrolments at the

Deakin forced to apologise and pay compensation for wrong redundancy

D

eakin University has been ordered to make a written apology and pay $30,000 in compensation to an employee because of breaches of the Enterprise Agreement.

The employee was made redundant after refusing to accept an administrative relocation or voluntary retrenchment to resolve issues regarding allegations of bullying. Fair Work Australia (FWA) found the University had failed to apply the provisions relating to disciplinary action and organisational change.

NTEU was not involved in the case but the findings are important in indicating how FWA is willing to use their additional powers to deal seriously with employers who do not comply with the requirements of Agreements.

Not surprisingly, the University is appealing the decision and the Union will be seeking to intervene to support the original decision. A

Faculty of Education have exceeded their target this year.

NTEU Education members met in early March and have embarked on a campaign to get the class sizes back to an acceptable level. The Union is circulating a petition for students to sign and the local paper, The Examiner, has written a scathing editorial about tutorial sizes at UTAS. The community campaign continues with letters to the editor and an open letter to the Dean. A Rob Binnie, Industrial Officer, NTEU Tasmanian Division NTEU ADVOCATE

UPDATE WESTERN AUSTRALIA

High Court appeal rejected in UWA vs Gray intellectual property case

T

he High Court of Australia has refused the special leave application made by the University of Western Australia (UWA) in response to the decision handed down by the Full Federal Court in September 2009.

In making its decision to reject UWA’s special leave application, the High Court established that the questions of law raised by UWA were not sufficiently substantive to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal.

As indicated in November 2009 issue of Advocate, the Full Federal Court decision found that the duty of academic staff to research did not also imply a duty to invent.

The substantive legal implication, however, is that universities and third-party commercial entities should not rely upon implied

legal terms to acquire the intellectual property produced by academic staff.

In the wake of the High Court decision, universities are likely to review how they acquire the rights to intellectual property developed by their academic staff.

This may be expressed through modifications in the contractual obligations of academics, either through the implementation of deed polls for specific instances of IP acquisition, or attempts to modify the basic academic employment contract itself. A

NATIONAL

NTEU part of ARC Linkage grant researching gender equity in universities

N

TEU is one of three industry partners on an ARC linkage grant awarded to a research team from Griffith University and University of Queensland. The project, which will be led by Professor Glenda Strachan (pictured, below), is entitled ‘Gender and Employment Equity: Strategies for Advancement in Australian Universities’, and will run over three years.

The broad goals of the research are to understand the ongoing impediments to gender equity in employment in the university sector, focussing in particular on the emergence of the entrepreneurial university and related changes over the past decade.

Using the research outcomes, the work will be used to propose ways to advance gender equity and thus to ensure Australia’s future university workforce is based on sustainable equitable practises. The

MARCH 2010 www.nteu.org.au

research will centre on three key areas for women: senior women, classifications and career paths for general/professional staff, and casual teaching and research only staff.

The research team are: Professor Glenda Strachan (Griffith University), Associate Professor Gillian Whitehouse (University of Queensland), Professor David Peetz, Dr Janis Bailey and Dr Kaye Broadbent (Griffith University).

NTEU Industrial Officer, Robyn May has been awarded an APAI scholarship on the ARC project to undertake a PhD focussing on casual teaching and research staff, and the impact these types of employment have on gender equity. A

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

First NTEU Agreement at Tabor Adelaide

N

TEU has been working with our new members at Tabor Adelaide to provide support and advice as the Academic staff enter into their first Collective Agreement under the Fair Work Act. Tabor Adelaide staff and management work on a collaborative basis and the negotiation period is expected to be relatively short.

Late in 2009, staff at Tabor Adelaide approached the NTEU for industrial advice in relation to a new Collective Agreement proposal from Tabor management.

NTEU was invited to a meeting to introduce the Union to staff. This meeting was very well attended and received

by Tabor staff. As a result, NTEU membership at Tabor Adelaide has increased dramatically over the past few months.

It is anticipated that the Agreement reached will be of benefit to both staff and management in light of the industrial legislation. NTEU would like to thank new members and management at Tabor Adelaide for their generosity of spirit and cooperative approach to these negotiations and look forward to strengthening our relationship in the future. A Bernadette Finnerty, Branch Organiser, NTEU University of Adelaide Branch

9

UPDATE VICTORIA

NTEU member has unfair dismissal win confirmed by Fair Work Australia

R

MIT University has lost an appeal against a successful unfair dismissal claim made by an NTEU member, Dr Geoff Asher.

Dr Asher initially won his claim for unfair dismissal after having his employment terminated by RMIT on the alleged grounds that his actions constituted serious misconduct.

Under the Enterprise Agreement, termination of employment of an employee may only occur in accordance with the Agreement and for behaviour that fits the Agreement’s definition of ‘serious misconduct’.

The University appealed the original Commissioner’s decision, which included a remedy providing full back-pay and reinstatement.

NATIONAL

Government announces plan for ‘My University’ website

D

eputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard has announced the Government’s intention to launch a ‘My University’ website. The site will be launched by January 2012 and will contain a set of yet to be determined performance indicators for all universities.

‘My Higher Education Provider’ The Union also understands that the proposed website is to include private higher education providers, of which there are approximately 160. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) will be given the responsibility for implementing the new website. To reflect the terminology used in the Higher Education Support Act 2003, NTEU would argue that a more appropriate name for the website would be ‘My Higher Education Provider’ or ‘My HEP’ website.

‘My University’ was no doubt inspired by the positive public feedback following the launch of the ‘My School’ website. However, like the ‘My School’ website, there is difficulty in designing the website to ensure that data is presented in a way that compares like with like.

This will be even more problematic in respect of universities than for schools because it is an explicit objective of government policy to increase the degree of diversity between universities.

10

The full bench of Fair Work Australia upheld RMIT’s right to appeal, although on different grounds to what the University had built their application around. The full bench’s decision reiterates much of the original decision that shows the considerable mishandling by RMIT throughout this matter.

The Head of Department, the financial personnel and the supervisor were found to bear some responsibility by not warning, counselling or advising of the appropriate procedures relevant to the project Dr Asher was directing. When irregularities were found in the project, rather than seeking an explanation from Dr Asher, a secret internal audit and investigation was undertaken – a fact that was only discovered when an unauthorised file on Dr Asher was inadvertently delivered to him.

A box of account statements, receipts and invoices provided by Dr Asher to RMIT was mislaid by RMIT for 18 months. The University commenced disciplinary proceedings more than four years after the alleged events had occurred.

This decision includes considerations on the meaning and use of ‘misconduct’ concepts and obligations of the employer to provide counselling and warnings of the standards expected from an employee. It may be accessed via www.fwa.gov.au. A Gia Underwood, Industrial Organiser, NTEU Victorian Division

To be meaningful, the information must be presented in such a way that it acknowledges the diversity of missions and objectives of different universities and other providers.

Unlike that for schools, we are not anticipating that the Government will announce a formal national curriculum for higher education.

Providing the full picture To reflect the same intention as for the ‘My School’ website, the new website must also include data on the public and private resources available to universities and other providers to deliver high quality education and, in the case of universities, also their research and community service obligations.

This should include data on real average public funding per government supported student, student staff ratios, the proportion of teaching staff who are employed as casuals, the proportion of disadvantaged students and resources devoted to student support services. Workforce development is also a critical issue that must be addressed in concert with the introduction of this new website.

Therefore, while the NTEU supports the objective of providing students and parents with more transparent information about higher education providers, to make it meaningful, it will be critical that the information is presented in its proper context. In particular, it must reflect the diversity of missions and resourcing levels across the higher education sector. A Paul Kniest, Policy & Research Coordinator

NTEU ADVOCATE

UPDATE NEW SOUTH WALES

NTEU responds to USyd Strategic Directions

E

arly In March, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sydney, Michael Spence, released ‘Strategic Directions’, a ‘Green Paper’ on a university-wide restructure detailing a major review of the University’s policies and structure.

This Paper had been foreshadowed for at least six months, and late in 2009 an email was sent to all staff by the Vice-Chancellor outlining the six main points that would underpin it.

After the NTEU University of Sydney Branch received this email, we started to discuss a pre-emptive response to the Green Paper that would foreground staff concerns.

We had not been part of consultations on the documents’ formulation nor had we seen early drafts. As far as we know only the 16 Faculty Deans and the Senior Executive Group of the University had been active participants in shaping the paper. Thus one of our central planks was to highlight the top down nature of the delivery of the Green Paper, and the inevitable restructure, by detailing an alternative NTEU interpretation of the key principles that should guide the University’s strategic direction.

We wrote in NTEU University of Sydney Strategic Directions Discussion Paper that the University is a community of staff and students and we looked forward to ‘participating in discussions about making our University an even better place for both students and employees’. We suggested that four principles should guide any long-term vision for the University of Sydney: • Investment in staff and staff development • Academic freedom • Quality education • Engagement of staff in decision-making.

The remainder of our paper provided staff-focussed responses to the VC’s six ideas and included issues of: staff-to-student ratios, casualisation, workforce development, space, increased role of the Academic Board in university governance, social inclusion, and a commitment to curiosity driven research. Suggestions for new policy directions and evidence were drawn directly from the University of Sydney’s own data and reports, and supplemented by recent reports by Universities Australia and the LH Martin Institute.

A working party of seven active members, as well as the Branch President and staff, cooperated on writing the document MARCH 2010 www.nteu.org.au

that was released at a Branch meeting on Tuesday 2 March, attended by National President, Carolyn Allport and emailed to all members. The meeting was well attended and subsequent contact from members has highlighted further issues for concern- such as the deterioration of University resources such as buildings and the library, and a real fear of job cuts.

Towards the White Paper The Branch will continue to work on a response to the Green Paper and mobilise members to be involved in the consultation period that lasts until April 19 before a final restructure blueprint – called in common bureaucratic-speak a ‘White Paper’ – is released in June.

The Green Paper is over 100 pages long, with supplementary appendices containing basic data. The report argues that both the external context – policy change such as the Bradley Report and Federal Government Compacts – and the internal context – ‘silos’, physical infrastructure and the financial situation – necessitate a University restructure.

We are particularly concerned about job loses; and, amid management claims of ‘administrative duplication’, the effect restructuring will have on general staff. Individuals – staff, students and alumni – can make a response through an online feedback form where they must include their name and email address.

The website states that ‘collective responses from groups who can identify a common purpose, whether schools or departments, administrative teams or disciplines’ can email their responses in. There is no discussion either on the website or in the Green Paper of how responses given in this feedback stage will be analysed and/or integrated into the White Paper. A Ariadne Vromen, University of Sydney Pictured: National President, Carolyn Allport (above) and USyd Branch President, Michael Thomson (below).

11

UPDATE

University bargaining: the State of Play Status Approval Date by National Executive Expiry Date Guaranteed salary increase Increase compounded Annual wage growth (expiry to expiry) Annual wage growth (payrise to payrise)

SYDNEY

ECU Academic

ECU General

FINALISED AGREEMENTS LA TROBE

CANBERRA

MONASH

BALLARAT

Approved by FWA

Approved by FWA

Approved by FWA

Approved by FWA

Approved by FWA

Approved by FWA

Approved by FWA

22-Sep-09 May-12 17% 18.3% 5.1% 5.5%

30-Sep-09 30-Jun-12 17% 18.3% 4.7% 4.1%

30-Sep-09 30-Jun-12 17% 18.3% 4.7% 4.1%

20-Oct-09 30-Jun-12 16% 17% 4.2% 4.3%

4-Nov-09 30-Jun-12 16% 1 17% 4.3% 4.1%

21-Nov-09 30-Jun-12 16.5% 17.7% 4.2%

3-Dec-09 30-Jun-12 21%2

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔

✔ n/a n/a n/a

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔

✔

n/a

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔ ✔

✔ ✔

✔ ✔

✔ ✔

✔ ✔

✔ ✔

✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ n/a

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 2. Incl 2007 catch up

4.4%

21.1%2 4.8% 4.7%

HEWRRs RESTORATION

HECE fixed term limits Discipline & termination Job security/managing change Union rights CASUALS

25% loading Pay for marking Limits on casual numbers More secure jobs ACADEMIC WORKLOADS

Quantifiable and effective regulation INDIGENOUS EMPLOYMENT

Strategy & targets Monitoring Committee OTHER CLAIMS

Superannuation Dispute resolution Intellectual freedom General staff classifications NOTES SPECIAL FEATURES

INDUSTRIAL ACTION

• Research contract staff provisions.

•• New research continuing category of • employment

• Single Agreement for Academic, General and ELT staff.

•• Unit & course coordination allowances • Academic casuals working party

• Protected action ballot (April 09)

• Protected action ballot (May 09)

• Improved General Staff classification

✔ Claim achieved

Bargaining taking time, but getting there

12

• Protected action ballot (May 09)

✖ Claim rejected or stalled ? Claim under serious negotiation ✔? Claim largely settled with some detail in dispute

NATIONAL

n Agreements reached to date in the current round of bargaining in higher education, NTEU has achieved successful outcomes in all our key claims:

• Salary increases of 16% or above.

• Job security.

• Quantifiable workloads.

• Protected action ballot (Sept 09)

• Strike (21 May 09)

• Protected action ballot (Aug 09)

I

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 1. Extra 4% conditional

• Restoring the limitations on fixed-term employment.

• Improvements in pay and conditions

for casuals, especially separate pay for marking.

• Restoring Union nominees on university committees.

• Indigenous employment strategy and targets for Indigenous employment.

Bargaining has finished at Sydney, Canberra, Central Queensland University, La Trobe, Monash, Edith Cowan, Swinburne and RMIT. All Agreements are for three years with an expiry date of June 2012.

NTEU ADVOCATE

UPDATE

University bargaining: the State of Play SWINBURNE

Status Approval Date by National Executive Expiry Date Guaranteed salary increase Increase compounded Annual wage growth (expiry to expiry) Annual wage growth (payrise to payrise)

RMIT

FINALISED AGREEMENTS CQU

Awaiting FWA approval Awaiting FWA approval Awaiting FWA approval

UWS General

UNE General

Approved by FWA

Approved by FWA

Not approved by NTEU Not approved by NTEU 28-Oct-12 31-Dec-12 16% 18% 17% 19.2% 4.8% 4.7%

HEADS OF AGREEMENT DEAKIN JCU Heads of Agreement

Heads of Agreement

30-Jun-12 16% 17% 4.9%

30-Jun-12 16% 17.1% 4%

3-Dec-09 30-Jun-12 16% 17.1% 4.5% 4.9%

21-Dec-09 30-Jun-12 16.5% 17.7% 4.4% 4.4%

24-Feb-10 30-Jun-12 16% 17% 4.3% 4.1%

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✖ ✖ ✖ ✔

✔?

✔?

✔ ✔? ✔

✔? ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ n/a n/a n/a

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✖

✔

✔

✔

n/a

✔?

?

✔ ✔

✔ ✔

✔ ✔

✔ ✔

✔ ✔

? ?

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔?

✔ ✖ ✔ ✔

4.7%

HEWRRs RESTORATION

HECE fixed term limits Discipline & termination Job security/managing change Union rights

?

