Connect 11 01

Vol. 11 No. 1 April 2018

THE MAGAZINE FOR AUSTRALIAN CASUAL & SESSIONAL UNIVERSITY STAFF

Time to Change the Rules!

Changes to NTEU casual fees New designated positions for Casual members on NTEU Branch Committees Casual campaigns at UQ, La Trobe, ANU, Deakin & Swinburne Kate the Casual brings uni staff issues to a broader audience Survey reveals university leaders & policymakers are in the echo chamber Sustaining online activism STFs lead to secure employment & increased teaching capacity How many casuals are out there?

read online at www.unicasual.org.au ISSN 1836-8522 (Print)/ISSN 1836-8530 (Online)

-INSIDE1

It’s the bosses we should worry about – not the robots

10 Keeping it casual... not OK. Make a commitment, Deakin!

2

Where will the higher education reforms take us?

11

NTEU wins thousands in back pay for ANU staff

3

Changes to casual fees

SuperCasuals ACT launched

4

Bargaining for casual staff

12 Change the Rules

New NTEU casual designated positions

5

From mandatory claims to settlement in bargaining

14 Survey reveals university leaders & policymakers are in the echo chamber 16 Sustaining online activism

6

La Trobe unpaid work campaign

18 STFs lead to secure employment pathways & increased teaching capacity

6

System fails casuals... again!

7

Kate the Casual brings uni staff issues to a broader audience

22 How many casuals are out there?

8

Secure work rights for casual academics

25 Workplace delegates: Improving union democracy

9

Casual conversations at UQ

26 Book review: "How to be an Academic"

Connect is a publication of the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU).

All Rights Reserved © 2018.

ISSN 1836-8522 (Print)/ISSN 1836-8530 (Online)

Editor: Jeannie Rea Production: Paul Clifton Cover image: NTEU UQ casual members Sam Lindop, Robert Hogg & Kate Warner.

Credit: David Szumer.

For information on Connect, please contact the NTEU National Office: Post: PO Box 1323, South Melbourne VIC 3205 Phone: 03 9254 1910 Fax: 03 9254 1915 Email: national@nteu.org.au Web: www.unicasual.org.au www.nteu.org.au The views expressed in this publication are those of the individual authors, and not necessarily the official views of NTEU.

In accordance with NTEU policy to reduce our impact on the natural environment, this magazine is printed on 100 per cent recycled paper: produced from 65 per cent postconsumer waste and 35 per cent pre-consumer waste.

NTEU Editorial

It’s the bosses we should worry about – not the robots NTEU welcomes the focus of the ACTU Change the Rules campaign on insecure work, and on exposing corporate greed.

There is also a widening gap between those with secure incomes and assets and those who wonder what their future holds.

NTEU recently made a submission* to the Senate Select Committee on the Future of Work and Workers and were invited to appear before the committee along with the ACTU, CFMEU and SDA. The unions’ submissions explored the ways to deal with the fast pace of technological change, the impact upon jobs, and the role of education and training. The core message of the unions was on securing decent jobs with fair wages and conditions for more workers, while the employers and their cronies hailed the flexibility and opportunity of a ‘gig’ economy where workers are no longer employees but can 'control their destiny' through an app. Nothing could be further from the truth, as casualised academic workers know only too well.

In the NTEU opening statement, I focused upon insecure employment in universities. Here is an extract: At the very same time as we are relying even more on the quality of education and training, the postsecondary education workforce is increasingly employed precariously. Only one in three university employees have permanent jobs.

Whilst it is arguable some of the job change in higher education is due to technological change and that this will continue, this is not my focus today.

What we are seeing in our universities is a crisis in the academic profession – and it has nothing to do with technological change. It has everything to do with the mode of employment. University managements’ responses to funding inadequacies and policy instability/chaos have increasingly undermined teaching by employing more academic staff casually.

Casuals now do over half of the teaching in our universities. And I am not using the term casually loosely. Tens of thousands of highly qualified people, are employed for a few hours during a teaching session to run classes (face-to-face and/or online), to assess and to grade students. Some are even employed by the hour to write subjects and courses. Casuals have no say in reviewing courses; no increase in their pay rate despite, in many cases, years of experience; and no job security.

They now receive some payment for marking and, in some places, for other required duties, but the Union has to fight for these small allowances against vigorous management resistance.

Many of these casually employed academics work long, extra unpaid hours because they care about their students, their discipline – and they want a career.

Many of these casuals have been employed like this for years, even decades.

University education is an expanding, not contracting area, yet only about two per cent of all new positions

created in higher education over the last decade have been permanent teaching and research positions.

Instead we are seeing academic positions casualised when someone retires or resigns. With fewer academics in career positions, the sustainability of disciplines areas in some universities are in trouble.

I want to finish these opening remarks with a highly relevant example of how gendered insecure employment is by talking about the situation of women researchers.

We are all well aware that women have had a tough time getting into and sustaining careers in STEM areas – including as researchers. Only around two in ten senior positions are held by women, still today. Big research grants are still overwhelmingly run by men.

But the problem starts back where eight out of ten research-only staff in universities are employed on limited term contracts. Research by Sharon Bell and Lyn Yates asking why was it still so hard for women researchers in STEM areas found that the consequences of sexism still persist, but the new problem was the overwhelming levels of insecure employment. Women try and juggle career progression from one contract to the next and have children, but unless they can get some stability of employment they cannot progress their careers. If a woman has children while not in employment, apart from no rights to maternity leave, she also cannot get back into a career stream as she cannot demonstrate continual investigation and publication.

So from our point of view the biggest issue for the future of work is how people are employed. In our universities, what were good jobs as academics or professional and general staff have become insecure for too many. This is no good for the workers involved, nor the quality and sustainability of education and training of the future workforce.

One of the other unions cited evidence from recently released research by Rae Copper and others from the University of Sydney on women, discrimination and employment. I think what crystallised the NTEU’s argument for the Senators was when I pointed out that the researchers working on this project were probably employed on short limited-term contracts – as this was typical.

The report of the Select Committee will add to knowledge and understanding of the impacts of insecure work and of technological change. But our immediate and ongoing challenge in the NTEU is to keep working at improving conditions and remuneration of insecurely employed staff, and to convince universities convert those they keep on employing, as well as creating new more secure jobs. jrea@nteu.org.au Download our submission at: www.nteu.org.au/policy/legislation_ submissions/nteu_submissions

Jeannie Rea, NTEU National President

read online at www.unicasual.org.au

1

CAPA Column

Where will the higher education reforms take us?

As universities around Australia closed for the summer break last year, the Government announced a funding freeze, reducing the number of students that could commence degrees in 2018. Universities scrambled to accommodate their new circumstances, and large universities with sufficient administrative capacity could rein in the number of course offers they were planning to send. Smaller institutions were unable to adjust in time, and now must rapidly reduce costs to make up for the shortfall in funding.

During semester one orientation weeks, new and returning students flooded campuses. Amidst all the excitement of university orientation carnivals, the Government’s proposed changes to student debt flew under the radar.

Australians have long been encouraged by the Government to attend university, which ultimately fosters a more educated and prosperous nation. Equity measures have been instated to enable access to lowand middle-income students. A few students, usually those with family support, can shoulder tuition and living costs. Others need a helping hand in order to access higher education. Since the demise of free education in the late 1980s, this relief has taken the form of HECS-HELP (previously known as HECS) loans. The proposed changes will chip away at the enabling HECS-HELP program. This has implications for what type of person is able to comfortably access a university education.

Currently, graduates only need to make payments on their HECS-HELP debt when they are earning at least $55,900 per year; in other words, they are usually in a financial position to begin payments. Under the changes, the repayment threshold drops to $45,000 before tax. This deliberately targets some of the lowest-earning graduates, the vast majority of whom will pay off their student debt later in the likely event that their earnings increase. Many of these lower-earning graduates are engaged in casual and insecure work, and are already struggling without the added burden of making payments on their student loans.

The Government also seeks to implement a lifetime loan limit which, for the first time, applies to fees owing on Commonwealth supported places. Students who have begun on the increasingly common pathway of a Commonwealth supported undergraduate degree, followed by a specialised full-fee postgraduate degree, will need to revise their study plans unless they have substantial savings on hand.

Under the changes, there will be a jump in the number of students needing to find tens of thousands of dollars for their upfront course costs.

These changes are alarming, and not just for the impacts they will have on graduates and on current and future students. The legislation speaks to a larger issue of reforming the higher education sector, which has been tested to its limits with the demand-driven system. Our decision-makers in Parliament are determining what kind of university system they want Australia to have. By making postgraduate study more expensive for students, we are moving towards a society with more rigid class differences. The requisite degrees to become a practicing doctor or lawyer, for example, will only be attainable for students who can afford what is essentially a down-payment. The demand-driven system has been halted, and the students who will be able to get the highest-quality education will do so on the basis of wealth.

If these changes are passed through the Senate, what will come next? The Government is seeking to reduce costs wherever they can, and higher education is an easy target. Funds have already been ripped from teaching, and now money will be taken from the wallets of lower-earning graduates and students.

One wonders which part of the university system will be next to be dismantled.

With the current changes due to be discussed by the Senate, the crossbench senators hold students’ wallets in their hands. They have the choice to accept the Government’s persistent attempts to reduce education spending, or to stand up for opportunity and fairness. I encourage you to contact these powerful crossbench senators and explain to them that the proposed changes will reduce opportunity for Australian students. If you are a lower-earner who will need to start paying your HECS-HELP loan back should the changes be approved, write to the senators about how this will impact your bottom line. We need to ensure that our nation’s decision-makers do not legislate class differences and unfairness.

Natasha Abrahams is the President of CAPA president@capa.edu.au www.capa.edu.au www.facebook.com/CAPA.Au

2

Connect // Volume 11, no. 1

Semester 1, 2018

Natasha Abrahams CAPA President

Changes to casual fees

By Andrew MacDonald National Media & Communications Officer

NTEU casual membership fees have changed for the first time in 17 years.

The move follows the 2017 NTEU National Council’s resolution to “…significantly increase the resources allocated to casual campaigns, services and industrial work.”

Commitment to casuals With over 3,000 casual members, NTEU has been working hard to address the issues facing precariously employed staff in our universities. This first casual fee change since 2001 will help the Union step up efforts to further the interests of casual members, like you.

From this year, casual members will have a greater voice in our Union through the creation of dedicated representative positions on Branch Committees (see p.4). These positions will be open only to casual members and voted for only by casual members. As NTEU members, casual staff have the ability to nominate for any appropriate elected positions within the Union.

Since casual fees were originally set in 2001 the Union has made job security and improving casual conditions a priority.

Achievements in this regard include: • Pay rises of close to 65% (average across the sector).

• An increase in the casual loading from 20% to 25%.

• The requirement to pay all marking separately from the tutorial and lecture rates (academic staff).

• Conversion mechanisms for casual staff with over 1,000 new contract or ongoing jobs created specifically for casual staff.

• Access to parental leave for long-term, ‘regular’ casuals, paid carers leave and leave for dealing with domestic violence.

Significant workplace enforcement campaigns have also returned thousands of dollars of pay to union members where systematic underpayment has been found.

Table 1: New casual fee structure Estimated Annual Salary Less than $20,000

Monthly

Quarterly

HalfYearly

Annually

$8.67

$26

$52

$104

$20,000 to $29,999

$13

$39

$78

$156

$30,000 to $49,999

$17.33

$52

$104

$208

$50,000 and over

$21.67

$65

$130

$260

lack of job security. Unlike casual members, members on fixed term or continuing appointments pay a fee of 1% of income. The average annual income of casual members surveyed in 2016 was approximately $33,000. A fixed term or continuing member would pay $330 on this income compared to the fee of $208 for casual members.

As part of the introduction of this new fee structure we have also added monthly and quarterly payment options to make payment more flexible. Previously, all casual members have been required to pay their fees either half-yearly or annually. In addition, casual members can now pay by direct debit, as well as credit card.

If you are a casual members who has just paid your casual fees up front, prior to the fee changes taking effect, you do not need to pay anything extra. Your next payment will reflect the new fee amounts.

Similarly, if you have recently received an invoice, only the amount stated on the invoice is required to be paid. The next invoice you received will reflect the updated rates.

Benefits of membership In addition to the commitments to casual staff outlined above, NTEU membership also provides a range of important benefits including: • Advice and assistance regarding your rights and responsibilities.

New fee structure The new fee structure took effect on 19 March and will be indexed by the average annual casual pay increases across the sector. The 2018 fees have been set according to the schedule in Table 1.

Payment options will now also allow for monthly, quarterly, half yearly or annual payments, in line with the options available to other members.

• Our full range of industrial support – membership is less expensive than a lawyer!

• Regular publications, news and information.

• Access to a wide range of services and benefits. For details, see www.nteu.org.au/join/benefits.

For more information on how the casual fee changes might affect you, please visit www.unicasual.org.au/fees

The fee structure maintains a significant discount for casual staff, in recognition of the considerable disadvantages faced due to a

CASUAL VOICES

I've been working as a casual academic for two years now, and the forward estimates don't look good. There are several lecturers in the department who still receive casual contracts, and there's no sign of that being fixed soon...

With the VC on over a million dollars a year, and university funds poured into sports sponsorships and investment properties, it leaves little hope for the academics, those who are the front line of university productivity.

Tell us your story @ unicasual.org.au/casual_voices

Being so blatantly exploited for our dedication to our students and research is disheartening and a disservice to those we hope to teach and inspire.

A.

read online at www.unicasual.org.au

3

Bargaining for casual staff

By Susan Kenna National Industrial Officer

The current round of bargaining includes mandatory claims to build on provisions for casual staff with a focus on improving job security. This means reaching and improving targets for Scholarly Teaching Fellow (STF) positions or equivalents, as well as other casual conversion measures.

• Targets to reduce casual teaching (other than via STFs), throughout the life of the Agreement.

Arising mostly from the previous round of bargaining, 28 universities have appointed 694 STFs from a total target of 854. In this round the aim is to improve this – a lot!

• Change management processes which must identify the projected impact on casual staffing.

Each Agreement achieved so far this round incorporates 17% superannuation contributions for all fixed term staff, rather than many contract staff only getting 9%. While we have sought to extend this to casually employed staff, we have not been successful. However, at least this will flow-on to casual staff who are converted to a fixed term category.

• Payment for all work undertaken.

With Agreements now reached in 14 universities, there have been a range of achievements, which it is expected will be expanded and improved upon amongst those universities still in, or about to commence, bargaining. They include: • Limiting the reasons why casual conversion can be denied.

• Improving the obligations on the University to advise casual staff when conversion may occur.

• The University having to look for reasonable opportunities to create teaching scholar positions and merit select internally, before resorting to external advertising.

• Payment of up to 4 hours work per annum for casuals engaged on a ‘regular and systematic basis’ so they can familiarise themselves with policies and procedures related to their employer and their job.

• Paid domestic violence leave and other supports for casual staff.

• Increased payment for tutors.

• Payment for academic casual staff who prepare for delivery or consult with students but are unable to present material due to illness (quasi-sick leave).

• A guarantee that casual staff are provided with resources to perform their role.

• A commitment to reduce reliance on casual employment.

• Improved overtime payments for casual staff.

Meanwhile, implementation of new Agreements is occurring and Branch campaigns are focussing on enforcing casual rights. As a casually employed member, you need to be familiar with the terms of your Agreement – and seek assistance from your local NTEU Branch if you believe your employer is not following its terms.

New designated positions for Casual members on NTEU Branch Committees

By Jeannie Rea, National President

NTEU is holding elections this year for members of Branch Committees through to National Officers. All members can vote in elections and stand for positions. However, few casually employed members nominate.

This is not surprising given the precarious nature of employment and then juggling the rest of one’s life. But another reason is because casually employed members often doubt their voices will be heard on committees.

However, the NTEU National Council meeting in October last year endorsed a change to the NTEU Rules to create a new position of Branch Committee Member (Casual Employee).

Only members casually employed are eligible to nominate for these positions.

The creation of this position recognises that so many university staff are now casually employed and that the numbers of casually employed members are increasing in the NTEU.

4

Connect // Volume 11, no. 1

Semester 1, 2018

The particular circumstances of, and issues for, casuals are addressed in the NTEU’s enterprise bargaining, in political advocacy and in national to Branch campaigns. But the voices of casually employed staff are only sometimes heard on Branch committees.

This new position puts the onus on all Branches to reach out to casually employed members and invite nominations for these designated positions. Those then elected have a platform from which to speak – and be listened to.

And don’t forget casually employed members can nominate for other Branch Committee positions, too – and that would further increase the voice of casuals at your Branch.

Watch out for the Call for Nominations for NTEU elections in late May. If you are interested or have any queries, contact your Branch. You can also contact me directly at jrea@nteu.org.au

From mandatory claims to settlement in bargaining

By Jeannie Rea National President

NTEU is about a third of the way through the current round of university bargaining and some good improvements have been won for casually employed staff (as described on page 4).

National Council delegates from Branches around the country have repeatedly advocated and voted that more secure jobs and better working conditions for casuals must be a bargaining priority. Thus, improvements for casuals is a mandatory claim, meaning that all Branches must include such claims in their log.

However, we have now reached a stage of considering what has been achieved, and frankly it is not enough. At some universities there are impressive increases in the numbers of new positions, in conversion criteria, and at least more places are acknowledging that casuals should actually be paid for more of the work they do. But this is still woeful.

University vice-chancellors regularly bemoan the plight of the next generation of academics withering way in casual work, but it is in their power to do something about this. Instead, university managers fight the NTEU every step of the way as we seek more secure jobs, conversion and better conditions. They object to paying a pittance (to them, not the casual employee) for marking, student consultation and attending compulsory meetings, yet they know this work will end up being done for free.

Branches have to keep mounting cases to keep casual academics on email and staff lists, LMS and intranet beyond the last scheduled class, even while academics are marking and still providing student feedback.

University managements are elevating employing casual staff to a ruthless market where casual staff are applying to be listed for consideration with the detail expected in a genuine job

CASUAL VOICES

application. Marking rates continue to have to be negotiated when everyone knows it takes a finite amount of time mark an assessment piece. Cutting the rate just means free labour is expected.

The stark reality is that university managements are getting academic labour on the (very) cheap and they are not prepared to relinquish this advantage. Otherwise why would they continue to fight so hard against creating more secure positions for casual staff who have been doing the same work for years? They know they need teaching staff. They know that university teaching needs to done in a scholarly research environment, but they are content to exploit academic casuals, knowing that scholarly work will be done on the casuals’ s own unpaid time.

NTEU National Council delegates know all this, which is why improvements for casuals is a priority bargaining claim.

We have to do better But we have do better in winning. Hopefully, Branches still bargaining, or about to begin, can see what has been achieved elsewhere and do better; not accept the minimum outcomes. It is not good enough to just maintain current clauses in Agreements.

Members, particularly academic members, know how much teaching is done by casuals. They have seen their retiring colleagues not replaced, yet jobs casualised. They have to pick up all the parts of academic work not done by casuals employed to just teach. Whilst some more securely employed academics know that casual replacement is how they can get some space to undertake funded research, casualisation has gone far beyond this. Casualised academic teaching has become the norm, not the exception. It is in no one’s interest.

I went to a special general meeting for our EBA and it was awesome to see what we can win. We need to sign up our colleagues and build the strength!

G.

Tell us your story @ unicasual.org.au/casual_voices

I found out this week that heads of schools get 'executive bonuses' for coming in under budget by deliberately exploiting casual staff! The integrity of university study and work is dead.

Anon

All NTEU members are automatically covered for journey injury insurance.

As an individual you could be paying hundreds of dollars per year to get this valuable insurance cover, but as a financial member of the NTEU, it is absolutely free!

Travel Work insurance Travel Toto Work Insurance

Find out more at www.nteu.org.au/traveltowork

read online at www.unicasual.org.au

5

La Trobe University

Unpaid work campaign

System fails casuals... again!

By Gaurav Nanda Recruitment and Campaign Organiser, Victorian Division

By Linda Gale Senior Industrial Officer, Victorian Division

NTEU La Trobe University Branch has recently started an Unpaid Work campaign. As part of the campaign, we have organised information sessions for casual staff members to let them know about their rights and entitlements in the new Enterprise Agreement.

For the past four years, NTEU has pursued a claim in the Fair Work Commission (FWC) to lift the Award safety net for university casual staff. In a decision issued in February, the FWC decided not to grant any of the Union’s substantive claims.

These sessions will also inform casuals about how to identify unpaid work and how they can act together through the Union to address this issue. Casual staff pay rates depend on what category of casual employment they come under. Casual professional staff get paid on an hourly basis, and casual academic staff get paid different hourly rates depending on the specific task performed.

As part of the session on identifying unpaid work, we’ll be introducing a time tracking app for members to record the time that they spend doing a task. It’s a simple, intuitive, and easy to use tool that will support casual staff to get a clear understanding of what their fair pay should be. We encourage casual staff members to utilise this tool so that we can: • Develop a factual data set.

• Compare actual hours worked versus hours paid.

• Support casual staff to get paid accurately.

• Build and run a successful campaign.

The Unpaid Work campaign at La Trobe will be divided into different phases with activities including: educating and engaging casual staff; building momentum; collection of unpaid work data; informing members about the analysed unpaid work result; industrial strategy planning; and negotiations.

In the event our good faith negotiations fail, industrial actions may be considered to achieve favourable outcomes for our members.

Our objective in running the unpaid work campaign for casual academic staff members is to ensure that they get paid accurately. Our members, activists and delegates are the backbone of campaigning work.

If you want to see real change, join and get active in your Union.

Together we can win!

6

Connect // Volume 11, no. 1

Semester 1, 2018

Although the decision has no immediate impact on conditions, which are regulated by Enterprise Agreements, it is disappointing that the safety net against which those Agreements are measured remains so very low.

What we sought

What the Commission decided

A new payment for sessional academics for time spent familiarising themselves with university policies and keeping up to date with developments in their discipline.

Acknowledged the work is done, but declined to introduce a specific payment.

Said this would be more appropriately dealt with in enterprise bargaining.

A new entitlement for all staff, including casuals, to be reimbursed for ICT expenses where personal devices and internet are used for work purposes.

Was not convinced the practice of using personal ICT for work purposes was widespread. Declined to introduce a right to reimbursement. Said this would be more appropriately dealt with in enterprise bargaining.

The FWC did fix some drafting errors in the way the Academic Award sets out the casual rates of pay, but otherwise granted none of the Union’s claims for improved rights for casuals. This throws the ball back into our court to win such improvements through enterprise bargaining.

The current industrial laws in Australia severely limit the scope for the FWC to amend Awards, even where the need to do so is clear.

Even so, in this case the FWC decided not to make amendments which were within its power. It is unfortunate that after such a large investment of NTEU resources in support of obviously just claims for casual staff, the tribunal chose to do nothing.

NTEU is actively pursuing claims to improve casual pay and conditions at the bargaining table. In addition, the Union is pressing employers to better comply with the existing provisions.

Contact your local Branch to let them know what you think their immediate priorities should be, and to get involved in the NTEU casuals networks.

Kate the Casual brings university staff issues to a broader audience The following is a transcript of a call made to the Mornings with Jon Faine program on ABC Melbourne on 14 March 2018. The issues raised by Kate are a good illustration of the problems many casual university staff face around the country.

Jon Faine: We were yesterday talking to the ACTU about their claim for a $50 minimum pay rise for the lowest paid people in our community – which is what they’re putting as the next part of the national wage case.

in the box seat to get other opportunities for other short term casual jobs so at least you can build up enough to live off?

Kate: Potentially yes, and that’s I think the logic that keep some of us hanging on. Potentially yes, it’s a foot in the door of tertiary education, but then again I have been a university lecturer tutor for 18 years and I had an 18 month period where I was full time and other than that I have always been on contract and sessional.

I got an extraordinary email from Kate who says she’s working in a university and teaching, and she says it’s not just the wage rate, there’s more to this than meets the eye.

Jon Faine: So you basically have to survive on short term contract for a limited number of hours, followed by a short term contract for a limited number of hours, followed by another short term contract for a limited number of hours. Is that how it works?

She lectures at FU, Victoria, Federation University, Victoria. I’ve always thought it’s the worst name for any public institution, but there you go.

Kate: Yes, and in the meantime keep applying for other, either longer contract jobs or full time, permanent jobs, and hope.