CASUALS

25% loading Pay for marking Limits on casual numbers More secure jobs ACADEMIC WORKLOADS

Quantifiable and effective regulation INDIGENOUS EMPLOYMENT

Strategy & targets Monitoring Committee OTHER CLAIMS

Superannuation Dispute resolution Intellectual freedom General staff classifications NOTES SPECIAL FEATURES

INDUSTRIAL ACTION

• Assessment of Agreement not yet available • Protected action ballot (May 09) • Strike (21 May 09) • 4 hour stop work (24 Aug 09) • Strike (16 Sept 09) • Bans on results (Dec 09) • All bans enabled

• Protected action ballot (May 09) • Strike (21 May 09)

✔ Claim achieved

• Protected action ballot (Sept 09)

• Strike (16 Sept 09)

• All bans enabled

• Protected action ballot (Sept 09)

• Protected action ballot (May 09) • Strike (21 May 09)

• All bans enabled

✖ Claim rejected or stalled ? Claim under serious negotiation ✔? Claim largely settled with some detail in dispute

At Deakin University and James Cook University, Agreements are close to being completed within the next two months.

Protected industrial action in the form of end-of-year exam results bans resulted in moving bargaining forward and led to a settlement at RMIT and a memorandum of understanding at Curtin University. Industrial action at other universities also progressed bargaining forward in December 2009 (see article, p. 21).

MARCH 2010 www.nteu.org.au

• Protected action ballot (Sept 09)

• Joint union-managment review of trimester system

Bargaining has recommenced at ANU, University of Western Australia, Victoria University, Charles Darwin University and University of Ballarat where one-year Agreements expiring at the end of 2009.

Bargaining is proving most difficult at Murdoch University, University of South Australia, University of Adelaide, University of New South Wales, University of Melbourne, University of Tasmania and University of Queensland. Further signifi-

cant industrial action may be required at these campuses to progress to completion by mid-year.

It is clear that many universities want to cling to the culture of the Howard era which resulted in the loss of some important conditions during the last round of bargaining. The Union’s claim to restore those lost conditions is resisted by many who want to retain maximum flexibility and a reduced role for the Union. A

13

UPDATE

University bargaining: the State of Play UWS Academic

QUT

CURTIN Academic

NEGOTIATIONS CONTINUING CURTIN General MURDOCH Academic MURDOCH General

Under negotiation

Under negotiation

Under negotiation

Under negotiation

Under negotiation

Under negotiation

Under Negotation

30-Jun-12 18% 19.2% 5.5% 4.7%

31-Dec-12 ?

18% 19.3% 4.2% ?

4.7% ?

30-Jun-12 18% 19.3% 4.6% 4.5%

30-Jun-12 18% 19.3% 5.4% 4.5%

30-Jun-12 17%–25%3

30-Jun-12 17%–25%4

16.5%5

4.3%–6.3%3 4.3%–6.3%3

4.3%–6.3%4 4.3%–6.3%4

17.6% 4.1% 3.8%

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔?

✔? ✔ ✔ ✔?

? ?

? ?

✔

✔

?

✔? ✔ ✔ ✔?

?

?

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✖ ✖ ✖

✔ ✔ ✔? ✔

✔ n/a n/a n/a

✔ ✔

? ?

✔ n/a n/a n/a

✔ ✔ ✔? ✔?

✔?

✔

✔

n/a

✔

n/a

✔

✔ ✔

✔ ✔

✔ ✔?

✔? ✖

✔ ✔

✔ ✔

✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ n/a

✔

✔? ✔ ✔? n/a

✔? ✔ ✔? ✔?

? ?

? ?

CLOSE TO SETTLEMENT

Status Approval Date by National Executive Expiry Date Guaranteed salary increase Increase compounded Annual wage growth (expiry to expiry) Annual wage growth (payrise to payrise)

ANU

HEWRRs RESTORATION

HECE fixed term limits Discipline & termination Job security/managing change Union rights

? ✔

CASUALS

25% loading Pay for marking Limits on casual numbers More secure jobs ACADEMIC WORKLOADS

Quantifiable and effective regulation INDIGENOUS EMPLOYMENT

Strategy & targets Monitoring Committee OTHER CLAIMS

Superannuation Dispute resolution Intellectual freedom General staff classifications

? ✔ ✔

NOTES

✔ n/a 3. Depending on classification

✔ ✔ 4. Depending on classification

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 5. Plus average 1% step scale in original 2009 1yr Agreement, expired in Dec 09 • Access to facilities for casuals

SPECIAL FEATURES

• New salary entry point for casual PhD holders • Biennial increments

INDUSTRIAL ACTION

• Protected action ballot (Sept 09)

• Protected action ballot (Sept 09)

• Protected action ballot (Sept 09)

• Protected action ballot (Sept 09)

• Protected action ballot (Sept 09)

• Protected action ballot (Sept 09)

• Strike (16 Sept 09)

• Strike (16 Sept 09)

• Strike (16 Sept 09)

• Strike (16 Sept 09)

• Strike (16 Sept 09)

• Strike (16 Sept 09)

• All bans enabled

• Bans enabled

• Bans on results in (Dec 09)

• Bans on results in (Dec 09)

• Bans on results in (Dec 09)

• All bans enabled

• All bans enabled

• All bans enabled

• Non-union ballot defeated 23 Dec 09 by 67% majority

✖ Claim rejected or stalled ? Claim under serious negotiation ✔? Claim largely settled with some detail in dispute

Photo Atosha McCaw

✔ Claim achieved

14

NTEU ADVOCATE

UPDATE

University bargaining: the State of Play Status Approval Date by National Executive Expiry Date Guaranteed salary increase Increase compounded Annual wage growth (expiry to expiry) Annual wage growth (payrise to payrise)

NEGOTIATIONS CONTINUING UQ

MELBOURNE

UNE Academic

GRIFFITH

CSU

USQ

FLINDERS

Under negotiation

Under negotiation

Under negotiation

Under negotiation

Under negotiation

Under negotiation

Under Negotation

30-Jun-12 16% 17.2% 4.5% 4%

Oct-12?

16% 17% 4.1%?

4.3%?

31-Dec-12?

16% 17% 4.3%?

4.3%?

31-Dec-12?

16% 17.1% 3.7%?

3.8%

14-Sep-12?

16% 17.1% 4.3%?

4.3%?

31-Dec-12 16% 17% 4.2% 3.7%

30-Jun-12 14.3% 15.1% 3.8% 3.8%

✔

✔

✔? ✔? ✔? ✔?

?

✔

✔? ✔? ✖ ✔?

✔?

? ?

✔? ✔ ✔ ✔?

✔?

? ? ?

✔ ✔?

✔? ✖ ✔?

✔

✔?

?

? ?

✔ ✔

? ?

✔ ✖ ✖ ✖

✔ ✔ ✖ ✖

HEWRRs RESTORATION

HECE fixed term limits Discipline & termination Job security/managing change Union rights CASUALS

25% loading Pay for marking Limits on casual numbers More secure jobs

?

✖ ✔

✔

✔ ✖ ✖ ✖

✔

✖

?

✔

✔

?

✖

? ?

✔ ✔

✔? ✔?

✔?

?

✖ ✔?

✔ ✔

✔? ✔?

?

✔

✔?

?

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

?

✔ ✔ n/a

✔? ✔ ✔?

?

✖ ✖ ✔? ✔?

✔ ✔ ✖

ACADEMIC WORKLOADS

Quantifiable and effective regulation INDIGENOUS EMPLOYMENT

Strategy & targets Monitoring Committee OTHER CLAIMS

Superannuation Dispute resolution Intellectual freedom General staff classifications NOTES SPECIAL FEATURES INDUSTRIAL ACTION

✔ ✔ ✔

?

✔ ✔?

• Protected action ballot (Sept 09)

• Protected action ballot (Sept 09)

• Protected action ballot (Sept 09)

• Protected action ballot (Aug 09)

• Protected action ballot (Sept 09)

• Protected action ballot (Sept 09)

• Strike (21 May 09)

• All bans enabled

• Strike (16 Sept 09)

• Strike (16 Sept 09)

• All bans enabled

• Bans enabled

• Strike (16 Sept 09)

• Bans enabled

• All bans enabled

• All bans enabled

• Bans on results

• Bans on results

• Strike + O-Week action (March 10)

✔ Claim achieved

• Bans on results (Dec 09) • All bans enabled

✖ Claim rejected or stalled ? Claim under serious negotiation ✔? Claim largely settled with some detail in dispute

Bargaining too slow, says FWA air Work Australia has berated the higher education sector for its ‘undesirable’ statistics in bargaining.

During the case brought by the University of South Australia against NTEU’s bans on student results, the Universityimplied that the fact that negotiations at the University had dragged on for 18 months, was nothing out of the ordinary. He said: ‘I can indicate that we have done over a period of almost a decade now an analysis of agreements in the university sector. The average length of time from the expiry date of one agreement to the

MARCH 2010 www.nteu.org.au

?

• Protected action ballot (May 09) • Strike (16 Sept 09)

F

✖

settlement date of the next agreement on average in the sector in Australia is 21 months.’

In his Decision in the case, Senior Deputy President O’Callaghan said of his Order against the Union to lift the bans: ‘I doubt that the order issued in this matter will progress the agreement negotiation process. Whilst [negotiations are] a matter for the parties I emphatically reject the implication that negotiations over the duration of 2009 are making good progress on the basis of an average delay, in the University sector, of 21 months from the expiry of one agreement to the making of another. This appears to me to be an undesirable statistic which goes some distance to explain the frustration which leads to protected industrial action.’ A Full FWA decision c www.fwa.gov.au/decisionssigned/html/2009fwa1535.htm

15

UPDATE

University bargaining: the State of Play UTS

Status Approval Date by National Executive Expiry Date Guaranteed salary increase Increase compounded Annual wage growth (expiry to expiry) Annual wage growth (payrise to payrise)

ADELAIDE

Under Negotation Under Negotation

SCU

NEGOTIATIONS CONTINUING UTAS UNISA

CDU

ACU

UNSW Academic

Under Negotation Under negotiation Under Negotation Under negotiation Under negotiation Under negotiation

May-13?

31-Oct-12?

31-Dec-12?

14% 14.9% 3.8%?

4.3%?

13.5% 14.2% 3.3% 3.5%

13%

? ? ✔? ?

✔

?

?

✔ ✔ ✖

3.1%?

31-Dec-12?

13% 13.6% 3.1%?

3%?

30-Jun-12 12.5% 13.1% 3% 3.5%

? ?

✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

? ?

10%7

6%8

2.5%

2.7%

✔ ✔ ✔ ✽

✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

? ? ?

?

✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

✖

✖ ✖

✔ ✽ ✽ ✽

13%6

HEWRRs RESTORATION

HECE fixed term limits Discipline & termination Job security/managing change Union rights

✔ ✔

✖

?

✖

CASUALS

25% loading Pay for marking Limits on casual numbers More secure jobs

? ?

✔

✖ ✖

✔ ✔ ✖ ✖

?

✔

?

✖

✖

✔

✖

?

? ?

? ?

?

✖

✖

?

✖ ✖

✔ ✽

✖ ✖

? ?

✖ ✔? ✖

✖ ✖ ✖

?

?

? ? ?

✔ ✖ ✖

? ? ?

ACADEMIC WORKLOADS

Quantifiable and effective regulation INDIGENOUS EMPLOYMENT

Strategy & targets Monitoring Committee OTHER CLAIMS

Superannuation Dispute resolution Intellectual freedom General staff classifications

?

?

?

✔? ✔ ✔?

✔?

✔? ✔ ✔

?

✔

NOTES

• Extra 3% conditional pay increase

SPECIAL FEATURES

✔ ? ✖ ? ✔ ✖ ✔ ✔ ✖ ✔ n/a ✖ 6. Incl 2007 catch- 7. Including 2.5% 8. Admin increases up in original admin increase 1 year 2009 Agreement, expired Dec 09

• Bullying and harassment clause • Considerable experience loading for casuals

INDUSTRIAL ACTION

• Protected action • Protected action • Protected action • Protected action • Protected action ballot (Sept 09) ballot (Sept 09) ballot (Sept 09) ballot (May 09) ballot (Sept 09)

• Protected action ballot (Sept 09)

• Some bans enabled

• Strike (16 Sept 09)

• Strike (16 Sept 09)

• Strike (21 May 09)

• Strike (16 Sept 09)

• 30 day extension granted

• Some bans enabled (not results bans)

• Bans on results (Dec 09)

• All bans enabled • All bans enabled

• Strike (16 Sept 09)

• All bans enabled

• Bans on results

• All bans enabled

✔ Claim achieved ✖ Claim rejected or stalled ? Claim under serious negotiation ✔? Claim largely settled with some detail in dispute ✽ Not included in this Agreement, to be negotiated in 2010-2012

16

NTEU ADVOCATE

UPDATE

University bargaining: the State of Play UNSW General

Status

UWA Academic

UWA General

NEGOTIATIONS CONTINUING VU WOLLONGONG

USC

MACQUARIE

NEWCASTLE

Under negotiation Under Negotation Under negotiation Under Negotation Under negotiation Under negotiation Under negotiation Under negotiation

Approval Date by National Executive Expiry Date Guaranteed salary increase Increase compounded Annual wage growth (expiry to expiry) Annual wage growth (payrise to payrise)

6%9

6%10

6%11

4%12

2.7%

no offer

4%13

4%14

4%15

3%

2.4%

2%

? ? ? ?

✖

✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

HEWRRs RESTORATION

HECE fixed term limits Discipline & termination Job security/managing change Union rights

? ? ?

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

? ? ? ?

✔

✖

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✖ n/a n/a n/a

✔ ✽ ✽ ✔

✔ n/a n/a n/a

✔ ✔ ✔ ✽

? ? ? ?

✔ ✔?

? ?

? ? ? ?

n/a

✔

n/a

✔

?

?

✔?

✖

? ?

✔ ✔

✔ ✔

✔ ✽

? ?

? ✖

? ?

✖ ✖

? ? ? ✔?

✖ ✔ ✖

? ✖ ✖

? ✖ ✖

CASUALS

25% loading Pay for marking Limits on casual numbers More secure jobs ACADEMIC WORKLOADS

Quantifiable and effective regulation INDIGENOUS EMPLOYMENT

Strategy & targets Monitoring Committee OTHER CLAIMS

Superannuation Dispute resolution Intellectual freedom General staff classifications NOTES

? ? ? ?

✔ ✔ ✔ n/a 9. Admin increases 10. In original 1yr 2009 Agreement, expired in Dec 09

SPECIAL FEATURES

•• Nomenclature changes to be negotiated with management

INDUSTRIAL ACTION

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 12. In original 1yr 2009 Agreement, expired in Feb 10

? ? ? ?

? ? ✔

?

?

13. Admin increase 14. Admin increase 15. Admin increase

• Research contract staff provisions

• Protected action ballot (Sept 09)

• Protected action • Protected action • Protected action • Protected action ballot (Sept 09) ballot (Sept 09) ballot (Sept 09) ballot (May 09)

• Strike (16 Sept 09)

• Strike (21 May 09)

• All bans enabled ✔ Claim achieved

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 11. In original 1yr 2009 Agreement, expired in Dec 09

• Strike (16 Sept 09)

• All bans enabled • All bans enabled

• No bans enabled

✖ Claim rejected or stalled ? Claim under serious negotiation ✔? Claim largely settled with some detail in dispute ✽ Not included in this Agreement, to be negotiated in 2010-2012

NTEU submissions

T

o date in 2010, NTEU has provided the following submissions and responses.

• House of Representatives Inquiry into International Research Collaboration.

• ARC and NHMRC Proposal for Australian Research Integrity Committee.

MARCH 2010 www.nteu.org.au

• ARC and NHMRC Guidelines to Part B of the Code of Responsible Conduct of Research.

• Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) Discussion Paper on the Measurement of Low SES Status.

• DEEWR Discussion Paper on Performance Indicators.

• DEEWR Discussion Paper on Regional Loadings.