We’re a very optimistic bunch.

Kate, good morning to you.

Jon Faine: That’s one way to put it, or maybe desperate is the other way to put it. Do you get paid for planning lessons? Do you get paid for time you spend correcting the assignments and the like?

Kate: Good morning John Jon Faine: Thank you for writing to me. Describe your situation, what sort of work do you do and how are you employed?

Kate: I’m a university lecturer and I also run tutorials but I’m employed on a casual basis by the university. It is not at all uncommon in the university sector for a lot of tutors in particular, and often lecturers, to be employed on casual contracts which are simply for the semester that we are teaching in. So there are a lot of people who don’t necessary realise that’s what we do.

Jon Faine: So for how long are you guaranteed employment?

Kate: My contract runs ‘til the 25th of June, so 19th February to the 25th June.

Jon Faine: And then?

Kate: And then, nothing.

Jon Faine: And is that a contract for, how many hours a week?

Kate: Nine hours a week, over four days.

Jon Faine: Nine hours over four days?

Kate: Yes. Jon Faine: So a couple of hours here a couple of hours there?

Kate: Yes. It’s not unusual in the tertiary sector.

Jon Faine: And other than that, do you get additional work provided to you?

Kate: Ahh No. That’s it. That’s the work that I do in my experience. I can only speak to my experience and that’s the work that I do. Of course being spread over four days because of student enrolment requirements and subject imperatives, there isn’t much opportunity to do other work outside those.

Jon Faine: Well you need to. No one can live off nine hours worth of income. So presumably, does that put you though

Kate: We do. We do. We’re paid for marking and our preparation.

An hour of preparation and an hour of conversation is packaged in to our hourly rate.

Jon Faine: And is that what you actually spend or do you have to spend more time than you’re paid for?

Kate: Oh it depends, assignment to assignment etcetera, student to student. Some students need lots of our time, others don’t. So it really is ‘how long is a piece of string?’. It varies.

Jon Faine: Obviously if there are other opportunities, you presumably seize them. Is it that there is no other work available?

Kate: In my experience I apply when and wherever I can for suitable jobs. My training is in academic research, although I was talking to someone this morning and saying that putting on an apron and getting a job at Bunnings is looking increasingly attractive, or doing a lawn mowing round. So I do, I apply for work as much as possible.

Jon Faine: It’s a most unsatisfactory state of affairs the way you describe it Kate. Thank you for a snapshot of the casual workforce that has become so common, but in particular now, not just at the fast food and hospitality end of things, but even now at universities.

Best wishes Kate. I hope things turn out for you.

Kate: Thank you. I’m about to run in to a tutorial now.

Andrew MacDonald, National Media & Communications Officer Transcript of call to Mornings with Jon Faine, ABC Melbourne – 14/03/2018 (48min:00sec – 52min:32sec). Full episode audio can be found at: www.abc.net.au/radio/melbourne/programs/mornings/ mornings/9525826

read online at www.unicasual.org.au

7

Swinburne conversion campaign

Secure work rights for casual academics

By Gaurav Nanda Recruitment and Campaign Organiser, Victorian Division

It was a joyous moment for the NTEU when Swinburne Branch won conversion to secure work rights for sessional academic staff.

At Swinburne University, like almost every university around Australia, sessional academic staff members are performing a large amount of teaching. They go above and beyond to provide quality education and support to students. They are committed and talented, yet they keep on getting re-engaged on casual employment year after year without any prospects to better job security. Wasn’t casual employment supposed to be a ‘stepping stone’ for a more fulfilling and secure job in academia? Unfortunately, today that’s not the case.

Back in 2015, when NTEU was in negotiations for the Enterprise Agreement with Swinburne University, we didn’t want to lose the opportunity of highlighting an important issue of job security and decided to start a separate campaign of conversion to secure work for sessional academic staff. We initiated this campaign after understanding how widely and strongly felt this issue was.

Overwhelmingly, casual academic staff members supported us in our efforts to fix this and joined the campaign in large numbers.

What have we achieved?

Apart from job security, financial stability, and peace of mind, NTEU managed to win: • 17% superannuation.

• Entitlement for incremental advancements.

• Loading pay for unit convening/subject coordination work for academic tutors employed below level A, step 6.

• Loading pay to undertake lectures.

• Eligibility for academic promotion through the standard academic promotion process.

• Public holidays pay that falls during periods for which they are rostered to work.

• Leave entitlements of a full time employee on a proportional basis according to their fraction of employment.

Eligibility criteria Casual academic staff members who are eligible to apply must: • Perform at least 72 hours of teaching delivery in each of the three calendar years.

8

Connect // Volume 11, no. 1

Semester 1, 2018

• Have reasonable basis for breaks during the three year period.

• Meet the essential requirement of the position.

• Not be a student, or has recently been a student.

• Not be a genuine retiree.

University’s obligations During the negotiations for conversion rights we were mindful that university management may end up refusing eligible applications. To ensure fair process for conversions, we inserted clauses that protected casual academics from: • Getting their hours reduced of their regular sessional work.

• University’s refusal of eligibility for conversion due to shortterm or occasional work performed by sessional staff in another classification, job, or department.

• Getting conversion application rejected on unreasonable grounds by obliging the University to give written reasons for rejecting it.

Though conversion to secure work campaign negotiations were not easy, the backing of our members, the will to win of our activists, and dedication of Branch staff and committee members, we climbed a steep mountain that otherwise would’ve been unachievable.

If NTEU can make this happen at Swinburne, we can definitely win at other universities country wide. Do you want to see real improvements in your working conditions and job security? Make your Union stronger by joining. We are stronger together!

Above: NTEU SuperCasuals campaigning at Swinburne in 2017

UQ conversion campaign

Casual conversations

By David Szumer Branch Organiser, University of Queensland Branch

Late last year at an Enterprise Bargaining members meeting at the University of Queensland (UQ) we provided each member who attended with an opportunity to identify the top issues affecting them at work which were relevant to bargaining.

CASU AL CONV ERSATION #3 We provided a space for members to comment "As a UQ casual and give us their direct i am rarely feedback. One returned invited to staff card had “more focus on casual issues” written in events, forums this space. or meetings. I'm I believed that as a union, our Branch often addressed casual issues, including job security, in various meetings and communications. Nonetheless, we had to accept the perception that we weren’t doing enough for casuals as valid.

a second class citizen"

WITH ABOUT HALF OF ALL TEACHI NG NOW DONE BY CASUAL LY EMPLOY ED STAFF, CASUAL S ARE THE BACKBO NE OF THE UNIVER SITY SYSTEM IN AUSTRA LIA. nteu.org.au/join unicasuals.org.au Authorised by Andrew Bonnell, NTEU

UQ Branch President

We organised a morning tea, similar to what we had done in local work areas across the University to talk bargaining, and invited all of our casual members. The morning tea was a success with strong attendance, so much so that we ended up running out of time due to the large number of issues raised. Positively, members agreed that regular and longer meetings would be a good start.

Our next meeting had an even larger attendance (non-members were invited) and more of the issues were discussed, unpacked and explored. It became clear that at the heart of many of the issues that affect casuals is the continued lack of respect that casual staff experience through a wide variety of interactions within their schools, faculties and management in general.

CASU AL CONV ERSATION #6

"As a UQ casual I had to borrow money because I was not paid for SEVEN weeks" WITH ABOUT HALF OF ALL TEACHI NG NOW DONE BY CASUAL LY EMPLOY ED STAFF, CASUAL S ARE THE BACKBO NE OF THE UNIVER SITY SYSTEM IN AUSTRA LIA. nteu.org.au/join unicasuals.org.au Authorised by Andrew Bonnell, NTEU

UQ Branch President

Talking about issues and sharing them in a meeting is helpful, but to genuinely create change we needed to build a memberled campaign. The Casual Conversations campaign was launched on 15 March 2018. The campaign current consists of three components.

Firstly, educating non-casual staff, especially management, as to the experiences of casual employees in the workplace at UQ and the effects and repercussions on their lives. To this end we harvested members’ stories and created eight posters (such as the one shown here) to display on campus.

Members have already reported that these posters have generated new conversations between casuals and their fixed-term and continuing colleagues.

Secondly, development and distribution of an information sheet for casuals that would give them advice and promote a collective mindset underpinned by union membership. This became a flyer listing the six most important things our members would have liked to have been told when they started work as a casual.

Finally, taking action to create change in specific workplaces.

When lack of consideration or respect is at the heart of members’ experiences, creating change is less about industrial or legal solutions to technical issues faced in the workplace.

Rather, the goal is to influence CASU AL CONV ERSATION #12 workplace culture and challenge the status quo. For example, a suggestion raised at a meeting was the development of a Charter of Rights for Casual Staff. A member has produced a draft and this will be a discussion topic at the next meeting. The campaign could bring this charter to specific schools and seek management’s WITH ABOUT HALF OF ALL TEACHI NG adoption of the charter.

LY EMPLOY ED STAFF,

"As a UQ casual Christmas is TAINTED with stress and uncertainty" NOW DONE BY CASUAL S ARE THE BACKBO NE OF THE

CASUAL Though we are only in the early UNIVER SITY SYSTEM IN AUSTRA LIA. stages of the campaign, a core nteu.org.au/join unicasuals.org.au group of casuals have formed and are driving the campaign’s activity, most recently proposing a Facebook network to reach out to more casuals and encourage others to join us.

Authorised by Andrew Bonnell, NTEU

CASU AL CONV ERSATION #7

"As a UQ casual I am terrified oF getting sick.

Any financial buffer COULD be exhausted" WITH ABOUT HALF OF ALL TEACHI NG NOW DONE BY CASUAL LY EMPLOY ED STAFF, CASUAL S ARE THE BACKBO NE OF THE UNIVER SITY SYSTEM IN AUSTRA LIA. nteu.org.au/join unicasuals.org.au Authorised by Andrew Bonnell, NTEU

UQ Branch President

UQ Branch President

The most valuable asset our union has is also its most scarce – and that is our members’ time. Our members all work for someone else and try to squeeze union business in where possible.

The campaign will take some time to build and grow, through collective action and perhaps the use of social media and technology, but the impact of casualisation and its effects on our members is not going away any time soon.

Find out more at: www.nteu.org.au/uq/casuals

read online at www.unicasual.org.au

9

Keeping it casual... not OK. Make a commitment, Deakin!

By Gaurav Nanda Recruitment and Campaign Organiser, Victorian Division

At Deakin University, like everywhere else in higher education, casuals are hardworking and talented group of staff who go above and beyond to provide quality education to students. Last year, NTEU started a secure work campaign called ‘Keeping it casual... not OK. Make a commitment, Deakin!’ to highlight the issues that casual staff are facing.

Keeping staff on insecure employment means they: • Don’t get sufficient resources to do a good job.

• Don’t have enough time to provide student consultation.

• Perform high volume of unpaid work.

Keeping it Casual... NOT OK Make a commitment, Deakin!

ercasuals.org.au Join the campaign at www.sup

to win conversion rights for teaching focused casual staff. Now, casual sessional staff at Swinburne can apply for conversion after teaching 72 hours or more of lectures and tutorials in each of the three consecutive years. If together we can win at Swinburne, we can win secure work rights at other universities.

Welcome to Deakin University for 2018

• Don’t get sick leave, or any other paid leave that comes with secure employment.

to university is an exciting experience! you What do Coming we want to achieve for casual staffHere members at Deakin will discover new worlds and make friends, but it can also be University?

• Don’t get 17% superannuation.

next 3 years and you will owe thousands of dollars in student • Build the relevance amongst casual staff tuition fees when you leave. You deserve the best support from

Why is it important for Deakin to make a commitment?

It’s important for quality education, it’s important for casual staff for career progression and job satisfaction, and it’s important for the community. There are more than 7000 casual staff at Deakin University, many have been working for years without any prospect of secure work or career progression. Commitment is not a one-way street, Deakin should reciprocate by providing genuine opportunities for career progression and secure work to its committed, talented, and hardworking casual staff.

What can NTEU do?

For casual professional staff, the Union has secured major wins in many universities. Casual professional staff now have strong conversion rights that provide opportunities for a stable and secure employment. For casual academic staff however, there is still a lot of room for improvement in conversion rights to secure work.

NTEU Swinburne University Branch is a good example of what we have achieved for casual academics. NTEU campaigned tirelessly

CASUAL VOICES

challenging. You may be living on baked beans and noodles for

staff.

• Grow university casual membership, increase activism and delegates Yet the Turnbull Government has cut funding to universities.

• Pressure the University into changing their approach to These cuts may have negative consequences for the support you employing casuals. as a student receive, as Deakin is likely to look for ways to reduce staff costs. Reduced funding already means that staff workloads • Conversion to secure work for academic casuals are very high, or that staff are employed on a casual basis.

• Similar otherwon’t staff or increased casual Thesuperannuation NTEU* are concernedas students receive the support they deserve, or need, because staff don’t have sufficient time to provide loading it, or because staff are not employed securely, and so aren’t always

available when students need them. That’s why we’re campaigning Where we are at? to improve resources and for Deakin to make a commitment to casuals by employing staff securely.

As part of our secure work campaign ‘Keeping it casual... not OK. Make a commitment, Deakin!’ we are launching the Deakin Smart Casuals handbook which informs casual staff at Deakin about their wages and entitlements, breaking down the specific rights for both professional and academic staff.

ITED. their existing rights, and what Casuals willCOMM beITTED informed about . TALENTED. EXPLO the union can do to enforce them between now and the next GaURav NaNDa - NTEU viCToRiaN DivisioN RECRUiTmENT aND CampaiGN bargaining round, when we will once again fight foroRGaNisER improved 120 ClaRENDoN sTREET, soUTH mElBoURNE viC 3205 moBilE: 0422272091 GNaNDa@NTEU.oRG.aU conversion rights.

Job security can only be improved through campaigning for more ongoing and fixed term roles to replace current casual positions.

Together we are stronger and we can win!

It's been particularly hard this change of semester at my university. I have been teaching as a casual here for eight years. At first it was just a few tutes to supplement my APA but since I graduated it has been pretty much the equivalent of full time. I have had enough work almost every semester but the end of each semester is a fraught time.

This year there has been a program change in my school meaning there are fewer subjects and more casuals wanting to teach in them. In theory this should all work out because the number of students should be the same but in practice is means this time is more stressful than usual because we are all competing. I am on the promise of two tutes for next semester - I need at least 6 and hopefully 8 to support myself. And it is embarrassing going begging to full-time academics for work.

Tell us your story @ unicasual.org.au/casual_voices

10

Connect // Volume 11, no. 1

It is demeaning for us and for them. The whole system is predicated as much on personal relationships as it is qualifications. It's somewhat mediaeval.

K.

Semester 1, 2018

NTEU wins thousands in back pay for ANU staff

By Lachlan Clohesy Division Organiser, ACT Division

Casually employed staff at ANU have won payments with an estimated total of between one and two hundred thousand dollars to compensate for systemic underpayment since mid-2016. The underpayment of dozens of casually employed academic staff stemmed from the incorrect classification of tutorials at lower rates – and meant that some staff lost as much as 40 per cent of their rightful pay.

After a couple of casual members raised concerns, NTEU held a local area meeting in the School concerned. That meeting made it clear that other casuals were affected – we encouraged them to join the Union and be part of our claim. We collected evidence, and met with representatives from ANU on behalf of these members.

ANU’s own investigation – launched in response to our queries – identified the scope of the problem. We urged ANU to immediately correct the underpayments, and back pay those who had been underpaid since mid-2016. After assessing our evidence and completing their own audit, many casual NTEU members received thousands of dollars in payments.

It is important to note that NTEU casual members were only able to take action by acting through the Union. They had raised queries with their managers, who had assured them that everything was above board. They had spoken to the ANU Postgraduate and Research Student Association to seek help as well. However, only when they acted through the NTEU did things change.

This money was not a bonus, or compensation, or a sudden windfall. This was money which should have been paid in the first place – it was what the casual staff involved were entitled to for work they had completed. While it’s not ideal that they needed to act through the NTEU to get their basic entitlements, it is nevertheless a demonstration of the value of union membership for casual staff.

SuperCasuals ACT launched

By Lachlan Clohesy

In February 2018, NTEU ACT Division held meetings at both UC and ANU to hear first hand from casually employed staff about conditions at ACT universities.

We had an active group of casual members wanting to organise around casual issues in late 2017, which prompted us to put out a survey to determine what issues mattered most to our casual members. The meetings in February addressed these surveys and the issues raised, and gave people a chance to discuss problems of casualisation with other casuals. We also heard from casuals themselves – NTEU casual members Clare Southerton and Simon Copland spoke on their experiences of being casual in ACT universities.

The meetings were great – but the stories we heard of casual exploitation were not. The issues raised reflected what the surveys had told us. Casually employed staff want job security and experience myriad problems such as underpayment, late contracts, unpaid work and more. Casually employed staff also miss out on many of the entitlements of their ongoing or fixedterm colleagues – such as 17 per cent superannuation, parental leave, paid training and access to increments (to name but a few).

How can being a casual member of th e NTEU benefit you?

Advice

ive can rece embers ce m la p U E rk T o N w s n their advice o nts, or problem e m their g n entitle ri u rise d which a loyment. emp

Be part vement of a mo with a

ion sive un for progres ding up r We’re a of stan rd f ou co re proud o re proud e’ W stice. sues, social ju on LGBTIQ+ is d tion an stance resenta p re I S fugee A&T re r fo support ts. righ

We’re now in the process of meeting with our Casual Action Committee to identify priority issues and have recently launched a campaign to specifically deal with the issue of late pay. Late pay can be caused by late contracts, supervisors not signing off, problems with administration or other issues. It’s not good enough that casually employed staff – many of whom face long periods of unemployment over Summer – then face waits of weeks or months after performing work before getting paid.

Advo cac

y

The N impr TEU act ive ove and c the wor ly fights t kpla o ondit io emplo ns of ce rights c y the u ed staff asually with nive barg rsity, dur in ainin ing elsew g and here .

Winn

ing

Whe n we can w join toge recov in - last y ther, we e e thou red hund ar we sand s in b reds of ack p for c ay asu at AN als U.

COMMITTED. TALENTED. EXPLOITED.

If you’d like to help us tackle this problem, contact Lachlan on 0418 493355 or lclohesy@nteu.org.au

read online at www.unicasual.org.au

11

Change the Rules

You may have noticed that the ACTU has been spearheading a new campaign to “Change the Rules”. This campaign is about recognising that the past 20 years or so of industrial regulation have delivered working people a decrease in economic equality, diminished access to real, permanent jobs and a reduction in purchasing power.

The past 20 years have increased employers’ capacity to access wage theft, and discriminate against those exercising union power. The ACTU’s campaign is about calling this unfairness out, saying the rules are broken, and that it’s time to change those rules.

To what, you might ask?

To answer this question, the ACTU has been meeting with affiliates over the last 18 months, and working up a detailed legislative plan.

Key aspects of this plan tackle obvious target areas to improve the lot of working people, such as: • The industrial system should cover all forms of work, not just traditional employees e.g. gig workers, Uber drivers, individual contractors.

• The system should have a fair and effective safety net (Award) including a living wage.

By Sarah Roberts National Industrial Coordinator

• Creation of new rights should be possible, through genuine arbitration (e.g. domestic violence leave, equal pay orders).

• Bargaining should be possible on an industry basis, or on other levels as determined by employees.

• Curbing the employer’s ability to have Agreements terminated so easily.

• There should be easier access to industrial action, with a real right to strike for better conditions of employment.

12

Connect // Volume 11, no. 1

Semester 1, 2018

• We should have positive rights for our delegates and union officials, including right of entry, and real protections from discrimination.

• There should be better access to permanent employment for casuals and fixed term employees.

• No more non-union Agreements.

• A fair and objective independent umpire.

If we achieve all these measures, working people will undoubtedly be better off. But it is unclear what the fate of working people’s unions will be.

Why should we care about union survival?

As at August 2016, union density in Australia hit 15%, the outcome of steady decline from our peak of 64.9% in 1948.1 Whilst the proportion of union members in any given workplace is not necessarily determinative of the level of union power, this figure is nonetheless a handy proxy for union strength. Union strength is important in turn because it is through the exercise of this power that we can collectively achieve and maintain better conditions for working people.

Without strong unions, any improvements to our workplace laws that we achieve through the Change the Rules campaign can only be ephemera, subject to entropy. Individual workers may, for a time, be better off. But without collective defence of those newly-won rights, neoliberal employers (acting in their own best economic interests) will find a way to diminish those rights – just as we saw in the aftermath of the Fair Work Act, which was heralded at the time as being the saviour for working people. Over the period of that Act’s operation, our weakened union movement has not been able to successfully defend employer attacks.

The campaign begins to mobilise ACTU Secretary Sally McManus spoke to the National Press Club on 21 March, moving the campaign from talking about what’s wrong with the system to how it should be fixed, detailing some of the legislative plans in her speech.

But to “change the rules” will require a change of government, so the campaign focus is now on swaying public opinion in the lead up to the next federal election, due in 2019. The ACTU has launched a months long multi-million dollar advertising campaign on television and in other mainstream media to get the issues highlighted and talked about.

At the same time, unions have started having conversations with members in their workplaces about supporting the campaign.

NTEU, along with most other unions, will hold workplace meetings to endorse the campaign and build the momentum for change.

All unions Delegates meetings will be held during April in capital cities and regional centres. This first phase of the campaign will culminate with Change the Rules rallies being held in conjunction with May Day celebrations throughout the country.

NTEU campaign materials and details of where and when Delegates meetings and rallies will be held can be found at www.nteu.org.au/changetherules www.australianunions.org.au/change_the_rules

Reference 1. Bowden, B. (2011). The Rise and Decline of Australian Unionism: A History of Industrial Labour from the 1820s to 2010, Labour History, 100, pp. 51-82.

Image: NTEU UQ casual members Sam Lindop, Robert Hogg & Kate Warner. Credit: David Szumer.

read online at www.unicasual.org.au

13

State of the Uni survey reveals university leaders & policymakers are in

the echo chamber

The first report from the NTEU's 2017 State of the Uni survey reinforces the existence of a deep and serious disconnect between policy makers and university leaders from the workforces they ‘lead’. If you were to imagine what the funding debate has looked like, it would be as if there has been a panel discussion staged in the empty main hall of the university, with the echo of voices reaching up and down the corridors.

The NTEU’s 2017 State of the Uni survey reveals two profound disconnects – between government and the sector, and between university leaders and staff. This persists irrespective of gender, academic or professional/general employment type, or even union membership. It extends from the purpose of higher education and the performance of university management, to the policy directions that guide the sector.

Looking specifically at the employment conditions of casual and fixed-term staff, the overwhelming preference for more secure work, and the lengths of time in which staff are kept on insecure conditions, we now have much greater insight into the hypocrisies that shadow the justification for these unfair and often debilitating modes of employment.

Policy makers and university leaders, still out of touch

By Jen Tsen Kwok Policy & Research Officer

The NTEU already had a clear sense from the 2015 State of the Uni survey that staff had major concerns with the directions in which the sector was being led and an acute divergence in key attitudes and values. The results of the 2017 survey (where completed responses doubled from 2015 to more than 13,500) reveal that very little has changed.

Staff overwhelmingly believe that higher education has a public purpose, with the strongest agreement being about the Government’s responsibility to invest (97.2%) and that public funding should be sustainable (90.2%). The vast majority of staff agree that the quality of education is being affected because universities are under too much financial pressure (84.1%) and that staff and students have an important role in governance (83.8%).

On the management front, only 27.6% of participants agreed that they had confidence in the ability of senior management. Even amongst non-union members, those who had confidence in senior management was just slightly more than a third of the total, only 36%.

Only 2.6% of participants agreed that federal policy settings (for the initial 2017-18 Budget) were taking universities in the right direction, a figure unchanged since the 2015 survey. Even fewer (2%) agree with reducing public university funding by $2.8 billion (now a $2.2 billion cut through indirect caps on student places).

A much larger minority of staff are now unsure about whether higher education is going in the right direction (27.5% in 2017, up from 16.7% in 2015).

Job security a key concern amongst staff Job security is briefly covered in the 2017 State of the Uni report. It reveals that staff believe job security is fundamental to the sector, with 84% agreeing that, “Job security is important if intellectual freedom is to be protected”.