• DEEWR proposed Higher Education, Participation and Partnerships Program (HEPPP) guidelines.

• ARC proposed Changes to Linkage Grants.

• Submission to the University of Melbourne on the future of the Victorian College of the Arts (VCA).

• NTEU Federal Budget submission 2010-11. A c www.nteu.org.au/policy/submissions

17

UPDATE NATIONAL

The impact of casualisation on teaching, marking and other academic activities

CASUAL?

I

n response to the exploitation of casual teachers in higher education, Dr Neville Knight and Lucinda Horrocks of Deakin University have developed a new set of principles for fair payment for marking for casual academics, and have successfully argued for those principles to be adopted at their local Branch.

Apart from having limited ‘career path’ opportunities, the payment to casual teachers for tutoring, and particularly marking of assignments and exam papers, and payment for a range of ‘other academic activities’ has been totally inadequate or non-existent.

‘Other academic activities’ can include such things as attendance at lectures and tutors’ meetings called to discuss the teaching of units and courses, assessment expectations and moderation of marking. Casual teachers should be paid for this academic work.

According to recent claims by NTEU, casual employees undertake 53% of tertiary teaching. In many Arts Faculties, casual teachers take most first year tutorials, often with little assistance from permanent staff who are themselves under significant pressure.

Knight and Horrocks support NTEU policy of trying to get university administrators to convert casual teaching capacity into fixed term and continuing positions. However, the casualisation of the tertiary workforce will remain, particularly while the payment to casual teachers is so low.

If casual teachers were paid more fairly for the work they undertook, university administrators would be more inclined on economic grounds to convert a greater proportion of casual teaching capacity into fixed term and continuing positions.

Apart from this argument, Knight and Horrocks believe that payment for casual teaching, marking of assignments and exam papers, and other academic activities, need to be substantially improved. This involves not just increasing the pay rates per hour.

More significantly, it involves the way hours of work are calculated.

Neville Knight notes that he was once asked to undertake marking of some project reports for a 2nd/3rd year subject at a large university. Initially, it was suggested by the Head of Section that he could mark 6000 18

words per hour. Payment at this rate was meant to include meetings with the subject coordinator, reading, evaluating and providing detailed comments on each individual report as well as group reports. It also included collecting and returning the reports and processing results on to spreadsheets.

Payment would be at the basic rate, not the academic judgement rate. After much negotiation, he was eventually paid for 5000 words per hour at the academic judgement rate.

In the Arts and Education Faculty, Deakin currently uses 4000 words per hour at the academic judgement rate as the basis for its payment for marking of written assignments. Many casual teachers have privately told stories of how they feel exploited, but they are afraid to speak up about their situation because they want to be re-employed the following semester and desperately need the work. It is experiences such as these that have prompted Knight, Horrocks and others to campaign through the NTEU for fair payment to casual staff for their teaching, marking and other academic activities.

Some important steps have been taken in recently negotiated Collective Agreements to improve the position of casual teachers, especially the requirement that marking done outside the class be paid separately from the tutorial payment.

In the most recent issue of NTEU’s casuals’ magazine, Connect, Knight and Horrocks have an article that proposes some further improvements in the way marking and other academic activities should be paid. The authors invite responses on their ideas. A

SESSIONAL?

NTEU is the union

for all university staff.

NTEU understands casual academic work usually isn’t all roses. Casuals have no job security and often face problems like underpayment, poor facilities and little collegial and professional recognition.

Get Active. Get Covered.

Find more information online at

www.

unicasual .com.au WIN A $200 BOOK VOUCHER! See reverse of this bookmark CONNECT on for Casual An NTEU Publicati

on a new Your response sought marking payment system for duties and other academic

Read latest issue of Connect online c www.unicasual.com.au

To respond to this article or the article in Connect, please contact Neville Knight nhknight@gmail.com Dr Neville Knight was formerly a senior lecturer in sociology at Monash University. He has undertaken academic contract and sessional work at Deakin and other universities for many years.

March 2010 issue of ‘Connect’ available at www.unicasual.com.au

The crisis in education...

It’s not looming, it’s

Grand investment

l Staff and Sessiona

Vol. 3 No. 1, March

2010

Bargaining State of Play university

A new fair go

Where is your at in bargaining?

here!

Security stymied

Why can’t I find full time employment?

ip

How NTEU membersh turned $55 into a $1000 payout

(Print)/ISSN ISSN 1836-8522

read online at

om.au

www.unicasual.c

1836-8530 (Online)

NTEU ADVOCATE

UPDATE

INDIGENOUS NEWS

Fair Work Act gives parents right to request flexible hours

Appointment of new director a promising move for Batchelor

A

T

lthough the Fair Work Act replaced WorkChoices from July 2009, it was not until 1 January 2010 that the National Employment Standards (NES) commenced operations.

These provide a floor of employment conditions for all employees. They cover: • Maximum weekly hours of work.

• Requests for flexible working arrangements.

• Parental leave & related entitlements.

• Annual leave.

• Personal/carer’s leave & compassionate leave.

• Community service leave.

• Long service leave.

• Public holidays.

• Notice of termination and redundancy pay.

• Provision of a Fair Work Information Statement.

In nearly all cases, the entitlements under NTEU Agreements are more favourable than those set by the NES. However, the NES does give employees responsible for the care of children under school age, or children of school age with a disability, a right to request, in writing, access to flexible working hours or other flexible arrangements to assist with the child’s care.

The employer must respond in writing. If the employer refuses, they must state the ‘reasonable business grounds’ for such refusal. A weakness in the scheme is that the independent tribunal, Fair Work Australia, is specifically excluded from dealing with a dispute over whether the employer’s grounds for refusal are reasonable.

If you are considering making a request under these provisions, you are strongly urged to contact your local NTEU Branch first, as your NTEU Agreement may offer some members a better course of action. A

MARCH 2010 www.nteu.org.au

he future of Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education (BIITE) is looking promising, with the announcement on 5 February 2010 that a new Director has been appointed to lead the institute.

Adrian Mitchell (pictured, right) has been appointed to the position of BIITE Director, and will formally take up the position on 1 March. Mr Mitchell has a background in the VET sector, with his most recent appointment being the director of Western Institute of TAFE in NSW and, prior to that, Managing Director of Kimberley TAFE. NTEU welcomes Mr Mitchell’s appointment, and looks forward to working with the new Director to advance Batchelor’s role as the main provider of vocational and tertiary education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students.

The combined Unions (NTEU, AEU, LHMU & CPSU) expect to hold a meeting with the new Director as soon as practicable, to discuss a range of issues pertaining to the draft business plan that had been developed whilst the Institute was under administration.

Terry Mason, Chair of the NTEU Indigenous Policy Committee, also welcomed Mr Mitchell’s appointment, but stated, ‘The

appointment of Mr Mitchell is a welcomed development, although much work will need to be undertaken to ensure staff, students, comPhoto: www.batchelor.edu.au munity and traditional owners have confidence in the future direction of Batchelor.’

BIITE was placed into voluntary administration in August 2009, after a forensic audit of Batchelor’s financial position raised a number of questions about the immediate financial sustainability of the Institute.

For more information, the media release announcing the appointment of Mr Mitchell as Director of Batchelor Institute can be found on the Institute’s website. A BIITE c www.batchelor.edu.au

NTEU Indigenous Forum: 8–9 May 2010

T

he theme for this year’s annual NTEU National Indigenous Forum is ‘Closing the Gap: the Future of Indigenous Higher Education’. It is expected that around 50 Indigenous delegates, Indigenous Policy Committee (IPC) members, Elected Officers and Staff will attend Forum and participate in the meeting and training workshops on the weekend of 8–9 May.

The Forum will give delegates an opportunity to provide input into the development of Indigenous policy and strategies that relate to Indigenous employment, student income support, research, teaching and social justice issues.

A series of training workshops will be conducted at Indigenous Forum, these workshops will cover a range of topics that are relevant to Indigenous members and Industrial/Organising staff in Branches and Divisions.

A memorandum and registration form will be sent to all Branches and Divisions shortly. For further information on Indigenous Forum 2010, please contact Adam Frogley, National Indigenous Officer on (03) 9254 1910 or via email to afrogley@nteu.org.au A

19

UNIVERSITY INDEPENDENCE

Accountability and autonomy I

n the 2009 Federal Budget, the Government delivered a significant increase in funding for our universities. At the same time it announced a new funding and regulatory framework to bring about a transformation to higher education and research in Australia over the next two decades. The introduction of compacts, performance targets and associated performance-based funding means our universities will be subject to a far greater degree of scrutiny and accountability.

The changes in this framework are demonstrated by Figure 1, which shows the change in the composition of discretionary and conditional university funding over the next four years. The data shows that virtually all of the new funding is conditional. As a consequence the proportion of total funding that is conditional will rise from 8% in 2009 to about one third in 2013. The conditions for funding include various types of performance targets or competitive grants.

To be eligible for new research funding universities will have to participate in a transparent costing exercise. The distribution of new funding between institutions will largely be driven by the outcomes of Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) assessment of research quality. The Government is also proposing a wide range of micro ‘outcome’ performance indicators for learning and teaching,1 which range from student retention and progression rates, student satisfaction and the number staff with graduate certificates in tertiary education. Mission based compacts will play a central role in determining each university’s future mission as well as specify an agreed set of performance targets. The new Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) will be given the responsibility for assessing each university’s performance against these indicators.

Facing greater scrutiny No one would question the fact that our universities must be accountable for their use of public funds. However, it is worth considering whether this greater degree of performance measurement and scrutiny is in danger of compromising institutional autonomy, which together with academic freedom, is internationally recognised as one of the defining characteristics of a university.

NTEU acknowledges that the concept of institutional autonomy is neither absolute nor static. Universities are answerable to governments as well as the communities they serve and therefore the notion of institutional autonomy is necessarily ‘bounded’. Autonomy, however, is necessary for assuring academic freedom which is essential if our universities are to fulfil the community’s expectations of them to create and disseminate new knowledge through research and education. Academic freedom is what essentially defines universities as unique educational institutions.

The challenge facing government policy makers in designing and implementing this new regulatory and funding framework is whether the introduction of new policy instruments intended to bring about greater accountability will undermine institutional autonomy. At this stage it is too early to tell whether the policy reforms, for learning and teaching in particular, achieve the appropriate balance between accountability and autonomy.

NTEU would caution that the trend toward micromeasurement of performance will be interpreted by many in the sector as being tantamount to micro-management. To avoid this, it will be critical that the new framework is sufficiently flexible to ensure that individual universities have the capacity to genuinely negotiate their future missions and performance targets. Any attempt to impose a set of common performance benchmarks for all universities has the very real danger of diminishing both institutional autonomy and diversity between institutions. A Paul Kniest, Policy & Research Coordinator 1. For more detail refer to Dept of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), ‘An Indicator Framework for Higher Education Teaching and Learning Performance Funding Discussion Paper Dec 2009’ (deewr.gov.au)

20

NTEU ADVOCATE

collective bargaining

Industrial action gets results I

n late 2009, industrial action occurred at a number of universities in pursuit of new Enterprise Agreements. All action by NTEU members has followed many months of bargaining in the face of management opposition to our claims. The industrial action consisted of bans – most significantly on the transmission of student results.

This occurred at Flinders University, University of Queensland (UQ), Curtin, Murdoch, University of South Australia (UniSA), Melbourne and RMIT. Bans on the transmission of student results were strongly supported by members in the ballots required by the Fair Work Act. The support for bans was reinforced by the fact that many non-members joined the Union in order to participate in the bans.

Branches coordinated their action well, with exemptions granted to particular groups of students or to individual students.

It was an important priority of the Union to ensure that students did not suffer any hardship as a result of the imposition of the bans. Most students understood the reasons for the bans, and support was received at a number of universities from the student organisations on campus.

Universities use students One of the most disappointing aspects of the campaigns at a number of campuses was the refusal of the University to pass on an email to students letting them know of the process whereby they could apply for an exemption from the bans if they were likely to suffer any serious disadvantage.

This demonstrated that, unlike the NTEU, some universities were willing to put their industrial tactics ahead of the welfare of students.

MARCH 2010 www.nteu.org.au

The imposition of bans at RMIT led rapidly to the settlement of outstanding issues and reaching an Agreement.

At UQ, Curtin, and Murdoch and Melbourne, the bans were lifted in exchange for significant progress on important issues.

However, at RMIT, Murdoch and UniSA, rather than reaching a settlement, the management first brought a range of actions in Fair Work Australia (FWA) to try to stop NTEU members taking action. Management argued unsuccessfully on technical grounds that the Union’s industrial action was not protected.

FWA suspends action UniSA brought a subsequent action against the Union in December, claiming that the

bans on students were ‘harming the welfare’ of students. FWA is required to issue orders to stop industrial action where it finds this occurring.

On the particular facts of the case, Senior Deputy President O’Callaghan found that some graduating students may suffer harm to their welfare. He suspended industrial action for 14 days.

Surprisingly to the Union, however, FWA found that all industrial action – including action having no effect on student welfare – had to be suspended. This view was confirmed by a Full Bench on appeal, and raises serious questions about the effectiveness of the right to take industrial action in the Fair Work Act. Nevertheless, the bans on student results, and the other industrial action taken late in 2010 have again demonstrated the effectiveness of these types of actions in bringing bargaining closer to a conclusion.

All NTEU members owe a special debt of gratitude to those members who have imposed the bans. A Ken McAlpine, Senior Industrial Officer Photos by Jane Maze (left) and Cat Coghlan (top) 21

collective bargaining

UWS plays the Grinch that tried to steal Christmas U

niversity of Western Sydney (UWS) members have experienced a roller coaster ride of bargaining over the last year, from positive beginnings in May, to management calling a non-Union Agreement ballot for 23 December. The ballot was rightly viewed by NTEU members and non-members alike as a transparently low tactic: the ballot failed and bargaining remains in the doldrums.

Good vibe in early days

UWS s taff

vote

no

why U WS AC ADEM

The Un ive Academ rsity of W es the on ic staff for a tern Sydney go Non-Un Ma implem ing issue of ion En nagement Ac ha entatio te n of un ademic Wor rprise Agre s taken the em ex disclose We be klo lieve tha d impr ads and m ent. This inf traordinary t holding akes pa rights: step of ovemen erior m a ballot y rises conduc t initia at this conting anagement tives. tim • Holdi propos ting a ballo ent on e is denyi t of al ng a bal the ba ng staff lot sis of th does not ad their opportu at this dr tim e succ nit We be essful ess gauge the y to hold pro e does not allo lieve tha per w the t the ir age

IC sta ff

views on me the Agree etings with its NTEU the • Why members are Ma ment. nagemen and at Chris t so co tm What hav as, when many mmitted to rushing staff hav e Manag this e alread em ent got • Staff y left for through, to hide? should the yea no t be de docum r? nied the ent sim ir ply rights to end of to rush the yea qu though r. an agree estion the ment be fore the

UsW houSld sVtOa TEf‘N fO’

I’m voti ng NO because we des er than an ve better Agreem that do ent nda: proces es s has be en hijacke worklo n’t regulate • Leadi d by an ng up ads ideologic allow the to the non-U al p nion bal ushed th and is lot, Ma effort to Union access nagemen to teleco rough b gag the t refuse nferencin NTEU • Manag d to Christ efore and gag g facilit ement’s mas. debate. ies in an ballot be

vote

no

tween the Acade proposal is abo mic sta • Manag ff and the ut driving a we ement dge ir union has hijacke , the NT d the mo adopted ideolo EU. re gy Academi c bargai collegial proces over common ning. sense and ses tha t should typify

Terry M as Senior Le on, cturer, Badana mi Indigeno Centre for us Educ ation

A TALE OF TW O AGRE EME Authorise

d by Gen

evieve Kelly , NTEU

NSW Divis

ion Secr etar y, 55

Holt St,

Surr y Hills

NSW 201

0

NTEU m and lim embers at th its on academ e University How do of ic work es the load an Sydney have negotia non-Un d a lea re ted fin ding pa cently won al Agre ion Academ y rise ic ement in the a strong Un at the Staff Agreem ion ag sector reemen Unive for all UNIVERS rsity of ent at UW staff. t, with ITY OF SY S, as pr Sy effectiv dney?