14

Connect // Volume 11, no. 1

Semester 1, 2018

Figure 1: How long have you been casually or sessionally employed on a regular basis at this university?

2017 is my first year of casual employment at this university

3.86%

24.78%

Less than

28.79%

26.38%

16.18%

3 years

Figure 2: How long have you worked in the university sector in a casual or sessional academic capacity overall?

I have not previously worked in the university sector

3.29%

17.34%

26.26%

3 to 5 years 6 to 10 years Over

Less than

3 to 5 years 6 to 10 years

28.46%

24.65%

10 years

3 years

Over

10 years

In terms of job satisfaction, job security was amongst the most important for staff, identified as the fourth most common source of job satisfaction, and the third most common reason that staff would entertain moving to a different job.

contracts for more than 6 years. Almost 1 in 6 (16.4%) said they were being continuously employed on fixed-term contracts after 10 years. Amongst all contract staff, 51.5% stated they were on a shortterm contract of one year or less.

Likewise, management’s response to job security was held in low regard. Just over one third of staff (36%) agreed with the sentiment, “My job feels secure”. Even fewer were satisfied with management’s performance in providing secure employment (29.4%).

From the 2,992 people who responded to the question, 89.9% preferred permanent employment, with 68.3% stating they would prefer to be employed permanent full-time, and 21.6% saying they would prefer to be employed permanent part-time. 1 in 10 (only 9.9%) preferred staying on their current contractual arrangements.

Casual and sessional academics deserve better.

Deeper insights about insecure employment The 2017 State of the Uni survey holds many more important insights about job security. These will be explored in a dedicated report later this year. However, the initial analysis highlights that 4,811 participants were employed on an insecure basis, representing 31.3% of the total sample. 3,201 identified as being employed on a fixed-term basis. 1,402 identified as academic casuals. The remainder identified as casuals, most likely nonacademic.

Amongst the 1,402 staff who identified as academic casuals, the Fields of Education (FoE) most strongly represented were Society and Culture (19%), Health (14%), and Education (14%). More than half (53.1%) stated they had worked in the university sector in a casual or sessional academic for over six years, and almost 1 in 4 (24.7%) said they had worked in the sector for over ten years (see Fig. 1).

When asked about employment at their current university, more than 2 in 5 (42.6%) said they had been casually or sessionally employed there for more than six years, and almost 1 in 6 (16.2%) said they had been employed there for more than ten years (see Fig. 2).

Academic casuals were asked what mode of employment they would prefer (see Fig. 3). From the 1,359 people who responded to that question, 71.9% preferred permanent employment, with 35% preferring permanent full-time, and 36.9% preferring permanent part-time. Less than 2 in 5 were happy with their current mode of employment.

The first State of the Uni report can be downloaded from: www.nteu.org.au/stateoftheuni/2017_results

Figure 3: Preferred mode of employment

I'm happy with my current arrangements

17.14%

t Permanent full-time

\t

34.95%

\

Fixed-term contract full-time, 2.35%

Fixed-term contract part-time, 8.61%

Permanent part-time

36.94%

Amongst the 3,201 staff employed on a fixed-term basis, almost 2 in 5 (37.7%) had been continuously employed on fixed-term

read online at www.unicasual.org.au

15

Sustaining

online activism

It’s winter in the northern hemisphere and our UK colleagues are stamping their feet on picket lines.

The Universities and Colleges Union (UCU) has called members out on rolling strikes over cuts to pensions. Twitter shares their solidarity like a signal fire from campus to campus, and outwards, rolling from #USSstrike to #NoCapitulation. Letters from university management teams outlining pay docking plans are instantly sent around the world: powerful institutions managing industrial action are suddenly unable to limit the audience for their in-house communications. Local HR becomes global PR—and not in a good way.

The British academic establishment seems wrong-footed by all this, stuck in the era of the all-staff email. Attempts to wedge strike action into a what-about-the-students corner are laid open to online scrutiny, including by students. Social media amplifies and connects a national movement of local events that are resolute, smart, and public-facing. Eventually Vice Chancellors show up at the pickets, and the Times Higher Education carries a pro-strike opinion piece by a Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Cambridge.

For management trying to manage all this, the prospect of Cambridge activism is the horror movie pivot: this means the calls really are coming from inside the house.

Here in Australia, we’re observing these events as activists reflecting on our own experiences using online networks to speak up about the worsening problem of casualisation on our university campuses. For three years we co-edited CASA, a blog on the casualisation of Australian higher education that is impacting research, administration and above all university teaching. We tracked news on casualisation from around the world, to show that Australia is not alone in our slide into the gig economy, and we shared stories from all over Australia about the human cost of casualisation.

By Karina Luzia

M@acahacker

Writing CASA we found many allies, from unions to university management. No one wants casualisation to be as extensive and protracted as it is in the careers of so many of our own PhD graduates. Universities recruit and invest in training academic talent, and then have nowhere for them to work except casually.

No one we came across in either research training or teaching and learning believed that long-term casualisation is a just outcome for the cost of becoming a trained academic. No one wanted it to be as entrenched as it is. Even managers can see that long-term dependency on short-term hiring is a business risk.

By Kate Bowles

M@KateMfd

And yet, here we are.

16

Connect // Volume 11, no. 1

Semester 1, 2018

In 2017 we paused this work to reflect and review what we think is possible, and how we can best use our online networks to continue to contribute to change.

The igniting spark for CASA was the 2014 Universities Australia conference that rallied around the theme Universities in the new era: stirred not shaken, and made no mention of the fly in the Australian university martini that is casualisation. Four years later, under the theme Future Fundamentals, the 2018 conference continued its tradition of not mentioning the c word despite its fundamental role in every one of the conference’s key themes.

Once again, we learned that Australian university leaders want to talk about graduates and employability, and even worry about the gig economy, while covering up that our sector is a leading gig economy employer of graduates at all levels from UG to PhD, both as academic and as professional staff. Thanks to Professor Deb Verhoeven and her colleagues, this year’s conference faced up to uncomfortable data on the barriers facing women in research, in senior HE positions, and in academia in general.

But it’s apparently not yet time to call out the impact of career casualisation on this dismal data pattern.

And despite the pension trigger for the UK academic strikes, it’s not yet time either to acknowledge openly the superannuation contribution gap between salaried and hourly paid staff that’s widening in Australia as casualisation becomes more entrenched.

It’s not only research grants that are hard for women to access, but retirement safety is also a vanishing prospect for too many of our female ECRs. So why did we pause what we were doing, when the situation remains urgent, the sector is still evidently unsure what to do about it, and online networks have opened up such a platform for activist solidarity across our sector? On reflection, we came to a fork in the road where we’re still standing, because there is no single good path to resolve this problem. Casualisation really is that complex.

Is it our goal to protest casualisation, knowing that the unintended business consequence we’re currently stuck with can’t simply be unwound in conditions of further budget contraction? Arguing that universities should have less access to casualisation by imposing caps on the hours an individual can take on, or demanding that universities replace casual with salaried positions, are both proposals that take work away from colleagues who depend on it. In the unlikely scenario that any new salaried positions are to be created, they will not come close to sustaining the numbers of academics currently stuck in casual jobs.

Or is it better to accept that a degree of casualisation is inevitable, and to focus on improving working conditions in the university gig economy? This offers immediate rewards in the form of

possible practical actions. For example, there is at least one university now offering parental leave to ‘long-term’ casual academics— a win negotiated by the NTEU, for those female ECRs trying to start families while finishing PhDs, holding down casual work and maintaining any hope of breaking into the fraternal research cliques that Deb Verhoeven’s research has exposed.

Encouraged by this, should we focus on better leave provisions for casual workers across the board? Is it time to ask universities to recognise the uncompensated time that accrues to the face to face contact hours and entirely cruels the purpose of casual leave loading? What about offices and resources and career recognition? What about access to paid professional development? (There are claims by the NTEU for facilities, paid time for more of the work currently expected but not remunerated, and for professional development in the current enterprise agreement negotiations at most universities, with some, albeit patchy success.)

Or should we join others in arguing for the transferability of the PhD into other careers, lobbying for better training for the nonacademic future? What about PhD recruitment? Who can ask Australia’s universities to be candid about how many academic jobs are likely to open up in the next few years, and how strongly the process will preference international candidates, so that undertaking a PhD is a choice properly informed by employment data?

And how can we continue to bring attention to the individual stories that are at the core of this wicked problem: the 10-year casual academic who returns in March after no wages for three months to find the locks changed to her hot desked office; the casual lecturer who is trying to decide if he is finally at the point of contacting Centrelink; the continuously (under-)employed casual research assistant with-a-PhD who refers to herself with cheerful bitterness as the ‘hired help’?

Accepting casualisation asks us to think about whether it’s still possible to draw any kind of line in this worsening situation. But what’s happening online and in social networks activated by the UK academic strikes reminds us that there is capacity for renewal in the most demoralised cause.

And the stronger the solidarity in online networks, the better protection there is for individuals who have taken the decision to protest at the cost of their own jobs and careers. Online is where universities are most sensitive to brand and reputation, but as the UK strikes have taught us, it’s also the place where we can draw on global networks of solidarity to support the project of holding our universities to account as places of good work, not just as marquee performers in the Australian gig economy.

Image: macor / 123RF Stock Photo

read online at www.unicasual.org.au

17

STFs

lead to secure employment

pathways & increased teaching

capacity

by Dr Nour Dados Project Research Associate

Dr Keiko Yasukawa Lecturer in the School of Education

Associate Professor James Goodman Project Lead Investigator University of Technology, Sydney

18

Connect // Volume 11, no. 1

Semester 1, 2018

As of February 2018, universities around Australia have created almost 700 positions for a new type of academic role, the Scholarly Teaching Fellow (STF). Designed as a pathway to job security for the sector’s casual academics and a mechanism for extending teaching capacity, the Scholarly Teaching Fellows (STFs) were conceived through this convergence of priorities in the previous enterprise bargaining round.

New research undertaken as part of an Office of Learning and Teaching Strategic Project shows that the outcomes of the initiative have been varied. While the scale of the initiative has been too small to have a direct impact on casualisation, the positions have increased job security and improved recognition of professional academic identity for previous casuals.

They have also entailed challenges as the teachingintensive workload increases pressure on the health and personal life of STFs without always fully resolving ambiguities around career progression. The new role has revealed sector-wide uncertainty about the definition of scholarly teaching in the new regulatory environment that have opened up broader questions about the nature of scholarship and the future of traditional, balanced teaching-and-research academic roles.

What are the STFs and why do they matter?

Between 2012 and 2015, more than 30 Enterprise Bargaining Agreements negotiated between the lead tertiary sector union, the NTEU, and universities, led to the creation around 850 new Scholarly Teaching Fellow (STFs) positions. The introduction of this new entry-level teaching-focused role was the result of a convergence of priorities: the NTEU’s concern with reducing casualisation by employing existing casuals in ongoing positions could be addressed through meeting the sector’s need for the extension of teaching capacity under the demand-driven system.

The STFs were designed so that applicants for the positions would be recruited from the existing pool of casual teaching and research staff at Australian universities. While the position was intended to be teaching-focused in the first three years of employment, this component was to be complemented through the creation of pathways into balanced teaching-and-research roles.

The STFs were envisaged as a transitional mechanism that would allow current casuals to move from an insecure teaching-intensive contract arrangement into a secure and ongoing teaching-focused role, in the process reducing the reliance of casual academic staff. After three years, STFs would be eligible for promotion to balanced teaching-andresearch roles that would give them access to the same employment arrangements currently enjoyed by academic staff in ongoing, integrated roles.

While some elements of the positions have been maintained across the sector (for example, the requirement to recruit from the pool of casual academics at Australian universities) other details like workload, employment contract and career progression have seen far greater variability. This has meant that not all the positions created are full-time or continuing and not all provide a clear progression into an integrated teaching-and-research role after the first three years.

The difference in workload has also been significant. Variable workload allocations for STFs across institutions and disciplines, combined with different workload formulas, has meant that there is no clear correlation between the workload allocation described in the STF initiative (this was to be up to 70% teaching allocation) and the number of contact teaching hours assigned to an STF at a given institution or within a given discipline.

Teaching hours for STFs in different disciplines at the same institution could see one STF’s 70% teaching allocation being met by 5 contact teaching hours and another doing as many as 15 contact teaching hours to meet the allocation.