DNEY UN oposed e regu ION AGRE by man Academ lation EMENT agemen ic Workl oa t, com d Re gulation • Staff n pare to ot required the Un UN IVERSITY ion to work •

NTS

Teaching more tha OF WEST an n 1725 hou ERN SYDN workload d related activities w Academ rs per yea EY PROP ic Workl r.

OSAL ill not exc oad Regu eed 40 pe • Referen lation r cent of tot ce to 1725 al Improve ho • No outer ments in limits on urs removed Sa wo • No caps lary • 17% (18 or limits on rkload .3% comp • Workloa teaching • Expiry Da ounded)

d determ te: ined by s • Annual W May 2012. upervisor w Improve age Grow ithout any ments in th 5.1% exp pay rise staff input Salary iry to expir • 18% (19 y a .2% nd co 5.5 mpounded Restorat % pay rise • Expiry Da ) ion to te: ment’s Hig of Conditions Lo • Annual W December 2012 st he ag un r e Growth Education de (HEWRR pay rise 4.8% exp Workplac r Howard Govern s) iry to expir e Relation y and 4.7 • Restorat s Require Restorat % pay rise ion of lim ments ion to its on (known a ment’s Hig of Conditions Lo s HECE Aw the misuse of fixe st under he ard fixed te r d term em Ed uc (HEWRR Howard ation Wo rm limits) ploymen s) Go rkplace t Relation vern• Some lim s Re qu ire its ments visit o so that w restored, but categ ur cam ork that wo ori uld otherw es expanded beyo term. paign nd HECE Aw ise be conti site a ard nuing wo t www uld be fix ed .u

nivers

itybar

NEED MO RE

gaining

.com.au

IN

FORMAT NTEU ION? UWS Br anch: Ca Ph: 02 9685 99 t Coghl 28 Website Email: uw an, Branch Or : www. ganiser s@ universi tybarg nsw.nteu.org.au aining.co Authorise d by Gen m.au/uw evieve Kelly , NTEU s NSW Division

22

Secretar y, 55

Holt St,

Surr y Hills

/uws

Enterprise bargaining need not be a stressful experience. Bargaining in a fair, wholehearted and generous manner can be a rewarding experience. It can build trust, relationship, collegiality and profitable outcomes for all those involved. If those involved are prepared and have a clear set of equitable goals established which they are willing to negotiate around, then bargaining can proceed in a timely manner.

Bargaining began at UWS with a clear set of issues that had been defined by union membership, agreed by the Unions involved and tabled as a joint log of claims in May 2008.

Opinion generally ran along the optimistic lines that the Union had very generously conceded points in past bargaining. These concessions, under the Howard Government’s Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements (HEWRRs), allowed management to access funding that was threatened under the Coalition.

Unfortunately, management were not ready to engage readily and there was a definite lack of clarity on their issues and goals.

Overload overturns optimism In June 2009, the Overload report was released that detailed many of the issues that had been identified by Union members as those that needed to be included as important bargaining outcomes. The Australian gave an interpretation of some of the results of the report that gave UWS management the opportunity to claim that the NTEU was bringing the University into disrepute.

Management became intransigent and refused to bargain further.

The NTEU made it quite clear that staff chose to work at UWS, were proud of their achievements and the outcomes achieved by our students and the quality of research produced despite the high workloads and student:staff ratios. Both members and non-members expressed their support for the report and the work of the NTEU in bargaining the set of claims that represented the needs of staff so accurately.

After long discussions and email correspondence, the Union reinforced the position that there was strong support for UWS as a sound

NSW 201

0

NTEU ADVOCATE

collective bargaining university but workloads were an issue as defined by membership and bargaining resumed slowly.

Leading up to the one day strike in September, management not only called off bargaining again, but refused to allow the use of tele-conferencing facilities for general meetings.

NTEU called meetings on the grass and had a sound turn out of members who were affronted by the lack of respect they perceived by this action, and thus supported the day actively. Although we have multiple campuses across greater western Sydney, we have been able to continue organising because of this active support by members.

Going to ballot

time t o get

s e riou a

s

bout a decent ag

reeme

nt

ACADEM IC STA F OVERW HELMIN F AT UWS V OTEd GLY TO MANAG EMENT ’S INFE REJECT IT’S NO RIOR D W TIM EAL E TO G ACHIEV ET SER ING A FAI IOU ENTERP RISE A R AND DECE S ABOUT NT ACA GREEM ENT AT DEMIC UWS

Late la Bargaining resumed but not in a fully st year , Agree ment enterprise ba to ballo t which rgaining at U The ba congenial manner. During November llot was W had no and w t been S broke do as mar organised wn whe endors with un ked by as qual n man ed by se te ity NTEU ag employ of educatio chnical irreg emly haste, membe ement chos and into December, it proceeded in an w ul ment e to pu rs. conditi n and improv arities. Rath ithout prop t an A er tim ons an cadem ed staf er than d dise ic f-s ad tudent dressin e for discus nfranc on-again, off-again manner without sion an ratios g hising th e - man staff. agemen real issues in d flows of in format our wor t were ion, more kp lace intere apparent rhyme or reason. A Herculean such sted in attack ing effort in December to finalise bargaining was met with a CPSU/management deciThis le af forwar let provides visit o d in and in for finalising formation ur cam sion to put the General Staff Agreement on fo a campa rms you how fair and de the way paign ce ign. you ca site a n get in nt Agreemen t volved t, w ww.un to ballot. in the iversit ybarga in in The NTEU put up a ‘No’ case which was g.com.a u/uws lost. Management then refused to talk any further on the Academic Agreement and put a non-Union Agreement to ballot two days before Christmas.

The result was a resounding success for the Union, and a slap in If resolution of the few outstanding issues that have been of the the face for management: 66.39% of staff voted ‘No’ to what they greatest concern to members from initial consultations prior to believed to be an inferior Agreement, even with the offer of a $1000 bargaining commencing are not met by 23 March, members have sign-on bonus. strongly expressed the need to take industrial action. Although this This result showed how astute and truly collegial our staff are. The would be regrettable and disruptive to students, the student assosupport they and others around the country expressed was greatly ciation has strongly supported the NTEU stance on workloads and appreciated. student staff ratios.

Members and non-members have repeatedly expressed their conDuring 2010, management have strenuously worked to complete cerns about any Agreement that does not have a transparent method workloads under the existing conditions and were the first univerof calculating workloads. High student to staff ratios are also of consity to cut funds from the student association for being too political. cern affecting the learning experience of students. The conditions of Some funding has been restored to them. casual staff were also worrying. A total of fifteen issues were still of If one thing has come out of this process, it is to ensure that your concern to the NTEU. Branch reflects the actual concerns of staff. Ensure that, as a member, you are fully apprised of progress at all stages and build strong relationships with the Branch and Union staff.

It is pleasing when non-members recognise the positive role of representation by the Union, rather than the previous belief that Dates were established to finalise bargaining during January. This we were only concerned with salaries. Local media have recognised was not achieved and the Branch went to members to endorse indusour loyalty to our workplace, each other and our students and have trial action. Enough movement was achieved at the next set of meetreported on us in a non-sensational manner. ings to convince members to suspend action pending a final meeting Good work in your bargaining and thank you for the messages of on February 23. Further movement was achieved and another final support for the Branch and our excellent Bargaining team who have date to have finalisation has been set on the 23rd March. Although a worked tirelessly and under difficult circumstances for the good of all. A cap on face to face hours has been proposed, the equitable represenTerry Mason, NTEU UWS Branch President tation on workload committees is still outstanding.

NTEU mem and main bers fought the man in the ba agem strong llot held turn on 22-2 ent Agreemen the prop out, academ 3 Dece t with m ic staff osed Ag mber ight at UW reemen S resoun 2009. In a ve t by a pr The NTE ry dingly re oportio U offic jec e was de n of tw and no o-to-one ted n-mem luged wi be . rs alike means th supp . The de that ort fro m feat of together it’s now tim managem members e for ac in our adem ent’s campaign to finali ic staff to cont proposals se a ne w Colle inue to work ctive Ag reemen t.

As dem on sticking strated by the together resoun ding deliver that we qu can achie ballot victory and resp ality educatio , it is on ve a de nal outc ect. omes bu cent workpla ly by ce ilt on co llegialit and y, equit y

Authorised

by Genevie ve Kelly,

NTEU NSW

Division

Secreta

ry, 55 Hol

t St, Sur

ry Hills

NSW 201

0

Failed attempts to finalise bargaining

MARCH 2010 www.nteu.org.au

23

POLICY

Beyond estimation: how much are education exports worth to Australia? no. 1, 2010 vol. 52,NTEU ISSN 0818–8068 Published by

Ian Dobson Editor, Australian Universities’ Review

Read the full Birrell and Smith paper in the latest issue of the ‘Australian Universities’ Review’ (vol. 52, no. 1) available online at www.aur.org.au

AUR

w iversities’Revie Australian Un

H

ardly a day goes past without statements in the press that describe education services as Australia’s third-largest export, behind coal and iron ore. Although education is indisputably an important export, its value is inflated. This is the opinion of Bob Birrell and Fred Smith in the current issue of Australian Universities’ Review (AUR). Press releases from various sections of the education industry cite Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) estimates of trade in services figures, estimated to have been A$13.7 billion in 2007-08. Birrell and Smith estimate the economic benefit to Australia at A$7.91 billion, about 58% of the ‘official’ estimate.

Perhaps some of the problem arises from what we presume the word ‘export’ to mean.

In the case of education, estimates include the obvious components, that is, expenditure on fee income and on other goods and services. However, the $13.7 billion figure is a gross amount. It does not make allowance for the fact that overseas students earn considerable sums in Australia to pay for both fees and living expenses. Birrell and Smith say that ‘export’ implies that a good or service is paid for using funds from offshore. If goods and services are paid for with onshore earnings, they are not exports.

The ABS understands this, and they net out compensation of employees elsewhere in their balance of payments figures. However, local education spokes-bodies do not make this adjustment in their statements and press releases. The ABS follows the same accounting practice for other export industries. Nevertheless, the impact of overseas students’ on-shore earnings is particularly large in the case of the overseas student industry and therefore should not be ignored when claims about its size are considered.

Birrell and Smith also argue that the ABS estimates of the value of overseas student expenditure on goods and services are too high. According to the ABS, in 2007-08, overseas students spent, on average, about 24

A$20,000 on fees and A$30,000 on goods and services. The latter estimate, based on a survey conducted in 2004, seems staggeringly high, and well beyond the means of ‘normal’ students. The estimate also seems to contradict the cost of living estimates that appear on most universities’ websites. At the same time, the ABS relies on the 2004 survey for its estimation of how much overseas students work whilst in Australia.

However, the demographic characteristics of overseas students have changed considerably. Students studying in Australia earlier this century were predominantly from countries that are more affluent. By 2008, the predominant source countries by a considerable margin are less-affluent ones such as India and China, the source of about 80,000 students each in 2008. According to Birrell and Smith, these less-affluent students must be working a lot more than suggested in the 2004 report that is the source of ABS estimates. The demographic changes mean that the 2004 survey is no longer a reasonable basis for estimating students’ expenditure or income. There has been resistance to conducting a new survey because of the cost.

About 50 per cent of students are recruited by off-shore agents. The fees paid to these offshore agents (in effect, an import) should also be offset against the course fees received

by Australian education institutions when calculating net exports of educational services.

Agents’ fees amount to 25–30% of VET full course fees, and 10–15% of the first year of the university fee, and represent about 10% of total fee income. Perhaps exporters of coal, iron ore, wheat and other goods and services also pay fees to offshore agents, but would it represent as much as 10% of the income received, as it does in education? Perhaps the Australian Wheat Board is used to paying this much in some of its Middle Eastern markets!

According to the US Association of International Educators, their 624,000 foreign students (and their families) in 2007–08 generated a net contribution to the US economy of US$15.54 billion (A$17.2 billion), or A$2,756 per student. Yet ABS figures suggest that Australia’s 357,000 students produced A$13.7 billion, or A$3,914 per student. This discrepancy between US and Australian estimates doesn’t pass the commonsense test.

The size of the ‘export’ wouldn’t matter, but for the fact that industry tries to use it as a lever (or a club) every time an overseas student is assaulted, a shonky private college goes belly-up, or visa requirements are changed. In any case, the ABS will need better estimates to estimate its estimates with if we are to find out the real economic contribution of education. A NTEU ADVOCATE

SUSTAINABILITY

The climate change paradox Associate Professor Greg McCarthy NTEU Vice President (Academic)

T

he paradox of climate change policy is that there is a global scientific consensus that global warming is real but that the politics to respond to this is utterly unproven. The danger is that by the time the politics catches up with the science it will be too late, especially too late to save the poorest people in the poorest nations. Moreover, whilst non-government organisations, such as unions, are adopting climate change policies, there is the need to harmonise this with public opinion.

This paradox was played out at the UN Copenhagen Climate Change Summit, which concluded with a non-binding agreement that recognised that climate change was ‘the greatest challenge of our time’, but insisted that responses had to recognise differences and capacity between nations. That is, the Summit legitimated the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 4th Scientific Report on the Anthropogenic Causes of Global Warming and the need to ensure any temperature rises should be kept below two degrees Celsius.

However, this legitimation was constrained by the political imperative of sustaining economic development.

Nevertheless, Copenhagen was notable for the shift in US policy and for the manner by which the developing nations, notably China, articulated the concerns of the non-rich nations. This was quite a shift in the climate change dialogue away from Europe to a more global discourse.

In Australia, the political paradox is that climate change consensus was constructed from above – there was concord between the Government and Opposition on a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) that set a market price for carbon dioxide whilst compensating both business and consumers. The elevation of Tony Abbott to Coalition Leader changed this agreement, with climate change becoming part of ‘wedge’ politics.

The conundrum for the Labor Government is that it now has to sell its complex CPRS to the electorate in an adversarial political setting. The Rudd Government’s policy is multilayered, but at its core is a ‘cap and trade’ system that sets the limits on carbon emissions via the use of a trading-permit system and through regulation. This policy has a target of 5% reduction by 2020 based on 2000 levels with a long term aim of 40% reduction by 2050. In addition, to achieve this target it requires the purchase of off-shore carbon abatements. The policy contains a $25 billion compensation package to carbon-intensive industries and $30 billion compensation to households.

The policy announced by Tony Abbott appears to match the Government’s 5% reduction of carbon dioxide by 2020 (based on 1990 levels) but looks no further than this date. At its core is the unproven carbon sequestration (the removal and storage of carbon from the MARCH 2010 www.nteu.org.au

atmosphere in carbon ‘sinks’ such as oceans, forests or soils), which accounts for 61% of the Opposition’s target. There is voluntary business compliance, with a guarantee that polluters can retain their current levels of carbon dioxide emissions. It is principally a taxpayer-funded scheme, costing $3.2 billion over four years, rising to $10 billion over 10 years. However, there is no fine detail on this costing or on the expert panel which would be charged with oversight of the scheme.

The Greens have a long-standing ETS policy, but post-Copenhagen Bob Brown has proposed an interim carbon tax set at $23 per tonne for 2 years. The overall emissions reduction target set by the Greens is 40% below 1990 levels by 2020, with the IPCC-based goal of reducing the carbon dioxide atmospheric volume to 350 parts per million (ppm). The aim is to auction all permits, with no ‘grandfathering’ arrangements with industry, and with no compensation to the fossil fuel industries. The policy proposes a ‘just transition’ framework to a sustainable economy based on renewable energy.

There is, however, no clear costing for this policy.

In terms of public opinion the paradox is quite clear. A majority of the Australian public agrees that climate change is real and is caused by human activity, but when it comes to electoral politics they place the economy as the main priority. For instance, in February 2010, 73% agreed in an opinion poll that they thought climate change was real, which was a drop from 84% in 2008 (The Australian, 16 February 2010). Likewise in the 2010 poll, there was a 94% positive response to the question as to whether human activity was ‘entirely’ or ‘partly’ responsible for climate change. Nevertheless, when asked to rank the top electoral issues, the public ranked climate change seventh, with managing the economy the highest priority (Newspoll, 26 January 2010).

The science on climate change has achieved a consensus, but global and national politics has a long way to go to catch up with the scientific community. On the positive side, public opinion is receptive to the science. NTEU National Council dealt with this paradox by agreeing to further the climate change debate amongst members and to develop a consensus policy framework to respond to the most pressing issue of our time. A 25

HUMANITIES

HASS needs to ramp up the lobbying Donna Weeks Acting Branch President NTEU University of the Sunshine Coast Branch

T

he ‘HASS on the Hill’ initiative by the Council for the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (CHASS) is a great idea, supported by well-intentioned and enthusiastic people. As an academic under the HASS umbrella, it is reassuring to know that efforts are being made on our behalf to lobby MPs and senators; as a political scientist, it was of course energising to be back in the ‘House on the Hill’ in Canberra; but my primary role, as a delegate sponsored by the NTEU, presented an opportunity to reflect on ways in which different groups engage in the political process and to consider what works and what doesn’t.

The two-day event in October 2009 succeeded on many levels: it was well-organised given the numbers and logistics, presented engaging and dynamic panellists, gave all of us an opportunity to meet others and compare notes, and for those unfamiliar with Canberra’s political milieu, attending Peter Garrett’s National Press Club speech and spending a day in Parliament House with relative freedom, probably satisfied many of the participants.

Now, as a sponsored delegate, I am not required nor expected to be partisan to NTEU... but... the two-day event did inevitably lead to comparisons with what the Union does and its relative effectiveness visà-vis the ambitions and goals of CHASS and its annual pilgrimage to Canberra. From our experience with the Union, we know that lobbying is a year-round affair: constant, insistent, persistent, indeed, the proverbial burr under the saddle. We have practice and organisational mechanisms which ensure democratic and transparent process.

As I departed Canberra on the Wednesday evening, I felt privileged to have been a part of HASS, but it also reaffirmed my membership in the Union and the sense that the NTEU has a level of political engagement that ought to be the envy of other organisations. (I’m not being tied down and slowly strangled with a marron and white football scarf to say that... it is my key reflection.)

I am a committed educationalist and the 26

themes of the HASS forum fell clearly within my bailiwick: language policy (a student and teacher of Japanese for some 30 years), social inclusion (as a lecturer at a small regional university with critical social inclusion measures and which is particularly susceptible to the vicissitudes of federal education policy as it impacts on accessibility), and the creative arts as part of the new economy (representing a Faculty with a high creative arts component).

The organisers promised a meeting (or two) with politicians to put our case to them, to leave them with an impression that HASS mattered as an educational priority.

Policy roundtables in Parliament House also featured as opportunities to engage with parliamentarians and others involved in the policy process. My enthusiasm and participation and sense of ‘can-do’ were somewhat tempered by the organisation of this part of the two-day event. My appointment with my MP fell through at the last minute—personally disappointing but certainly not the fault of the HASS organisers.

As a former political staffer, I fully understood the dynamics of a parliamentary sitting day. Besides others were meeting with their politicians and reporting back with mixed but mostly positive experiences. I was keen to participate in both the policy roundtables on social inclusion and language policy, believing I had much to contribute on both counts, only to find that

these were held simultaneously, making for a difficult choice. It was akin to being offered two exquisite desserts, and being told you could only have one…

With HASS on the Hill, CHASS aims to follow in the footsteps of our science and technology colleagues at the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS) with their successful ‘Science Meets Parliament’ program. CHASS needs to up the lobbying ante however. The twoday ‘showpiece’ needs to be the culmination of solid and constant work throughout the year. Politicians ‘meet’ with special interest groups (SIGs) all the time. The meeting might be memorable for the SIGs, but for the pollie, usually just another constituent passing through.

CHASS has among its membership, people with the skills and knowledge to tackle the parliamentarians on their turf. It has the foundations for becoming an integrated part of the political process and social conscience. It ought to draw on that membership network to capitalise on what I would conclude is a promising start. A CHASS c www.chass.org.au Right: Donna Weeks (right) with Terri MacDonald, NTEU Policy & Research Officer, at HASS on the Hill.

NTEU ADVOCATE

HUMAN RIGHTS

Time to rally for an Australian Human Rights Act Susan Ryan AO Chair, Australian Human Rights Group

A

ustralians are closer than we have ever been to securing a Human Rights Act, a legal instrument that will finally give statutory protection to those human rights long since ratified by Australian governments. The chief rights to get protection are those set out in the UN rights conventions on Civil and Political Rights and Economic Social and Cultural rights. A key right in the latter instrument is the right to education.

With all the current focus on transparency and choice in education, it may not always be recognised that access to education is not protected in law. It should be.

It is of course anomalous that Australia is the only democracy that lacks a specific law to protect these rights. The consequences of this gap have been destructive for the most vulnerable in our community. Children held without education or health care in immigration detention, mentally ill people jailed, frail old people in nursing homes, the disabled struggling to get education and work opportunities, grossly neglected Indigenous, these are the Australians who suffer when the bureaucracy mistreats them. These are the people who need an Australian Human Rights Act. Most Australians are not conscious of needing more protection of their own rights, but most do understand that those who fall through the cracks deserve better. These views are set out in diversity and detail in the submissions, written and personal made to Frank Brennan SJ and his committee, appointed by the Rudd Government to conduct a national consultation on the community’s views on human rights protection.

Based on the evidence before the committee, independent research and extensive discussion with legal bodies, welfare advocates, church bodies and providers of basic services, the Brennan report recommends that the Parliament take a number of steps to improve recognition of and respect for human rights. The effectiveness of steps such as improved parliamentary scrutiny and community education will depend on the enactment of a human rights law.

This is to be an ordinary Act of Parliament which sets out the rights to be protected by the Commonwealth, and mechanisms for implementation. While retaining all legislative power in the Parliament, the MARCH 2010 www.nteu.org.au

measure would enable courts to make a finding of inconsistency in a case where a Commonwealth policy conflicted with a legislated right. Parliament would take a second look at such a conflict and act as it saw fit. Such a check and balance would be reassuring to most and leave the traditional separation of powers unchanged.

A small but vociferous and powerful opposition has been mounted to this proposed strengthening of our democracy. Some fundamentalist Christians have chosen, erroneously, to portray the debate as essentially about gay rights and abortion. Other conservatives insist that the proposed Act would allow judges to take over the powers of Parliament. Baseless as these criticisms are, they are give frequent voice in the mainstream media. It seems like a new chapter of the culture wars is upon us.

Any measure to improve the situation of the powerless is resisted. The beneficiaries of the status quo are determined to retain their privilege and muddy the waters by attacking ‘unelected’ judges and scaremongering around the employment rights of church schools and other bodies.

Meanwhile, the real victims of inadequate rights protection, those who lack fair access to the freedoms we take for granted, and to essential services including education, are left out of the debate. Well resourced opponents are petitioning Parliament to try to distract from the central purpose of protecting the vulnerable.

The Government will soon make its response to Brennan’s proposals. If you agree that the time has come for this strengthening of fairness in our democracy, for an effective check and balance on the executive, let your parliamentary representatives know. A Susan Ryan is a former Commonwealth Education Minister Links c www.humanrightsact.com.au, www.humanrightsconsultation.gov.au 27

INTERNATIONAL

UCLA imagines a world without lecturers Bob Samuels President, University Council – American Federation of Teachers (UC-AFT) University of California, Los Angeles

F

or the past nine months, an ad hoc task force has been meeting in order to rethink the structure of the humanities division at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). All people interested in the future of higher education should be concerned with this report that makes several questionable recommendations.

While the authors claim that their main emphasis is not to slash the budgets of these programs, it is clear that their central focus is to reduce labour costs at the university: Language instruction is labour-intensive and tends at UCLA to employ non-ladder instructors unprotected by tenure. Because of this, we expect there to be substantial pressure to ease the language requirement, which would not only blatantly contradict all three of the ‘chief campus priorities of excellence, diversity, and community engagement’ (which our charge letter reasonably reminds us to ‘bear in mind’), but would also in our opinion be disastrous on multiple levels.

Reading this opening salvo, one would think that report would endorse protecting language instruction and non-tenure-track faculty (lecturers), but we soon learn that this ad hoc faculty committee (with no lecturer representation) attempts to imagine a world without lecturers.

As this report constantly points out, lecturers are the least expensive teachers, and they teach many – if not most – of the required classes in the humanities, but they are also the most vulnerable during a budget crisis, and so the campus must find a way to staff undergraduate courses without these teachers. The first recommendation is to strengthen the foreign language programs by moving up to half of the classes to summer and online: Active use of the Summer Sessions would produce two immediate and direct benefits: (1) pressure would be lessened upon those language programs that are currently overburdened between September and June; (2) revenue could be generated during the summer to fund both lecturers and graduate students. We estimate that as much as 40-50% of language teaching could be moved to the summer, and even more if we consider the undeveloped potential for an affiliated Online Language Program, based upon the profitable, technically established model in place for the last five years at UCLA’s TFT. Enrolments and income will both grow. Non-UCLA students could be specifically targeted, not only from elsewhere within California, but also abroad.

28

What this report does not mention is that by moving half of the courses to summer, UCLA would be able to lay off all of its language instructors, and then hire these faculty members back without benefits and at much lower salaries. Since summer session is only partially covered by the lecturers contract, the summer teachers could be paid at a low rate and would lose all of their job protections.

Online vs real life Of course, the other major part of this initiative is the question of the effectiveness of online language instruction. In fact, much of this report is spent defending the idea that the turn to online learning will not undermine the reputation of the institution; rather, the task force claims that UCLA will be able to position itself as a leader of high quality digital learning: UCLA’s great reputation would assure the popularity of our online courses, especially given the complete lack of competition today in the ‘high-end’ realm of learner-centred, distance pedagogy.

As someone who has written an entire book on the subject of how online education undermines the value of research universities, I would argue that the lack of competition stems from the realisation that most online programs end up to be very expensive and result in a low level of student retention. That is not to say that we should not NTEU ADVOCATE

INTERNATIONAL advancing knowledge and teaching, the Humanities is not only a baruse new media in our classes; rather, we cannot employ these new gain, but also a profit-generating entity. Massive cuts in the Humanitechnologies to completely replace in-class instruction. ties instructional budget are not only destructive to the core mission In one of the most dubious parts of this report, the writers claim that of the University; they are also financially unjustifiable. the turn to online writing instruction will actually save money and jobs: According to this analysis, Writing Programs generates a large Online learning offers the potential to achieve several concrete goals: profit for the Humanities, and any cut to this program would be improvement in students’ time-to-degree; a lessening of pressure in destructive to the core mission and financially unjustifiable; however, overcrowded classrooms; the generation of funds in order to save the report fails to mention that all of the faculty in the Writing Prolecturers’ positions; and the emergence of UCLA as the leader in topgrams have been given one-year layoff notices. While we expect that quality, i.e., not cut-price, distance education. some of these layoffs will be rescinded, the current plan is to replace First of all, if you move courses to summer and online, you will not many of the lecturers with graduate students and faculty from other need any lecturers, except for the ones you hire on the cheap during programs. the summer. Second of all, the reason why online programs cost so In one of the only other mentions of writing instruction in the report, much is that they require a tremendous amount of equipment, staff, the authors actually suggest placing faculty from other departments electricity, and administration; moreover, most studies of online eduwho continue to have low workloads into writing classes: cation show that these programs hurt the ability of students to gradFaculty whose courses are insufficiently enrolled could be assigned uate on time because so many students drop out or do not complete to appropriate courses in the Humanitheir courses. ties Institute, The Language Center, Perhaps the most noxious part of ...by moving half of the courses to or the Writing Programs (as is already this plan is the idea to force students the case in at least one department). to pay extra to fulfil their language summer, UCLA would be able to lay Department chairs will be responsicourses in the summer: off all of its language instructors, and ble for making such assignments, and Because many students might then hire these faculty members back for assuring that faculty teaching in prefer to avoid the added expense without benefits and at much lower the writing program are sufficiently of summer study, a respectful hiertrained through the program’s pedaarchy would need to be established salaries. gogy course. among participants. If languages In this structure, teaching in the were indeed offered year-round, Writing Programs would be the ultimate threat to tenured professors. it would be only fair to give Majors and Pre-Majors in the relevant Here we see how the most popular and profitable program at UCLA departments first choice during the school year. Language instrucis represented as the worst form of punishment for underutilised faction that is traditionally oversubscribed, such as Chinese and Spanish, ulty. could require transfer or ‘external’ students from other departments to Not only does this task force suggest moving language courses to satisfy their language requirements during the summer. the summer and online, but it lists over a hundred high-enrolment I believe this passage is positing that students who are not majorcourses from all over the curriculum that could be shifted to the ing in a specific language would have to take the course during the summer. If the university actually followed the advice of this report, summer or some other program that requires payment. Instead of we would see most of the required undergraduate courses placed students being able to study their home language at UCLA, they online, and students would have to pay extra for the privilege of would now have to pay extra for the privilege of language instruction. taking these classes of questionable quality. One of the justifications for this move is that the high-enrolment classes already suffer from a low level of quality: ...most of our GE/Lower-Division students have some experience of As language instruction gets squeezed, the plan is to set up a new classes that are so big, they’d be better off watching a video performHumanities Institute and develop a new major in Digital Humanities. ance, a close-up broadcast that is paused and (re)considered at their While these programs might seem like good ways of rethinking the own pace. The bigger classes often offer no contact with the profeshumanities, these new initiatives would surely cost a large amount sor, in any case. Hence the number of students in the back row(s) of money, and one has to question why UCLA is pursuing a policy of ‘taking notes’ on their laptops, many of whom are actually polishing eliminating all lecturers due to budgetary concerns as it embarks on their Facebook profiles. projects that require new administrators, faculty, and staff. Further(The same students, no doubt, also wish they were at home, watchmore, the report reveals that the humanities have been kept afloat by ing a popular BruinCast of the same information. This is an online protheir reliance on courses taught by lecturers, but now they are going gram, in fact, that is now so popular it has caused lecture attendance to eliminate their own cash cow: to decrease!).