Have the STFs reduced casualisation?

The original STF model proposed by the NTEU was to lead to the creation of more than 2500 new full-time ongoing positions by 2016 (20% of reported academic casuals). The scale of implementation has been much smaller so it is difficult to make a direct connection between the initiative and the level of casualisation in the sector. Trend casual figures based on full-time equivalence (FTE) have remained around 20% over the previous decade. The 1.5% increase in the proportion of casual academic staff between 2011 and 2016 (from 21.8% to 23.3%) (Department of Education and Training, Staff Data Appendices 1.4 and 1.5 for 2011 and 2016) is consistent with this.

Over this period, however, more than 2000 new casual academic FTE appointments have been made with an increase in casual FTE from 11,428 in 2011 to 13,541 in 2016. Figures for teachingonly staff are also muted but show that the proportion of casual as against continuing or fixed-term teaching-only staff increased slightly from 53.9% in 2011 to 55.4% in 2016, while the proportion of teaching-only staff increased from 11.2% of all staff in 2011 to 12.6% in 2016.

However, given the small number of STF appointments and the scale of precarity in the sector, it is not likely that the new STF positions have had a direct impact on casualisation. There is, though, some evidence that STFs are reducing casualisation at individual universities or faculties; they also are having an important impact on the wider debate in the sector about scholarship and casualisation.

What has been the experience of the STF positions at Australian universities?

As part of our project about STFs, we conducted 80 in-depth interviews with key stakeholders across six sites. These six institutions cover all four categories of university types: sandstones & redbricks, gumtrees, unitechs and new universities.

Perspectives from senior executives, deans, academics employed as STFs and casuals shows varied views about the purpose of the positions and the experience of the roles. While the STF roles had a positive impact on job security and the recognition of academic professional identity for previous casuals, the teachingintensive workloads and ambiguity about career progression posed challenges with impacts on health and personal life.

A majority of respondents felt that their employment in the STF role had provided them with job security that they had not had in casual and contract work: … I feel very, very lucky to have a permanent position in this environment, especially as somebody who doesn't have a great publication record. Anything that bugs me or irritates me or anything like that I always come back to that point of how competitive the job market is and how lucky I am (STF, New University). [the STF position] provide[s] what is closer to a genuine entry level position for someone who is a new graduate … otherwise people are trying to have to scrape together that experience themselves in casual contracts’ (STF, Sandstones & Redbricks).

Nevertheless, some, STFs still felt “second-class” because being teaching-focused meant some among their colleagues did not perceive them as “real academics”: I think some academics treat the STFs as if they only just teach. … There's definitely an attitude that if you're in an STF role that somehow there's something wrong with you… (STF, Unitech) The lack of a clear career path for teaching-focused academics was seen as part of a larger status system privileging research: I do believe the universities still have a staff class system and the preference without doubt goes to research academics (STF, Gumtree) The impact of the STF workload on the health of individuals in these roles was a concerning factor. Most STFs had to contend with a fast-paced delivery and marking schedule combined with very large student numbers. ‘I mean most of my time is just frantically delivering to large numbers’ (STF, New University). One STF reported: So I would say that my health has deteriorated markedly in the last 18 months since I've been working in this job… (STF, Unitech) Academics in STF roles also spoke of detrimental impacts on their mental health of the relentless nature of the work: I'd never been that anxious and worried, to a point where it was physiologically – something was happening where I was just kind of shutting down. (STF, Unitech) It's really stressful, … You're trying to be a mother or a wife or a friend. Then you are also thinking my God, I've got 300 students Monday morning coming to my lecture. (STF, Sandstones & Redbricks).

Among senior university executives and deans, there was some recognition of the job security elements of the initiative: [the conversion mechanism].. was the rationale from the beginning,... So we felt as a university and as a business school that we would do our bit to contribute to the prospects of those casual lecturers (Faculty Manager, Unitech).

But the workload mix for STFs, with as much as 80% teaching allocation, was perceived by university managers as an obstacle for those wanting to move into combined teaching-and-research roles.

I just think it's a created a subclass… My understanding from the faculties and just talking to them is that this guy here who's fantastic at teaching and does great research is going to kill himself to try and get out of there and back up into normal.

(Senior Manager, New University). …if that's what they want to do then that is fantastic, because there are a lot of people … [w]ho want to be a good teacher, they really want to engage with students and they enjoy doing that.

If that's all they want, then being a scholarly teaching fellow is good. However, if they're thinking it's a stepping stone to a full academic role, I just can't see it. (Senior Manager, Unitech).

Views about teaching-focused positions like the STFs depended largely on whether role specialisation was being pursued at that institution. STFs were not necessarily viewed by university managers as a form of role specialisation, in many cases, they were seen solely as the product of industrial claim: … it's a whole ACTU thing about casualisation of the workforce.

So over time the union have been saying, well how do we reduce casualisation and increase more secure employment… I think what we're seeing now is another iteration of that (Human Resources Manager, New University). …we would not have created or appointed these STFs unless there was a requirement. …, we would have created … normal continued overpage...

read online at www.unicasual.org.au

19

Secure employment pathways & increased teaching capacity ...continued from previous page 40:40:20 positions which would be at lecturer level or associate lecturer level. These people are predominantly teaching fellows, not 40:40:20. (Faculty Manager, Sandstones & Redbricks).

Issues that have both driven and challenged the creation of the positions, are common across institutional types and disciplines.

While the job security and the professional academic status that comes with the new positions has generally been viewed positively, career ambiguity and workload, with its impact on health and personal life, have emerged as unintended consequences.

How have STFs impacted scholarship and scholarly teaching?

The Higher Education Standards Framework (Thresholds Standards 2015) constrains the ability of higher education providers to substantially unbundle teaching from scholarship and/or research. The ‘Thresholds Standards’ do not establish clear or absolute distinctions between scholarship and research, however providers in the university category must demonstrate that their ‘academic staff are active in scholarship that informs their teaching, and are active in research when engaged in research student supervision’.

Furthermore, the university must ensure that staff with ‘academic oversight and those with teaching and supervisory roles in courses or units of study are equipped for their roles, including having: knowledge of contemporary developments in the discipline or field, which is informed by continuing scholarship or research or advances in practice’.

While casual academic staff, who perform up to 60% of all teaching at Australian universities, are not paid to conduct research or maintain discipline currency as required by ‘The Thresholds Standards’, academics employed in STF roles generally have a research and/or scholarship component to their workloads of up to 20%. By replacing casuals with STFs universities can demonstrate that they meet the legislative requirements for teaching that is informed by scholarship and research.

However, in our interviews, there was commonly some uncertainty about the role of scholarship in relation to STF roles, even among university executives. There were mixed views about whether the scholarship and/or research allocation for STFs was to be used to maintain discipline currency, to produce pedagogical scholarship, or for disciplinary research: … there's no tangible output required. You can simply say I was thinking about it, I've been thinking about something and that qualifies as scholarship. So the bar is set very, very, very low for that 10 per cent of research/scholarship. You can say, I mean I've read some journal articles and that defines a scholarship, so a very low bar. (Faculty Manager, New University).

I guess we're leaving it to the individual whether they choose to develop their scholarship in the area in which they're teaching, or whether they become learning and teaching scholars. I think what will happen is that they will do research in their field because that will give them more chance of getting converted to research and teaching at the end of the five years. I think that's what'll happen. (Faculty Managers, Sandstones & Redbricks).

20

Connect // Volume 11, no. 1

Semester 1, 2018

Uncertainty research/scholarship extended to those in the STF roles. Many did not always find that they had sufficient time to undertake research or engage in more than the minimum of scholarship to teach a course, and were uncertain about the exact requirements.

Just an expectation that you will keep up to date in your discipline. (STF, Unitech) Others were using their research allocation to a pursue a research degree qualification: I have come to a point where I've decided that I will no longer try to theorise about scholarly teaching until I have finished the PhD – so, effectively, eight years away – so I just give up.

I do what I need to do to survive in the first place. (STF, New University) Overall, professional autonomy for STFs, in determining themselves how to direct their scholarship and research agendas, is highly valued. The key issue is that, unlike casual teaching roles, the STF positions recognise that academic teaching requires that time be spent on scholarship and research.

Conclusion Despite their small scale, the STFs have been a model initiative in demonstrating how job security concerns for casual staff may been addressed by maximising teaching capacity to meet student demand. Our research demonstrates that despite the benefits of job security, there have been unintended consequences due to workload stress and uncertainty about career progression.

The introduction of the positions has not as yet seen an attendant redefinition of ‘scholarly teaching’ or renewed engagement with the role of scholarship in teaching as demanded by the new regulatory environment.

This raises further questions about what scholarship means for the development of teaching-focused academic roles, as well as what impact, if any, the redefinition of scholarship will have on integrated teaching-and-research roles into the future.

This article is based on research funded by the Commonwealth Department of Education and Training Office of Learning and Teaching: SP16-5285 'Scholarly teaching fellows as a new category of employment in Australian universities: impacts and prospects for teaching and learning’.

We acknowledge our team members Keiko Yasukawa, Anne Junor, Glenda Strachan, Tony Brown and Kaye Broadbent whose intellectual contributions have informed this article.

For more information on the project visit our website: http://scholarlyteaching.net

Interview with an Academic Tutor

Anna Caione Swinburne University

T

ell us a little bit about your conversion experience?

I work in the design department and have converted from a casual position to an academic tutor position, which is ongoing. I started in 2010 and by the end of 2016 I had the conversion, so it was six years as a casual. I got the news of my conversion in around November 2016, and by February 2017 I received the contract and signed it. It was a 0.2 position but since then I have had a new contract and I’m now on a 0.4 position.

What was your experience like as a casual staff member?

The worst part of being a sessional or casual is the lack of guaranteed work in the next semester. You come to the end of one and you’re thinking ‘I don’t have any other work, I hope they give me some classes’. It’s just a terrible situation to be in, so I really feel for the people who going through it.

As a casual, I do think absolutely you have to be a bit proactive and I think the Union helped me a lot with that. Especially Linda, she was great. I think it’s money well spent if you are part of the Union, because if you’re not, you really don’t know what’s going on. In a big institution like a university there just tends to be a lot of confusion, so I think being in the Union can help you make sense of what’s happening.

I think it’s important that there are sessional roles because it can be good for people to find their feet and work things out when they’re new and raw. It can almost be like a probationary period, but it definitely shouldn’t be for six years.

Can you tell us a little bit about the conversion process and how it happened for you?

I received an email from the Union about conversion. I was a union member so I got the email, but if I hadn’t received it I wouldn’t have known it was a possibility. Then I got in touch with People and Culture and asked them for the hours that I had accumulated since the beginning of my time at the university.

There had been a situation where I lost quite a few hours between 2010 and 2012 because there were no classes for either one or two semesters. So the margin I got in with was slim, it was something like five or six hours. I think in the end I was entitled to the conversion because there was work there. I did quite a lot of sessional work that final year.

From there, People and Culture sent me the information regarding transfer to an ongoing contract. So I read it and signed it and then I didn’t hear from them a while because there was a bit of an application process. Eventually I was accepted.

How has the conversion to an ongoing position affected your life?

I just feel like I’m part of the team now. I never knew the staff there but now I’m getting to meet staff. I’m part of a cohort, part of the organisation. I’m receiving information about opportunities.

It’s definitely a welcome sense of security and the best thing about it is, while I don’t get as much an hour as I did as a sessional, it tends to pan out, and I have an ongoing income which has been life changing in many ways.

What advice do you have for casual staff hoping to convert to more secure employment?

Firstly, and honestly, they should join the Union. Secondly, you just have to hang in there. I think you have to look at it not just as a sessional job. If it is just a sessional job, that’s fine, do the bread and butter and the bare minimum. But if you really are serious about it, you need to work really hard from the start. So if you do have a line manager or a convener that decides you are a great sessional, they might turn around and support you and say they’d like to have you on board. You just hang in there and hopefully it pays off in the end.

Interview by Andrew MacDonald, National Media & Communications Officer

read online at www.unicasual.org.au

21

How many casuals are out there?

Everyone knows that universities employee thousands of people as casuals every year.