Humanities generating over $59 million in student fee revenue, while In other words, large lecture classes already provide such a poor spending only $53.5 million (unlike the Physical Sciences, which come level of instruction and interaction that we might as well move the up several million dollars short in this category). Writing Programs whole thing online. It is amazing that these thoughtful advocates of alone generate $4.3 million dollars in fee revenue at a cost of only $2.4 the Humanities are actually recommending the destruction of higher million. These profits will increase as student fees increase; they would education and effective undergraduate instruction. A be even greater if we figured in a share of the over-enrolment subBob Samuels’ blog c http://changinguniversities.blogspot.com/ sidies due from the state. In pursuing our vital, non-profit mission of

Killing off a cash cow

MARCH 2010 www.nteu.org.au

29

INTERNATIONAL

Aalto University, Helsinki. Photo by Zain Mankani, www.flickr.com/photos/8268405@N05/

Ian R Dobson, University World News Helsinki correspondent

University reform, Finnish style F

inland is about to reform its university sector in four major areas, which will strengthen universities both financially and in terms of governance, it is hoped.

First, mergers are on the agenda. Some of these have already occurred, and others might follow. Mergers are aimed at reducing the number of universities under the purview of the Ministry of Education from 20 to no more than 15.

Of the mergers and alliances discussed, the most publicised has been the merger between Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki School of Economics and the University of Art and Design Helsinki to form Aalto University, named in honour of Finland’s famous architect Alvar Aalto (1898– 1976). This ‘new’ university is already up and running, having already appointed a Rector (Vice-Chancellor) and a university board. In fact this has happened before the legislation to enable it is in place! This merged university is also to be Finland’s first ‘private’ university in the new era, although much of its funding will come in the form of overnment subsidies. Aalto University is also to receive a large cash injection from the Government as part of Finland’s desire to create a ‘world class university’.

The other three areas of reform are the direct outcomes of a new University Act which came into force on 1 January 2010. First, the new Act will mean a change of legal status for universities. They will become independent legal entities rather than continuing to be ‘accounting units’ within the government bureaucracy.

30

At present, nearly all the funds deployed

by Finnish universities come from the government. So-called ‘budget funding’ represents about 65 per cent of total funds. The Finns describe the other 35 per cent as ‘external funding’, but in fact, nearly 24 per cent of this ‘external funding’ also comes from the Finnish government. Although the bulk of university funding will continue to come from the government, it will be provided in the form of a monthly subsidy rather than as an allocation through the national budget.

Currently, funds sufficient for the needs of each day’s activities are made available to each university, and unused funds are returned to the government each night.

From 2010, the system will change into one more familiar to Australians: universities will receive monthly payments which they will have to manage themselves, in their own accounts. Short-term cash flow will start to be an issue from 2010.

At the same time, university employees will cease to be civil servants, as their employee-employer relationship changes from employee-government to employeeuniversity. Some have seen this change as an attack on academic freedom, but in time the change could make it possible for there to be differences in the salaries paid by different universities.

The second reform will affect the use and accounting for buildings. University build-

ings are currently owned and maintained by a government company, and universities rent their buildings and space from that company. From 2010, buildings are to be owned by companies that will be 67 per cent owned by the universities themselves.

The government will own the other shares.

Universities will be able to use their shares as leverage against loans.

Finally, governance relationships will change. External stakeholders will be afforded a greater role on university boards. Although boards will continue to be appointed by the university collegiate of professors, other staff and students, at least 40 per cent of members will be external to the university. Rectors will be appointed by these boards and be responsible to them. This is in contrast with the current arrangement whereby the Rector is elected by the university collegiate, the system for appointing Rectors in most European university systems.

The main aim of the reforms is financial, freeing up universities to seek external funds from public and private sources alike. However, Finnish universities will not be availing themselves of the ‘easiest’ way to broaden the funding base, that is, by charging tuition fees to domestic students. Universities are to be permitted to charge fees to some non-EU/ EEA students, but teaching would almost certainly have to be in English. Although nearly all Finns can speak English well, there NTEU ADVOCATE

INTERNATIONAL Finland is a nation of 5.3 million in a land covering 338,000 sq km – a bit larger than Victoria and Tasmania together. It excels in international comparisons relating to education, and education at all levels is held in high esteem by Finnish society in general. For example, Finland regularly tops the OECD’s assessment of secondary school standards in the internationally standardised Programme for International Student Assessment that was jointly developed by participating countries and administered to 15-year-olds.

Similarly, Finnish higher education is treated as a priority. Finland has a binary system of 20 universities with total enrolments of about 167,000, and 26 polytechnics with 141,000. Although there are more educational options available to those living in the Helsinki region, Finland’s regional policies of the 1960s saw the establishment of multi-disciplinary universities in a number of regional cities.

Discontinuation rates are low, and about 94 per cent of commencing students eventually complete one higher education programme or another. Sixty-two per cent of university students are women.

Finnish students tend to be older than their Australian counterparts because most students are older when they start primary school, and most young men have to defer the commencement of university studies until after they have completed at least six months of compulsory universal national service.

is no certainty that Finnish universities have the requisite number of academic staff with an appropriate capacity in English to be able to ‘sell’ higher education.

Universities could also broaden their funding base through bequests and donations, and to this end, there has been a freeing-up of tax deductibility for donations by companies and the limited introduction of tax deductions for individuals donating to universities. However, these are not likely to see much of a change to the funding base. As other countries have found, outside North America the practice of ‘giving’ to universities is rather limited, and universities are perceived as being the responsibility of governments.

Although funds might also be earned through contract research, expanding the funding base through contract research would also seem to be limited. The fact is that the great majority of funding available to Finnish universities comes from the Finnish government in one way or another.

Although this dependence might decline over time, it is likely to be gradual.

It will be interesting to see how those in the university sector react to the ‘brave new world’ that will greet them in 2010. A Acknowledgement: Some of the material here has been summarised from a paper entitled ‘Brave new world: higher education reform in Finland’ written by Timo Aarrevaara, Ian R Dobson and Camilla Elander, published in the OECD’s Journal of Higher Education Management and Policy.

MARCH 2010 www.nteu.org.au

SNAPSHOT

Under the Finnish constitution, higher education is tuition feefree, even for students from outside the European Union. Financial support for university students is also relatively generous, and is taken up by about 75,000 of them: students are eligible to receive a monthly study grant of €298 (A$540) and a housing supplement of €202 if they live away from the family home. Completing secondary education is one of Finland’s rites of passage, and most young people leave home at this stage. These sums are ‘grants’ and are not repayable. Students are also eligible for subsidised lunches in university cafeterias, almost free healthcare, discounted public transport and discounts for social and cultural activities such as theatres and museums. Adequate academic progress is required to guarantee receipt of these benefits. Students can also apply for a governmentguaranteed loan of up to €300 per month, with pay-back at a discounted interest rate immediately following course completion.

Despite the relative generosity of these grants and loans, most students find it necessary to join the part-time workforce. About 42 per cent of student expenditure is met through paid work.

The Finnish system has already been reformed because of Finland’s acceptance of the Bologna Agreement. Finland agreed to follow the ‘3+2’ program of Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees that has been adopted throughout Europe.

LOS ANGELES, NOV 2009

Mary Jacob, 20, third year world arts and cultures major at UCLA protests against university tuition hikes outside of Covel Commons on 19 November 2009. The Regents of the University of California approved a 32 per cent increase in tuition.

Photo: Sarah Smith-Sell, www.flickr.com/photos/42047737@N07/

31

UNIVERSITy news from bargaining the net PAT WRIGHT

Take one tablet with coffee ....

T

he prognosis for newspapers is bleak. All around the world, proprietors are squealing that their rivers of gold – the classified ads – are running dry because of internet shopping, their circulation is falling because people are getting their news online, and their columnists are not pulling newspaper–buyers because the bloggers are providing commentary for free. The traditional newspaper business model is sick, if not terminally ill. And the book publishing business model is suffering early symptoms of much the same disease.

Prescriptions to at least mask this malaise are many and varied – some newspaper proprietors resort to amputation of their most– affected limbs in the hope of stopping the contagion from spreading to their relatively healthy core business, others reach out for a similarly affected partner to serve as a syndication crutch on which to limp along, and yet still others get into bed with the new media enemy to breed the next generation of ePublications. The last of these survival strategies seems most likely to succeed, thanks to a new breed of tablet computers which serve as eReaders, particularly Apple’s new iPad. Before long you could well be getting your daily news-fix by taking a tablet computer with your morning coffee.

Tablet computers are what you get when you rip the lid off a laptop or netbook and embed a pop–up keyboard in the touchscreen. Or take a large–screen smartphone and magnify it to A5 or even A4 size (and disconnect its mobile telephone capability!). Or detach the touchscreen from the overgrown cash register at your favourite supermarket or restaurant check–out and connect it to the internet.

In any event, you finish up with a Moses-like tablet on which is writ any publication loaded or downloaded that you desire. Thus you can download from your favourite news services the very latest edition of a late-breaking news items as they happen 24/7, or load the greatest annotated version of War and Peace, with hypertext links between all of those impossible Russian names. In fact, you could have 1,000 or so such books stored on your eReader.

Of course, the tablet computer does nothing that your desktop computer or even your laptop cannot do – in fact, it does less than many – but the portability, simplicity and ease of use ensure that tablet computers will really take off in the marketplace. Last year five million eReaders were sold in the US – and that was before the iPad, which has colour, images, music and video, unlike most of its predecessors.

The best–known predecessor is the Kindle from Amazon.com, the largest online bookseller. Successive versions of the Kindle have added extra features and no doubt a future version will match the iPad. Other eReaders include the Nook from US publishers Barnes and Noble, the E–reader from Sony, the Que from Plastic Logic, the Australia/New Zealand ECO Reader from www.ecoreader.com.au, and many others. Manufacturers HP, Lenovo and Dell all plan to release tablet eReaders real soon.

Meanwhile, they could all be gazumped by Time Inc and Swedish publisher Bonnier, who have produced two demos of the Skiff Reader developed by an offshoot of the Hearst Corporation. The Skiff is a 292.1mm (11.5”) sheet of flexible stainless steel foil, rather like a lami32

...the tablet computer does nothing that your ...laptop computer cannot do ... but the portability, simplicity and ease of use ensure that tablet computers will really take off... nated tabloid newspaper, but capable of displaying a high-definition downloaded image. The cost of this device is not yet determined, but it is unlikely to find a mass market for some time.

The iPad, which is under US$500, is likely to become the market leader because of its elegance and simplicity and because of Apple’s brilliant marketing and seamless integration of the device, the reading software and the well-established iTunes online store in which to shop for eBooks (though it is not yet clear that this will extend beyond the US).

Potential challengers include Google, who have published mockups of a tablet computer which would use their Chrome operating system based around the web browser, and, of course, Apple’s perennial rival, Microsoft, who have published images of a ‘Courier’ tablet computer prototype with two touchscreens that face each other in a book format.

The long-feared ‘Death of the Book’ is almost certainly an overstatement, in much the same way that talking on the telephone has not eliminated meeting in person. The market demographics in the US suggest that people who buy eReaders like books and reading rather than computers and net surfing. The look and feel of the moroccanbound will long co-exist with the machine-searchable text file.

The horrors of on-screen reading, too, are somewhat overstated when it comes to the latest generation of eReaders. Certainly, a text file with a line length greater than one’s screen width is infuriating to read on-screen. Even a PDF file which needs to be magnified beyond one’s screen width for easy legibility is similarly frustrating.

And the technofad of superimposing text over images, low contrast colours for text and background, and even the grainy parchment look of many scanned documents does nothing for legibility – either onscreen or in hardcopy form. Perhaps the designers want to convey a feeling by the look of the page rather than the meaning of the text.

Fortunately, the latest eReader software allows one to set the size, brightness, contrast, background, page turning and word wrap for optimum legibility – which is, after all, the object of the exercise. continued opposite...

NTEU ADVOCATE

lowering the boom

UNIVERSITy bargaining

IAN LOWE

Copenhagen a step forward but greater leaps required M

ost of us who attended the Copenhagen climate change conference were disappointed that it did not produce a legal treaty. The ‘Accord’ has no legal force, but it is still important. The Kyoto Protocol, adopted in 1997, only applied mandatory targets to the industrialised nations. It was weakened still further by the USA refusing to ratify the treaty. So Kyoto did not restrict about two-thirds of the world’s greenhouse gases, emissions from the USA, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia and so on. The Copenhagen Accord extends Kyoto to include new undertakings from the industrialised world and broadens the agreement to include voluntary restraint by the large developing nations. It is the first genuinely global agreement to tackle the problem.

The [Government’s] minimalist target of 5 per cent is inadequate and the Coalition’s fictional 5 per cent is even worse. The science says we should go further.

That means the conference was a significant step forward. Over 100 world leaders agreed that urgent concerted action is needed to slow climate change and all major greenhouse gas emitters have accepted the accord. It still needs to be turned into a treaty with legal force. Optimists hope that can happen by the meeting in Mexico later this year.

I was heartened at Copenhagen to find that everyone understood the importance of the issue. Nobody takes seriously the climate change denialists, a motley crew who don’t even agree among themselves on anything except their starting point that we should do nothing. Every week the science is clearer and more alarming. It says we have only five to ten years to turn the upward emissions trajectory into a downward trend. The arguments are about which nations and industries will do what, and who will pay for the transition.

Now the developed nations – including Australia – have to put forward serious plans for emissions cuts on the scale needed, about 40 per cent by 2020. As US President Obama said at Copenhagen, the targets being put forward today are not sufficient. The science demands more aggressive action. Kevin Rudd has to stand up to the big polluters and set serious emission reduction targets. A package of measures to effect real change in Australia must go well beyond the proposals in the watered-down CPRS, rejected by the Senate in late 2009. That was still too demanding for the Opposition and brought the denial faction to power in the Coalition, so the Government has a real political challenge.

The minimalist target of 5 per cent is inadequate and the Coalition’s fictional 5 per cent is even worse. The science says we should go further. There is no economic or social reason to delay. The Garnaut Report showed clearly the benefits of being an early mover, rather than continuing to lag well behind more progressive nations by subsidising dirty ways of meeting our needs.

As well as reduction commitments from the industrialised world and corresponding commitments to meaningful action by the large

developing nations, the Copenhagen Accord puts money on the table to help poorer countries adapt to climate change and manage the transition to clean energy. Pollution reductions must be measurable, reportable and verifiable. Everyone agrees with the principle.

The challenge is finding mechanisms that command respect without infringing national sovereignty. The problems of nuclear technology should remind us how difficult those requirements are.

Opinion polls show that the community understands the issue and wants to see concerted action, despite the campaign of misinformation from some fossil interests. Tens of thousands of Australians joined the Walk Against Warming last December. Huge numbers have bought solar panels and shifted to public transport. It is time for our leaders to follow the lead of the people.

Ten years ago, at the end of the twentieth century, I was asked to answer the question, ‘Can our civilisation survive the twenty-first century?’ I said at the time that there was a chance, but if you were a rational gambler you would want very generous odds to bet on it.

Unfortunately, most of our leaders still show no sign of even recognising the scale of the problems we face, let alone having the will or the political skill to build support for the sort of changes needed.

The Copenhagen conference reinforced that gloomy view of our future. In an election year, we are entitled to make clear to those in power and those seeking office that we expect them to lift their game. It is our future they are playing with. A Ian Lowe is Emeritus Professor of Science, Technology and Society at Griffith University.

...continued from previous page Lovers of reading, if not of books, therefore, will embrace eReaders, particularly when equipped with such software as Stanza from www. lexcycle.com or from the iTunes online store. Stanza uses the wonderful ePub format for eBook files and can be used on the iPad, but also on the smaller iTouch and the even smaller iPhone.

This might sound impractical, but with the capacity to optimise legibility, the iPhone makes a great eReader – besides, it’s smaller, lighter and more private than the iPad on that crowded commuter bus or train. A Pat Wright is Director of the Centre for Labour Research at the University of Adelaide. email: pat.wright@adelaide.edu.au

MARCH 2010 www.nteu.org.au

33

regional focus

JENNY AUSTIN

Top issues for NTEU National Executive candidates D

uring this election year for the NTEU’s National Executive, it may be wise for the candidates to consider the most pressing concerns from the Branches which have undoubtedly been endorsed at Division level.

I’ve recently been delving into the murky world of bullying and harassment at our universities and although I don’t have any scientific data to provide you with, I’m convinced there’s a link between our ever-increasing workloads and the majority of cases.

During this bargaining round, the management teams within our universities have strongly resisted returning policies to our Collective Agreements where they would be legally enforceable.

Outside the Agreement, those policies and procedures are extremely elastic – for senior management – but staff members are usually held responsible for sorting out the consequences when they’re not followed.

Furthermore, the frequency and complexity of operational changes within our universities are often poorly implemented and affect members worse the more you move down the chain of command.

signatories to. At the top of the list of ‘forms of bullying’ was workloads – being given too much to do, or too little.

Surely similar campaigns and charters exist in other states of Australia with which university managements could be pressed to comply.

…and bullying

When workload, bullying and harassment, and grievance policies are disregarded, incorrectly or inconsistently applied at high levels of supervision, it’s unlikely that resolution is likely to be reached in the short-term, which usually means the issue escalates.

Because the process appears to be extremely complicated, time-consuming and ineffective, the staff member tends to eventually go off on sick leave, or leaves the university because it’s just all too hard.

So I’d just like to remind those with an eye on a seat at the National Executive table that when universities lose staff, the This, combined with other developments NTEU loses members as well. within the universities including the introDuring this bargaining round, we should duction of three session teaching calenhave seen a strong national campaign on dars, contributes to an ever-expanding general staff and academic workloads, workload, increased stress, and a percepanother on bullying and harasstion by supervisors that staff memment, and the link between the bers are either incompetent, ‘not ...members report that due to job two should have been demonpart of the team’ or somehow disstrated publicly and strongly. loyal to the university. insecurity – particularly in regional areas Instead, most Branches have had Meanwhile, members report – they feel unable to decline the longer to work extremely hard on both that due to job insecurity – particuhours demanded of them and this has an these major issues in their individlarly in regional areas – they feel effect on their health and home life... ual workplaces, while coping with unable to decline the longer hours all the other pressing demands on demanded of them and this has an their voluntary time. effect on their health and home However, it’s never too late, so I’m hoping the candidates for the life despite claims that universities provide a ‘family-friendly’ working NTEU National Executive will take up these issues and give them environment. some traction prior to the election, with immediate follow-up at Bullying and harassment policies are based on Occupational National Executive once the seats are filled. A Health and Safety regulations, but they often overlap with policies on Jenny Austin is an NTEU National Councillor, codes of conduct, particularly in regard to respect for individuals in NTEU Southern Cross University Branch President the workplace, and responsibility for duty of care. and a regional commentator on social and political affairs Some years ago, Unions NSW ran an anti-bullying campaign which included a charter which I’m advised at least two universities were

Workloads…

34

NTEU ADVOCATE

letter from new zealanD/aotearoa

TOM RYAN, TEU

Ominous budget looms in New Zealand T

hree months away, and the Government’s Budget is already looming here in New Zealand. In the last month, the tertiary education sector here has had a new Minister appointed and the Prime Minister, John Key, opened Parliament with a speech that claimed there are ‘increasingly urgent problems’ in tertiary education.

Mr Key said universities suffered from an inflexible and bureaucratic funding and policy framework, and that many sub-degree level programmes have drop-out rates he considers to be too high. His Government will focus its tertiary education efforts this year, he said, on ensuring that courses are relevant to the job market and of a high quality.

The Government seems intent on running down the sector and those who work in it, not just with critical words but with a long term plan to cut away at various streams of funding, one by one.

Such negativity towards our tertiary education sector is undermining the world-class teaching and research being done by staff and students in our universities, polytechnics, wānanga, and other providers.

Budget and the Government promising more to come, no wonder this year’s Budget looms so ominously.

Equity funding at risk

One area we are particularly concerned about is the equity funding which the Tertiary Education Commission currently provides to institutions with Māori, Pasifika and disabled students. There are widespread rumours that this fund may not be renewed, or may be phased out in this year’s Budget.

Equity funding, which was introduced 10 years ago, provides institutions with $133 for each Māori or Pasifika student studying towards a diploma, $320 for a degree, and $444 for a postgraduate qualification. It also provides $28 for each student with a disability.

The Tertiary Education Commission states that equity funding A clear example of the impact of this Government’s policy is what is helps tertiary education institutions to improve equity of access and happening to the Western Institute of Technology in Taranaki (WITT). achievement for Māori students, Pasifika students, and students with WITT has released a consultation document to its staff indentifying a disabilities. significant reduction in revenue that will occur in 2011 as a result of Funding currently is used in a changes to government funding. range of ways by the various instiThe report notes that funding to tutions. For instance, the University New Zealand’s twenty polytechnics WITT’s ‘Sustainable Future’ proposal is ... of Auckland’s Tūakana Programme is scheduled to drop by over NZ$44 a desperate attempt by a small, regional links senior Māori students with million, or seven per cent, next polytechnic to stay afloat in the face of an new students, providing targeted year. Funding specifically for WITT increasingly hostile government. assistance, mentoring and support is scheduled to fall by NZ$2.17 milto the new students. The university lion, or 13 per cent of WITT’s previnotes that, overall, participants in ously planned funding for 2011. the Tuākana Programme have significantly higher retention and pass WITT’s proposal to address this reduction in government funding is rates than those who do not participate. to grow as much as it can, identify alternative revenue streams (such The current round of equity funding expires this year. People workas more overseas students), to increase fees, and reduce costs, including in tertiary education are looking for some assurance that, given ing staffing costs. its importance and success to date, it will continue. The Government It proposes to save NZ$615,000 in direct staffing costs next year. recently has been expressing concerns over retention and success WITT also plans to make savings by reducing its health and safety rates in tertiary education. Hopefully the Minister will decide that the payments to third party suppliers, reducing its contingency budget equity fund has proved its worth and so should be continued. and reducing its training costs.

The Government says that it urgently wants to get more people The Government needs to own up to the damage it is doing to New who would not usually undertake a tertiary education into study. Yet Zealand polytechnics. it is showing the scantest respect to those people who can most help WITT’s ‘Sustainable Future’ proposal is anything but that. It is a it attain that goal: the hard working staff in polytechnics, universities desperate attempt by a small, regional polytechnic to stay afloat in and wānanga who are trying to give young people the opportunity the face of an increasingly hostile Government. And the whole situathey need to learn and develop new skills. A tion reflects particularly badly on a Government that claims to be the Dr Tom Ryan is National President/Te Tumu Whakarae, defender of the interests of rural constituencies.

New Zealand Tertiary Education Union/Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa So, with the whole tertiary education sector, and especially polyTEU  www.teu.ac.nz technics and institutes of technology, still reeling from last year’s

WITT funding slash a mark of things to come

MARCH 2010 www.nteu.org.au

35

YOUR UNION

New staff in the Branches and Divisions Q

uite a few new faces are to be found in our Branch and Division offices in the last few months. To help you to get to know your local NTEU contact a bit better, we are pleased to present these brief profiles.

Jo Hall

Jason Hart

Branch Organiser Flinders University

Industrial Officer NSW Division

After 10 years working as a postie, Jo decided that it was time to get a real job. After trying her hand at running her own cleaning franchise, Jo wandered into the Library at Flinders University and took up some casual work.

After a few months, an opportunity came up for a continuing fulltime position which she took. This is when Jo’s involvement with NTEU really flourished – first as a delegate and later as Branch Committee member. Jo has also represented SA as a WAC member and as a National Councillor for Flinders.

Outside of work, Jo is kept busy with two young boys (9 and 7) running them around to football/cricket and anywhere else they may go. She also enjoys just spending time with family and friends and going to watch the Adelaide Crows with her younger son.

Jo comes to the Flinders Branch after the retirement of Teresa Marshall.

Marty Braithwaite Division Industrial Organiser Western Australia Division Marty has been employed for six months in WA and comes with around 15 years experience with the Association of University Staff in New Zealand. There he started as the Branch Organiser at the University of Canterbury and then moved to the National Office where he filled several roles including Communications and Industrial Officers and Deputy Secretary.

Marty will be working across the WA Division but will also have dedicated time at Curtin and Edith Cowan universities. Outside work Marty enjoys listening to music and watching sport, and is anticipating a Crusaders victory over the Western Force in the Super 14 rugby.

36

Jason has recently joined NTEU NSW Division and has come from working as an industrial officer with the Flight Attendants’ Association of Australia (International Division).

Jason has worked for student unions in both elected and advocacy roles since completing his honours degree in History at the University of Wollongong and is now currently working toward completing a law degree at UTS. In his spare time, Jason is a keen aviator, having acquired his pilots licence in 1999, and is now currently upgrading his skills and is completing his commercial licence and instrument rating.

Bonny Campbell Branch Administrative Officer University of Sydney Bonny studied Economics and History at the University of Wollongong. She has been involved in the trade union movement for almost 10 years – initially as a union delegate and then as a union organiser for the Federal Public Service.

Bonny is enjoying working with the talented and committed members of the University of Sydney Branch and is passionate about assisting members to create a strong union community on campus.

Tom Barratt Branch Organiser Murdoch University Tom has been working in tertiary education as a casual tutor since 2008 working for the UWA Business School. This is Tom’s first ‘real

job’ having completed an economics degree with honours in Industrial Relations, and he is still completing his Law degree part time (on his day off ).

Outside of work, Tom enjoys playing sport (cricket and football) but won’t be playing anytime soon as he is rehabilitating his left leg after a knee reconstruction late last year.

Jenny Whittard Branch Organiser University of Newcastle Jenny had been working for NTEU as an Industrial Officer in the NSW Division for 6 months, before moving back to her hometown of Newcastle to take up the position of Branch Organiser. While working at the University in both general and academic staff roles for around eight years, she was an NTEU Branch Committee member.

Jenny’s academic background is in industrial relations/human resource management.

She graduated in 2009 with a PhD (Management) and is looking forward to working with old and new colleagues among the Newcastle NTEU membership.

More Industrial Officers in NSW Three additional Industrial Officers are due to start working in the NSW Division: Rathana Chea, Josh Gava and Senior Industrial Officer Andrew Thomas. We will profile them in the next issue of Advocate.

PhD scholarship for Robyn May NTEU National Industrial Officer, Robyn May has been awarded an APAI scholarship on the ARC project ‘Gender equity in Universities’ (see report, p.9). Robyn will undertake a PhD focussing on casual NTEU ADVOCATE

YOUR UNION teaching and research staff and the impact these types of employment have on gender equity, supervised by Professor Glenda Strachan and Dr Kaye Broadbent.

Robyn has resigned from the National Office to take up the scholarship but will be working closely with NTEU on this research.

Branch swapping The Branch Organisers at Macquarie University and UWS have swapped over: Cat Coghlan is now at Macquarie University, and Kaylene Field has moved to UWS. Cat is looking forward to a busy year ahead as the Macquarie Branch Organiser, continuing the Branch’s campaign to keep a single Agreement and ensuring pay and working conditions are protected and improved for all staff at Macquarie.

Kaylene is very happy to commence as the UWS Branch Organiser. She looks forward to the opportunity to work with all NTEU members on local campaigns towards a better working environment at UWS.

Other staff movements National Industrial Officer, Josh Cullinan, has taken up an Industrial Officer position in the Victorian Division, with a focus on enforcement and activist development organising.

Josh worked in the National Office for 5 years and was given a resounding farewell when he moved across the corridor in the South Melbourne office to take up the new role.

After a short stint in the National Office in 2009, NSW Division Industrial Officer, Michelle Rangott, has given in to her addiction to drinking strong espressi in difficult-tofind laneway bars by moving permanently to Melbourne. She is currently in the process of replacing all the bright colours in her wardrobe with black. A

NTEU Elections in 2010 – your chance to make a difference

Y

our Union is a member-driven organisation with a strongly democratic structure, and this year is the best time to get involved at any level: Branch, Division (State) and National.

You don’t have to have worked at the university for 20 years before you can consider running for an elected position – we welcome anyone who’s willing to give it a go! Whether you’re an academic or general staff member, full-time or casual, young or ‘seasoned’, there’s a role for you in helping to guide and develop your Union.

How the structures work NTEU is one of the most democratically structured unions in Australia. Every two years, at each university, members elect a Branch Committee to govern the affairs of the Branch and to represent you at a local level, for a term of two years.

Each Branch Committee consists of a Branch President, a Branch Secretary, a Vice President (Academic Staff) and a Vice President (General Staff). There are also between 5 and 10 regular Branch Committee positions, and one Indigenous position.

Division and National positions Each Branch elects representatives to Division Council, from which Division Executive is elected. This year there will be elections for Division Council and the Division leadership positions: President, Vice President (Academic) and Vice President

(General Staff ), all for terms of 2 years, and the Division Secretary for a four year term.

Nationally, members at Branches with less than 300 members are directly represented on NTEU’s National Council, which meets every year. Branches with more than 300 members elect a delegate – a National Councillor – for every 300 members. National Executive comprises of 8 members elected from amongst National Councillors, plus the Division Secretaries and National Officers.

This year, the National Officers are up for election: National President, General Secretary and National Assistant Secretary, each with terms of four years.

Notices about the elections will be circulated during May and June this year.

Contact your local Branch Organiser or Division office for more information on getting elected.

Indigenous positions In addition to at least one Indigenous position on each Branch Committee, there is one Indigenous position on Division Executive, and 3 Indigenous positions on National Council, in addition to the Indigenous Policy Committee (IPC) members.

The IPC Chair holds a position on National Executive. A

GO GREEN WITH NTEU SOFT DELIVERY. Did you know you can opt-out of receiving this magazine by mail?

Instead, you’ll receive a notfication email when the latest issue is available online, for you to read as a fully functional e-mag or PDF. l Login to www.nteu.org.au l Click on ‘Your Details’ l Click on ‘Publications & Communication Preferences’ l Select ‘Email notification (Soft delivery)’.

MARCH 2010 www.nteu.org.au

37

YOUR UNION

NTEU staff gather to review Union’s work

N

inety NTEU staff from around Australia met in Melbourne in mid-February for a National Staff Conference. It was an opportunity for staff to participate in reviewing and engaging with NTEU’s key priorities over the next two years and to develop a deeper understanding and appreciation of the nature and diversity of the work done by colleagues.

The conference looked at how we work together and with Elected Officers at all levels of NTEU and at developing initiatives around improving our overall effectiveness.

It was also an opportunity to develop and enhance a sense of camaraderie and mutual support amongst NTEU staff, particularly important for Branch-based staff who spend much of their working lives isolated from their Union colleagues.

Staff generally agreed the conference was successful, and helps to ensure staff are better equipped to assist members with campaigning and organising in the coming months.

One of the unexpected highlights of the three days wasn’t a formal part of the conference, but an Indigenous Cultural Walk along the banks of the Yarra River near the city, during the beautiful Melbourne late summer twilight. ‘Walkin’ Birrarung’ is an evocative mix of storytelling and imagination that conjures in vivid detail the experiences and cultural complexities of the original Indigenous inhabitants of the area when white settlers first arrived. Some staff who took part said that it was one of the most moving experiences of their lives. A Michael Evans, National Organiser NTEU staff on the Indigenous Cultural Walk.