Everyone also knows that casual employees are absolutely essential in providing the teaching, research and support services at the core to what our universities do. But nobody seems to know the answer to question: How many people do Australian universities employ as casuals?

In order to help provide an answer to this question, NTEU’s National Policy and Research Unit is scanning all known data sources to uncover higher education staffing statistics.

What DET says You would think that determining the number of casuals employed by our universities would be a simple matter of going to the Department of Education and Training’s (DET) Higher Education Staffing Statistics.1 But no, for some reason while DET requires universities to report on both the number (headcount) and full time equivalence (FTE) of tenured and limited-term contract staff, it only requires universities to report FTE data for its casual workforce.2 As part of a past review of university staffing statistics, NTEU suggested that data on the number of casuals be collected, but that was rejected by universities who claimed this data would be timely and costly to compile. However, universities are now required to report data on the number of people it employs (including casuals) to the Workplace Gender Equity Agency (WGEA).

By Paul Kniest Policy & Research Coordinator

When we point our data scanning device in direction of DET data, we find that in 2017 Australian universities employed 128,986 FTEs of which 22,699 FTE (or 17.6%) were casual. If we want to drill further into the composition by type of work that this 22,699 FTE is engaged in, we have to wait a further year for data on ‘actual casual’ FTE. The 2017 staffing data includes information on actual casual FTE for 2016, which tells us that 55.4% of total casual FTEs were employed as teaching-only academics, 5.6% as research-only academics, 2.2% as teaching and research academics, and 36.8% as general or professional staff.

The problem is that we still don’t know how many people this 22,699 FTE represents. In order to find the answer to this question,

ARE YOU A HIDDEN CASUAL? 22

Connect // Volume 11, no. 1

NTEU is looking to better understand the conditions of academic and teaching staff working for outsourced third party or for-profit companies.

Are you working in an outsourced academic job? Are you employed on an insecure basis, and what are your employment conditions overall?

Whether or not you are an NTEU member, we would love to confidentially review your employment contract.

Get in contact via 03 9254 1910 or email policy@nteu.org.au

Semester 1, 2018

WGEA counting the numbers

we had to widen our scan of possible data sources. In doing so, we picked up strong signals in close proximity to universities such as from UniSuper and other data on orbits more distant to the sector, including the Australian Census, and staffing profile data published by WGEA.

The strongest signal detected from our data scans in relation to the numbers employed (including casuals) by our universities was from the data collected and published as staffing profiles by the WGEA.5 WGEA has now published four sets of staffing profile data (2013-14 to 2016-17) which includes all of Australia’s universities.

UniSuper records

The WGEA data (which is workforce wide) is collected on a different basis to the DET staffing data. WGEA staffing profiles publish the number of employees (head count) sub-divided on the basis of managers (multiple levels) and non-managers. For non-managerial employees, the data is also disaggregated into professional, community and personal service, clerical and administration, technical and trades, sales, machinery operators and drivers and labourers. The data is also broken down by the nature of the employment contract which is categorised as full-time and parttime permanent and contract employees and casual employees.

In undertaking research as a part of the Work and Careers in Australian Universities (WCAU) project, Robyn May and her colleagues were given access to UniSuper data. While their research is now quite dated (2011), they were able to extract data from UniSuper Accumulation 1 Account holders, which covers individuals that received 9% superannuation contributions (as opposed to 17% for ongoing employees). Their research found that: The total pool of active Accumulation 1 Account members, that is those who had received a superannuation payment in the last 100 days and who have held an account for longer than 12 months, is approximately 110,000 staff.3 The NTEU believes that this headline figure overestimated the total number of casual employees because at most universities the payment of 9% superannuation was not limited to casual employees and would also capture staff on short (less than 12 or 24 month) fixed-term contracts. Regardless, the data shows that there were very large numbers of people employed at our universities who do not enjoy secure employment.

And the Census Our scans for university employment data also picked a faint bleep in relation to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Census, the most recent of which was conducted in 2016.4 According to the 2016 Census, a total of 155,989 people identified higher education (excluding Technical and Vocational Education and other employees) as their main industry of employment.

Casuals are not identified as the criteria used to categorise casual employees is not applied to industry based data.

However, when we compare the Census number to the 120,414 tenured and limited-term employees DET identified at our universities in 2016, we end up with 35,575 people who were potentially casually employed.

Clearly our scanners encountered a considerable degree of interference (white noise) around these estimates. While the proxy might give some indication of casuals who saw their primary employment being in higher education, it is not likely to pick up others where their university job is not their main source of income, or those where their university job is not considered to be part of their main career trajectory.

For these reasons, we conclude this substantially underestimates the total number of people employed on a casual basis.

Table 1 provides a summary of 2016-17 WGEA data for all Australian universities. It is broken down by contract of employment and gender. The data shows that universities reported employing a total of 212,378 employees, 93,001 (43.8%) of whom are classified as casual employees. continued overpage...

Table 1: WGEA Staffing Profile Australian Universities 2016-17

Contract

2016-17

Share of Total

Casuals - Male

38,376

18.1%

Casuals - Female

54,625

25.7%

Total Casuals

93,001

43.8%

Casuals comprised of

Casuals

Male - Managers

36

0.0%

Female - Mangers

75

0.1%

Male - Professional

25,814

27.8%

Female - Professional

33,247

35.7%

Male - Clerical & Admin

10,850

11.7%

Female - Clerical & Admin

18,605

20.0%

Male - Other

1,676

1.8%

Female - Other

2,698

2.9%

Total Casuals

93,001

100%

Contract - Male

18,649

8.8%

Contract - Female

25,049

11.8%

Contract

43,698

20.6%

Permanent - Male

31,484

14.8%

Permanent - Female

44,195

20.8%

Permanent

75,679

35.6%

TOTAL

212,378

100%

Source: WGEA 2015–16 Staffing profiles

read online at www.unicasual.org.au

23

How many casuals are out there? ...continued from previous page

43%

The data on casual employees is further broken down by managers, professional, clerical and administrative and other employees. The data shows that the vast bulk of casual employees are classified either as professional or clerical and administrative staff. Even though the majority of these employees are female, the proportion of females in clerical and administrative classifications is significantly higher than for professional employees (64% compared to 56%) WGEA staffing profiles are very useful because they are the only source of data where universities are required to report the number of casual employees. However, WGEA also has limitations and the NTEU suggests that caution be exercised using it, especially when comparing the results between universities. One obvious limitation from the NTEU’s perspective is that the work classifications used

by WGEA differ from those used in reporting of DET staffing data.

A more detailed examination of the WGEA data (to be released separately) also reveals that there may be significant inconsistencies in relation to when the data was collected, and the differing interpretations in the classification of employees by type of work (for example, professional vs clerical and administrative).

But, outsourcing The examination of the data also raises issues about the use of the contracting out of core activities and/or the use of labour hire companies to fill temporary vacancies. The NTEU believes that employment data may be being distorted through the increased use of labour hire companies to fill short-term vacancies especially amongst general and professional staff as well as the contracting out of support services (security and cleaning) and more recently some core academic activities.

There appears to be a trend toward the delivery of important academic support services (through companies such of Studiosity) or whole courses through joint venture arrangements (Swinburne Online) or the contracting out of pathway programs such through Navitas and similar colleges or more recently whole undergraduate programs through companies like Didasko. The people engaged by these firms, the bulk of whom we suspect are employed on a casual basis, will not be captured by university staffing data. This is an issue which needs much further investigation and poses an unacceptable regulatory risk.

NTEU estimates While acknowledging the limitations of the WGEA data, NTEU would also note that the number of staff classified as being permanent or on fixed-term contracts are relatively consistent with DET. In 2016, DET reports 45,986 people on limited-term contracts compared to 43,698 people by WGEA. For Tenurial employees DET reports 74,428 employees, compared WGEA’s 75,679 permanent employees. The WGEA data is also useful in helping converting DET FTE data to numbers of employees. In 2016, actual casual FTE was 21,293 and WGEA data on the number of casuals was 87,689 (2015-16). When we convert DET FTE data to WGEA we get an FTE multiplier factor of 4.1. Averaged over three years of WGEA data we get a factor of 4.2.

NTEU uses a multiplier of 4 to convert DET casual FTE to an estimate of the number of casuals employed at our universities.

This is deliberately a conservative estimation. The conservative nature of the estimate also means that we only use the multiplier for sector-wide (aggregate data) data, and not for individual universities, for which there will be very significant variations. For example, if you divide the number of reported casual employees as per the WGEA profiles by DET actual FTE, in 2016 you get ratios in the range of 1 to 10.

Using the casual FTE multiplier of 4 the NTEU estimates that in 2017 there were in the order of 90,800 employees engaged on

24

Connect // Volume 11, no. 1

Figure 1: Proportion of Casual Employees Australian Universities Share of Number# of Employees 2008 to 2017

Semester 1, 2018

42.5%

42%

41.7%

41%

40.8%

40.8%

40.3%

40%

40.0%

39.7%

40.2%

39%

38%

37%

37.7%

37.7%

2008

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

2017

# Number of Casuals = Estimated Casual FTE x 4.

Source: DET Higher Education statistics, NTEU estimates

casual contracts. When added to 47,599 limited term and 75,077 tenurial employees that means that were in excess of 213,000 people employed by Australian universities in 2017. Casuals make up by far the largest single group of employees (42.5%) being about twice as large as limited-term employees (22.3%) and significantly larger than the number of tenurial employees who only account for about one-in-three (32.8%).

Not only do casual employees account for the largest single group of workers employed by Australian universities, their share of total employment has grown significantly since 2009 (see Figure 1). This corresponds with the cessation of Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements (HEWRRs) which removed limits on use of fixed term contracts and the announcement of the Demand Driven System (DDS) for the allocation of Commonwealth Supported Places (CSPs).

Conclusion Scanning the higher education workforce data collections has allowed the Union to conclude that there are in order of 90,000 people engaged as casual employees by our universities. If anything, this is likely to underestimate the number of casuals engaged in the delivery of higher education by our universities because of the increased (and increasing) use of labour hire companies and/or contracting out of key support and academic services. This constitutes a substantial group of people working at our universities, who we suspect are largely casuals and who are not picked up by scanning the workforce data because they are hidden on the dark side of the moon.

References 1. Department of Education and Training, Staff Data webpage, https://www. education.gov.au/staff-data 2. Universities are instructed to calculate academic FTE by assuming 25 hours of tutoring or 9 hours of lecturing during standard teaching periods is the equivalent of one FTE. 3. Robyn May, et al (2011) The casual approach to university teaching: time for a rethink? Higher Education Research and Development Studies Association (HERDSA) Conference Paper, http://hdl.handle.net/10072/44799 4. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Table Builder webpage, http://www. abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/tablebuilder 5. Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA), WGEA data explorer webpage, http://data.wgea.gov.au.

Image: anon617 / Flickr

Workplace delegates: Improving union democracy

By Matt McGowan National Assistant Secretary

NTEU prides itself on being a highly democratic organisation, run by and for our members. We stand united in a purpose defined by our members through our democratic structures.

Locally, this is embodied by the Branch Committee. At the State and National levels, it is the Councils and Executives, featuring representatives from every Branch which underpin the democratic foundations of our Union.

We take these processes seriously, but there is still room for improvement.

It is understandable that some members, especially those employed casually, may find it difficult to feel like they are having a real say. Getting elected to Branch Committees can feel like a big commitment, and it can be daunting.

And while members can always go to general meetings when they are called, these meetings are often organised with a specific purpose, and broader feedback is not always easy to get across.

For these reasons the Union is currently putting greater effort into its delegate networks.

Becoming a delegate provides a way for members to get involved and make an impact on issues that they care about, without having to get elected to a Branch Committee.

As the networks become more developed, Branches will consult with delegates about significant issues and seek their help in prosecuting campaigns on both local and sector wide issues.

Since 1958, the Australian Universities’ Review has been encouraging debate and discussion about issues in higher education and its contribution to Australian public life.

In this way they will be able to more effectively participate in Union supported campaigns, give voice to workplace membership in Union debates and help recruit new members.

As part of the recent push to improve delegates networks, a new Delegates Handbook has been developed. Delegates kits have been prepared for confirmed local delegates and a new website has been created. This site has been designed as a onestop-shop for delegates seeking information on Union policy and rules as well as campaign and recruitment guidance and materials. Since this work started in 2017, over 700 members have been nominated as delegates in workplaces across the country.