Photo by Jane Maze

Vivienne Bryant retires from ACT

A

CT Industrial Officer Vivienne Bryant retired in February after ten years service with NTEU.

Vivienne had assisted countless members at the University of Canberra (UC), Australian Defence Forces Academy (ADFA) and Australian Catholic University, and negotiated a succession of Agreements at UC and ADFA. She was pleased that after more than a year of gruelling negotiations with UC, Agreement had finally been achieved late last year and was endorsed by strong votes of UC members and staff.

Vivienne was responsible for organising women’s networks and activities in the ACT. Another achievement of her last months in the job is the reinvigoration of women’s interest in getting involved in the NTEU to campaign around gender issues.

Vivienne is eagerly looking forward to spending more time with her grandchildren than with university HR managers. Even these, however, have said how much they will miss her calm professionalism and problem-solving focus – as will ACT NTEU members. A

NTEU Concise Financial Report year ended 30th June 2007 (amendment) NATIONAL TERTIARY EDUCATION INDUSTRY UNION, CONCISE FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2007 RECONCILIATION STATEMENT FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PUBLISHED NET SURPLUS PER THE CONCISE FINANCIAL REPORT AND THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL REPORT Surplus per concise financial report 2007 Add property fund contribution income Surplus per general purpose financial report 2007

5,020,867 400,000 *

For Committee of Management: Grahame McCulloch Title: General Secretary Signature:

5,420,867

*Relates to contributions made by branches and was originally recorded as a credit loan by National Office, but this was later recognised as revenue as it was not required to be repaid.

38

This reconciliation statement gives a true and fair view of the financial performance of the reporting unit for the financial year ended 30 June 2007.

Date: 27 February 2010

NTEU ADVOCATE

YOUR UNION

Water Bottles $3 KeepCup $9 Lip Balm $3

buy online securely @ www.nteu.org.au/shop NTEU ONLINE MEMBERSHIP DATABASE Update your details: In order for NTEU to keep you in touch, it is important we have your latest details.

How to check your membership details or download your tax statement online

If any of the following points apply to you, please change your details online or contact us immediately.

MEMBERSHIP DETAILS Have you moved house recently? ÎÎ If you have nominated your home address as your NTEU contact address, you must update it.

Has your family name changed?

Have your workplace details changed?

Has your Dept/School had a name change or merged with another?

Are you moving to a different institution? ÎÎ Transfer of membership from one institution to another is not automatic.

Have your employment details changed? ÎÎ Please notify us to ensure you are paying the correct fees.

For any of the above membership enquiries, please contact: Melinda Valsorda, Membership Officer ph (03) 9254 1910 email mvalsorda@nteu.org.au

CREDIT CARD/DIRECT DEBIT PAYMENTS Have your credit card (ie expiry date) or direct debit account details changed? ÎÎ Please notify us immediately.

Are you leaving university employment? ÎÎ If you are no longer an NTEU member, deductions will continue until the National Office is notified.

For all credit card and direct debit enquiries, please contact: Tamara Labadze, Finance Officer ph (03) 9254 1910 email tlabadze@nteu.org.au

PAYROLL DEDUCTION PAYMENTS Have your payroll deductions suddenly stopped without your authority?

1: Login to the ‘Members Area’ ID = Your NTEU membership number Password = Your surname in CAPITALS

ÎÎ contact your payroll dept urgently.

2: Go to ‘My Home’

Payroll deduction queries should be directed to your Branch or Division office.

3: Select ‘Your Profile’ 4: Select ‘View Details’ (to change personal details) or ‘Print Tax Statement’ (after 1 July)

Annual tax statement: Available for download after 1 July. Statements will not be posted out.

MARCH 2010 www.nteu.org.au

39

Contacting NTEU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National Office

office phone fax email website

PO Box 1323, South Melbourne, VIC 3205 (03) 9254 1910 (03) 9254 1915 national@nteu.org.au www.nteu.org.au

NT Division

WA Division

1st Fl, 120 Clarendon St, Southbank, VIC 3006

PO Box 3114, Broadway LPO Nedlands, WA 6009 (08) 6365 4188 (08) 9354 1629 wa@nteu.org.au www.nteu.org.au/wa

PO Box U371, CDU, Darwin, NT 0815 (08) 8946 7231 (08) 8927 9410 nt@nteu.org.au www.nteu.org.au/nt

Queensland Division

4 Briggs Street, Taringa, QLD 4068 (07) 3362 8200 (07) 3371 7817 qld@nteu.org.au www.nteu.org.au/qld

SA Division

Ground Floor, Palais Apartment Complex, 281 North Tce, Adelaide SA 5000 (08) 8227 2384 (08) 8227 0997 sa@nteu.org.au www.nteu.org.au/sa

NSW Division

Level 1, 55 Holt St, Surry Hills, NSW 2010 (02) 9212 5433 (02) 9212 4090 nteunsw@nsw.nteu.org.au www.nteu.org.au/nsw

Victorian Division

NATIONAL OFFICE STAFF

1st Fl, 120 Clarendon St, Southbank, VIC 3006 (03) 9254 1930 (03) 9254 1935 office@vic.nteu.org.au www.nteu.org.au/vic

Officers & Central Resources Unit Executive Officer – President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Andrea Sauvarin Executive Officer – General Secretary. . . . . . . . . Anastasia Kotaidis IT Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michael Riley ICT System Administrator/Help Desk. . . . . . . . . . Tam Vuong National Indigenous Officer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adam Frogley Administrative Officer – Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . Tracey Coster Administrative Officer – Reception. . . . . . . . . . . . Renee Veal

Industrial Unit

ACT Division G Block, Old Admin Area, McDonald Place, ANU, Acton, ACT 0200 (02) 6125 2043 ANU/ADFA/ACU (02) 6201 5355 UC (02) 6125 8137 act@nteu.org.au www.nteu.org.au/act

Tasmanian Division

Private Bag 101, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7001 (03) 6226 7575 (03) 6226 2172 tas@nteu.org.au www.nteu.org.au/tasmania

NATIONAL EXECUTIVE

Industrial Unit Coordinator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eleanor Floyd Senior Industrial Officer (Strategy & Policy). . . . Ken McAlpine Industrial Officer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michelle Rangott Industrial Support Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rachel Liebhaber

National President. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carolyn Allport

Policy & Research Unit

General Secretary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grahame McCulloch National Assistant Secretary. . . . . . . . . Ted Murphy

Policy & Research Unit Coordinator.. . . . . . . . . . Paul Kniest Policy & Research Officers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terri MacDonald, Jen Tsen-Kwok

Recruitment & Training Unit National Organiser. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michael Evans National Publications Coordinator. . . . . . . . . . . . Paul Clifton Membership Records Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Melinda Valsorda Administrative Officer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Julie-Ann Veal

Finance Unit Finance Unit Coordinator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jenny Savage Finance Officers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joanne Dunn, Jayne van Dalen, Gracia Ho,

Alex Ghvaladze, Tamara Labadze, Joyce Wong

40

Vice-President (Academic). . . . . . . . . . . Gregory McCarthy SA Div Vice-President (General). . . . . . . . . . . . . Jo Hibbert UWS

Executive Members Susan Bandias NT Div Andrew Bonnell UQ Derek Corrigan ANU Gabrielle Gooding UWA Genevieve Kelly NSW Div Matthew McGowan Vic Div Len Palmer CSU Michael Thomson Sydney

Lyn Bloom WA Div Margaret Botterill La Trobe James Doughney VU Ian Hunt Flinders Margaret Lee Qld Div Kelvin Michael Tas Div Kate Patrick RMIT

Indigenous Executive Member. . . . . . . Terry Mason UWS

NTEU ADVOCATE

NATIONAL TERTIARY EDUCATION UNION – MEMBERSHIP FORM

Surname

 parT Time

 Full Time

 conTinuing/permanenT  Fixed Term conTracT DATE OF ExPIRY

WHaT iS your employmenT caTegory?

WHaT iS your employmenT Term?

➔ uSe paymenT opTion 1, 2 or 3

hRS PER WK

F (03) 9254 1915

E www.nteu.org.au

T (03) 9254 1910

E national@nteu.org.au

NTEU National Office, Po Box 1323, South Melbourne VIc 3205

Please post or fax this form to NTEU National Office

Office use only: Membership no.

You may resign by written notice to the Division or Branch Secretary. Where you cease to be eligible to become a member, resignation shall take effect on the date the notice is received or on the day specified in your notice, whichever is later.

In any other case, you must give at least two weeks notice. Members are required to pay dues and levies as set by the Union from time to time in accordance with NTEU rules. Further information on financial obligations, including a copy of the rules, is available from your Branch.

SignaTure

 general

 academic

WHaT iS your employmenT group?

➔ uSe paymenT opTion 4

rEcrUITEd BY:

‡associated bodies: NTEU (NSW); University of Queensland Academic Staff Association (Union of Employees) at University of Queensland; Union of Australian College Academics (WA Branch) Industrial Union of Workers at Edith Cowan University & Curtin University; Curtin University Staff Association (Inc.) at Curtin University; Staff Association of Edith Cowan University (Inc.) at Edith Cowan University.

daTe

general STaFF caSual

SeSSional academic

MoNTH, If kNoWN

nexT incremenT due

mail/bldg code

PlEASE NOTE OUR SPECIAl RATES FOR CASUAl/SESSIONAl STAFF.

 

If kNoWN

If kNoWN

E.g. lEcTB, HEW4

 oTHer:

annual Salary

claSSiFicaTion level STep/incremenT

daTe oF birTH

poSiTion

campuS

PlEASE USE MY hOME ADDRESS FOR All MAIlING

mobile pHone

poSTcode



 male  Female

depT/ScHool



yeS: aT WHicH inSTiTuTion?

given nameS

FaculTy

currenT inSTiTuTion/employer

Have you previouSly been an nTeu member?

 yeS

WorK pHone INclUdE arEa codE

are you an auSTralian aboriginal or TorreS STraiT iSlander?

email addreSS

Home pHone INclUdE arEa codE

Home addreSS

TiTle

The information on this form is needed for a number of areas of NTEU’s work and will be treated as confidential.

 I am currently a member and wish to update my details

I hereby apply for membership of NTEU, any Branch and any associated body‡ established at my workplace.

INSERT YOUR NAME

Councils and Committees. You will be notified, in writing, of any changes at least fourteen (14) days prior to their implementation. 3. For all matters relating to the Direct Debit arrangements, including deferments and alterations, you will need to send written correspondence to PO Box 1323, Sth Melbourne VIC 3205 and allow 10 days for the amendments to take effect. 4. You may stop any Debit item or cancel a DDR with NTEU at any time in writing. All correspondence is to be addressed to NTEU General Secretary, PO Box 1323, Sth Melbourne VIC

 $27.50  $55  $38.50  $77  $55  $110

annual fEE

Description of goods/services: NTEU Membership Dues.

To: NTEU, PO Box 1323, South Melbourne VIC 3205

pay by cHeque, money order or crediT card

over $20,000

$10,001 – $20,000

$10,000 and under

EstimatEd salary rangE 6 month fEE

pleaSe deTermine your Fee amounT and TicK THe appropriaTe box:

daTe

— — — — daTe

SignaTure

expiry

$

amounT

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

card number

name on card

 viSa

all types of accounts; and account details should be checked against a recent statement from your financial institution. If uncertain, check with your ledger financial institution before completing the DDR. 8. NTEU does not use your financial records and account details for any purpose except the collection of union dues and the information is only available to a small number of NTEU employees.

The details may be provided to your financial institution if a claim was made against that institution of an alleged incorrect or wrongful debit.

pay by cHeque, money order or crediT card

3205. 5. Should any dispute ever arise between you and the NTEU about your payments you should advise NTEU General Secretary in writing or by email in the first instance and, if necessary, NTEU will take advice from your financial institution. 6.

It is your responsibility to have sufficient clear funds to meet the costs of payment under this Agreement.

NTEU, however, does not have a policy of recovering any penalty fees from members if debit items are returned unpaid by the ledger financial institution.

7. Direct debiting through BECS is not available on

accounT number

 pleaSe accepT my cHeque/money order OR crediT card:  maSTercard

 OPTION 4: CASUAL/SESSIONAL STAFF RATES

direct debit request Service agreement: 1. This is an agreement between you and NTEU. 2. Under this Agreement, you arrange to have deducted from your account, on the 15th day in each calendar month (working day), the appropriate amount of dues and levies, payable under NTEU’s Rules, to NTEU (the debit user). If you are uncertain as to when the debit will be processed please contact NTEU on (03) 9254 1910. These arrangements will not change, although the amount may vary in accordance with decisions of your elected NTEU

SignaTure

bSb number

authorise the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) APCA User ID No.062604 to arrange for funds to be debited from my/our account at the financial institution identified below and in accordance with the terms described in the Direct Debit Request (DDR) Service Agreement.

daTe

I hereby authorise the Merchant to debit my Card account with the amount and at intervals specified above and in the event of any change in the charges for these goods/services to alter the amount from the appropriate date in accordance with such change. This authority shall stand, in respect of the above specified Card and in respect of any Card issued to me in expiry renewal or replacement thereof, until I notify the Merchant in writing of its cancellation. Standing Authority for Recurrent Periodic Payment — — — — by Credit Card.

proceSSed on THe 15TH oF THe monTH or FolloWing WorKing day

paymenT:  monTHly  quarTerly

 HalF-yearly  annually* *5% diScounT For annual direcT debiT

accounT name

brancH name & addreSS

Financal inSTiTuTion

I

 OPTION 3: DIRECT DEBIT

IF KNOWN

or its duly authorised servants and agents to deduct from my salary by regular instalments, dues and levies (as determined from time to time by the Union), to NTEU or its authorised agents. All payments on my behalf and in accordance with this authority shall be deemed to daTe be payments by me personally. This authority shall remain in force until revoked by me in writing. I also consent to my employer supplying NTEU with updated information relating to my employment status.

STaFF payroll number

proceSSed on THe 16TH oF THe monTH or FolloWing WorKing day

———— ———— ———— ———— card Type:  maSTercard  viSa SignaTure paymenT:  monTHly  quarTerly

 HalF-yearly  annually

card number

name on card

 OPTION 2: CREDIT CARD

SignaTure

Hereby auTHoriSe INSTITUTION

oF YOUR ADDRESS

.0 i INSERT YOUR NAME

 OPTION 1: PAYROLL DEDUCTION AUTHORITY

 I want to join NTEU

Fees for this branch = 1% of gross annual salary

Office use only: % of salary deducted

...and choose ONE of the following payment options

Please complete your personal details...

One small step now can make a big difference later Follow this checklist to get on track with your super: Check you’re on track with your savings Save on fees and costs Supply your tax file number Find your lost super Get a government boost Reap the rewards of compound interest Connect with your super savings Take the first step at www.unisuper.com.au/growyoursuper

Find out more

www.unisuper.com.au

enquiry@unisuper.com.au

1800 331 685

Prepared and issued by UniSuper Management Pty Ltd (ABN 91 006 961 799), ASFL 235907 on behalf of UniSuper Limited (ABN 54 006 027 121) as trustee of Unisuper (ABN 91 385 943 850). Level 37, 385 Bourke Street, Melbourne VIC 3000. Phone 1800 331 685. This information is general information only and is not intended to be financial advice. It has been prepared without taking account of your objectives, financial situation or needs. Before deciding to acquire or hold an interest in any UniSuper product, you should consider whether it is appropriate for you and consider the relevant product disclosure document, which is available from UniSuper. Past performance is not an indicator of future performance.