Delegates networks offer multiple benefits. They: • Further democratise the Union and ensure that the Union remains in touch with the range of views and values held by our members. New and varied voices can be heard at a Branch level to influence the decisions we make through all channels.

• Encourage more effective campaigning by building a network of activists who have identified a willingness to have an active role in the Union, and provide them with the support to participate.

• Provide members with a stepping stone to more significant representative roles on Branch Committees or other Division/ National fora.

• Promote union membership in the workplace with delegates encouraging all staff to consider joining the Union.

NTEU turns 25 this year. As many of us know from our own experience, 25 years is a pretty significant milestone. There is much to celebrate but also much ahead of us.

Some of it will be difficult, some of it will be joyful. But it is always going to be harder to try and do it alone. It is always better if we work together with unity of purpose. Together, we will continue building our future. delegates.nteu.org.au

AUR is published twice a year by the NTEU. NTEU members are entitled to receive a free subscription on an opt-in basis .

If you are an NTEU member and would like to receive AUR, please email aur@nteu.org.au

www.aur.org.au read online at www.unicasual.org.au

25

How to be an Academic: The Thesis Whisperer Reveals All by Inger Mewburn ISBN 978-1-7422-3507-3, Sydney, Australia, New South Publishing, 328 pp., 2017.

Whisper softly to me

By Andrys Onsman Australian Universities' Review

Inger Mewburn is the Thesis Whisperer (https://thesiswhisperer. com), the blog site indispensable for anyone who is thinking about doing a PhD; anyone who is doing a PhD and anyone who has done a PhD. It is a wonderfully practical gift to all of the above, and a godsend to all supervisors, especially those who don’t think they need it. If you think that, then you really do need it. And as an aside, the site has also had its benefits to Mewburn herself, as she is now (as a consequence to the site, she claims) director of research training at the ANU. Mewburn did her PhD in Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning at the University of Melbourne, which is where I work. Apparently, she graduated in 2009, which is well before I started, so there is no obvious conflict of interest. But I do know people who know her, and they say she is very nice. So, there you go.

Her new book, How to be an Academic, draws heavily on the blogs and posts she has put on the site over the years; which in the hands of a less skilled narrator would be enough to suggest double-dipping and cashing-in. But Mewburn is a skilled communicator and instead of cutting and pasting what is already out there, she organises and contextualises her contentions without resorting to the usual academic sleight-of-hand of couching everything in terms of one standardised theoretical framework or other, like ‘looking through a phenomenological lens’ or ‘coming at it as postmodernist functionary’. Thankfully, the book transcends all that, and is so much the better for it. First and foremost, it is accessible: I read the whole thing, cover to cover in a day and enjoyed every word. It is entirely useful. Even the bits that aren’t.

Few books about doing your doctorate have a chapter about writing 10,000 words in a day and not going ‘bat shit crazy’.

Although that term made me think of David Attenborough in a dingy cave, and I don’t really believe you can write 10,000 words every day, I could see how it could possibly be done every now and then; like when panic stations are looming. If someone had shown me how it could be done when the faeces, cheiropteran or not, was about to meet the whirling blades, I would have suffered considerably less angst during my own studies.

26

Connect // Volume 11, no. 1

Semester 1, 2018

But the book is about much more than doing your doctorate.

It’s about being an academic, which, given the title, is quite appropriate. If you had to boil the advice therein into three words, it would probably be ‘don’t do it’. And not to use word ‘therein’. But she knows full well that few people will listen to that advice. And she also knows full well that universities know that full well too, and will have little hesitation in exploiting that desire. For those of us who have other strings on our bow, academia provides a reasonably steady stream of support for our other activities, which in turn often makes us better at teaching or researching, and worse at managementy (Oh bugger off, Microsoft spell checker, that is a perfectly good word!) things. Unfortunately, it is the last that seems to have a disproportionate effect on becoming a real, tenured academic, known, in universities as in prison, as a ‘lifer’. Those gigs are hard to get but Mewburn articulates the must-dos to give yourself the best chance of getting a toe hold.

Most of us who have climbed, albeit temporarily, up into the professoriate, have had help. Finding a mentor is a good step.

Finding a good mentor is a big step. Their advice is invaluable.

Having the DVC (Research) tell me that my application for promotion needed drastic rewriting didn’t immediately plunge me headfirst into the slough of despair because I trusted her completely. Although I did, just for a moment, dip a toe into that loveless lake, I knew that she was basically right. And so it proved.

If you can’t find a good, trustworthy mentor, buy this book. It won’t hand you a tissue, buy you coffee and have a good chat, but it will provide succour, perspective and smile encouragingly as you take a deep breath in preparation of following her advice.

Mewburn doesn’t specifically mention mentoring: she bangs on about networking. And she’s on the money: networks are essential.

But she points out that they are a two-way process. You give as much as you take, else the ties will come undone. And universities covet your networks for their own purposes: a small step away from those companies that steal and sell your mobile numbers and email addresses, so they can annoy you at tea time. These days, in job hunting it’s about who you know and who else you know (and how much status you can bring: grants, papers, citations, media profile, consultancies and so on). That’s networking: rhizoming your way to the top. Build your networks solidly, purposefully and trustworthily.

The book is divided into six sections. The first covers her morphing into the thesis whisperer, which has a lot of “this is how I did it” stuff. The next five are beings: being academic; being

productive; being a writer; being employed and being political.

Each chapter is built around three or four blog posts, tied together by theme and commentary. All the chapters are easy to read, and for those of us who have been there, each contains a neck muscle strain of head nodding. Even as a middle aged white male (generically privileged, apparently), there was much I recognised from both sides of the fence.

The book is also a fillip for those of us who didn’t come from a privileged background – my parents were immigrants working in a factory to provide a better future for their children and it was thanks to Gough and scholarships that I was allowed to do a PhD and get a desk in the ‘foreign students postgrad room’ at the university – because it provides sound advice to get over hurdles that are sometimes missed by the Skips.* For example, Mewburn doesn’t mention international students in any great depth but makes her advice accessible to them. That is such a fantastic strategy and skill; few international students, especially those who can speak English reasonably well, want to be treated differently.

I expect the same applies for early career researchers. She doesn’t talk down to anyone.

For me, the single most salient point of the book is the suggestion that getting an on-going job in a university isn’t easy, but it is doable. If you are hell-bent on chasing that red balloon, be strategic, be proactive, don’t lose sight of your aim (and your sanity), gird your loins and don’t let the bastards grind you down.

And have a copy of this book on your desk. *Anglo-Celtic Australians This review appears in the Australian Universities' Review (AUR), vol. 60, no. 1 (February 2018). Available at www.aur.org.au NTEU members are entitled to receive AUR for free, but you need to let us know. Simply edit your publication preferences in your online member portal at www.nteu.org.au/members, or send an email request to aur@nteu.org.au To submit an academic paper or review to AUR, please email the editor, Ian Dobson, editor@aur.org.au Inger Mewburn writes the regular "Thesis Whisperer" column in NTEU's Advocate, www.nteu.org.au/advocate Image: bowie15 / 123rf

read online at www.unicasual.org.au

27

www.memberadvantage.com.au/NTEU

Discover how your NTEU Member Advantage benefits could help you save all year round with offers including: • International Money Transfers • Travel, Home & Motor Insurance • Holiday Accommodation • Car Rentals • Airline Lounge Memberships • New Computers and Technology • Credit Cards • Financial Planning & Services • Shopping & Gift Cards • Entertainment & Leisure Terms and Conditions apply.

For more information email info@memberadvantage.com.au or call 1300 853 352.

Win a car with the right cover.

Having the right insurance policy allows you to live stress-free as you know you’re covered. At Bank First, our priority is helping you find the right cover.

For a limited time, our customers can purchase a Home, Car or Landlord Insurance policy through us and go into the draw to win a Mazda3*.

It’s a win-win situation.

Call 1300 654 166

Visit bankfirst.com.au/win-a-car

Insurance issued by Insurance Australia Limited ABN 11 000 016 722 (IAL) trading as CGU of 388 George Street, Sydney, NSW. In arranging this insurance, Victoria Teachers Limited ABN 44 087 651 769 trading as Bank First, AFSL/Australian Credit Licence Number 240 960, acts under its own Australian Financial Services Licence and under an agreement with IAL, not as your agent. We receive commission on these insurance products as a percentage of the premium price for each policy ranging from 5 - 35%. Any advice is general only. This information does not take into consideration your objectives, financial situation or needs. Therefore, you should firstly consider the appropriateness of this information and refer to the relevant Product Disclosure Statement (PDS) before acquiring a product, available by calling 1300 654 166 or visiting a branch. * Competition Terms and Conditions 1. The promoter of the ‘win a car’ competition is Victoria Teachers Limited, trading as Bank First, of 117 Camberwell Road, Hawthorn East, Victoria, Australia, ABN 44 087 651 769. 2. Entrants must be over 18 years of age and a resident of Victoria to be eligible to enter. 3. The competition is not open to contractors or employees of Bank First, IAL or CGU and is conditional on acceptance of these terms and conditions. 4. The competition period is from 9am 5 February 2018 to 5pm 4 May 2018. The total prize pool is $28,300: split into 1 major prize of a Mazda 3 L 6 speed Auto Sedan Touring in Snowflake White Pearl, valued at $25,300 with 1 year CGU Comprehensive Car Insurance; and 3 minor monthly prizes of a $1,000 fuel voucher each. 5. To be eligible for the prize draw customers must take out a Car, Building, Contents, combined Building and Contents or Landlords Insurance policy with Bank First during the competition period. The policy must be held for a minimum of 30 days and still be active at the time of the draw. If the winner no longer holds the qualifying policy at the time of the draw, the prize will be forfeited and redrawn until an eligible entry is selected. 6. All valid entries will be placed in the major draw and in each eligible minor monthly draw. The eligibility period for each minor monthly draw is 5-28 February, 1-31 March and 1 April – 4 May 2018. Each minor monthly prize draw winner will be excluded from subsequent minor monthly prize draws but will remain eligible for the major prize draw. 7. The major prize draw will take place on Friday 8 June 2018. The three minor monthly prize draws will take place on 13 April 2018, 11 May 2018 and 8 June 2018. For the draws on the 8th June where both a minor monthly prize and the major prize will be drawn, the first drawn entry will win the minor monthly prize and the second drawn entry will win the major prize. All draws will occur at 10:00am at Bank First, 117 Camberwell Road, Hawthorn East. 8. The winners of the prize draws will be notified by telephone and advised in writing. The winner of the major prize will also be advertised from Tuesday 12th June 2018 on our website, bankfirst.com.au and in the relevant month’s newsletter (eSlate). All winners must agree to the publication of their name, suburb and photograph for publicity purposes. 9. All minor prize fuel vouchers will be sent via registered post within 21 days of the prize draw. Lost or stolen vouchers are unable to be stopped or replaced and vouchers are not redeemable for cash. All vouchers are subject to the terms and conditions associated with the voucher. The major prize winner must collect their prize within 28 days of the prize draw from Penfold Mazda Burwood, 59 Burwood Highway Burwood VIC 3125.The major prize is unable to be substituted or modifications made. 10. All prize draw results are final and no correspondence will be entered into.

Victoria Teachers Limited ABN 44 087 651 769, AFSL/Australian Credit Licence Number 240 960

MOVE THROUGH LIFE WITH CONFIDENCE

Helping our members enjoy exceptional outcomes underpins everything we do.

We expertly guide our members through the complexities of superannuation, investments, insurance and retirement strategies before, during and after retirement, giving them the confidence to make smart financial decisions to secure a greater future. UniSuper, quality advice for every stage of life.

Find out how UniSuper Advice can help you: unisuper.com.au/exceptional Holga Meinke | Member Head of School of Food and Land, University of Tasmania

Prepared by UniSuper Management Pty Ltd (ABN 91 006 961 799, AFSL No. 235907) on behalf of UniSuper Limited (ABN 54 006 027 121, AFSL 492806) the trustee of UniSuper (ABN 91 385 943 850). This information is of a general nature only. Before making any decision in relation to your UniSuper membership, you should consider your personal circumstances, the relevant product disclosure statement for your membership category and whether to consult a qualified financial adviser. Past performance is not an indicator of future performance.