2017 NTEU
STATE OF
THE SURVEY UNI Have your say!
REPORT 1: OVERVIEW
nteu.org.au/stateoftheuni
NTEU STATE OF THE UNI SURVEY 2017
Contents
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
INTRODUCTION 5 NATIONAL OVERVIEW Age and gender Racial and cultural identification By institution and state By employment and type Union membership Academic and professional/ general staff
6 6 6 7 7 8 8
HIGHER EDUCATION STAFF VALUES Change since 2015 One change to improve higher education Free education Sector response to 2017 Higher Education Reform Package Party preference Future voting intention
9 10 10 11 12 13 14
STAFF VIEWS OF THEIR WORKPLACE Sources of job satisfaction Employment conditions Performance of university management Perspectives on management culture
15 15 16 17 17
COMPARING PROFESSIONAL/GENERAL & ACADEMIC STAFF Survey demographics Professional/general staff issues Academic staff issues
18 18 19 20
APPENDIX A: 2016 Census summary Key workforce characteristics Workforce change in age and gender, 2006-2016 Other notable workforce changes State distribution Key occupational groups
21 21 22 22 23 23
Published by National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU). All rights reserved ©2018. ISBN 978-0-6482106-1-0 PDF available online at www.nteu.org.au/stateoftheuni Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
NTEU is an industry union and the only union working exclusively in the Australian tertiary education sector. NTEU represents the industrial and professional interests of over 28,000 staff, including staff working in Australia’s universities, research institutes and other tertiary sector organisations.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is the first report from the 2017 NTEU State of the Uni survey. This report provides an overview of the findings, and incorporates key changes in staff attitudes since the first survey in 2015. This report also draws on recently released 2016 Census data on key demographic characteristics about the Australian higher education workforce in universities. The 2017 State of the Uni survey received a total of 15,384 usable responses. The number of completed responses more than doubled in 2017, increasing from about 6,400 in 2015 to over 13,500 in 2017. The 6,736 responses from staff who identified as non-union members represents 49% of the total. In comparing 2015 and 2017, it is worth noting that a number of views about the higher education sector have remained consistent irrespective of changes to public policy or the industrial environment. It remains clear that staff overwhelmingly support the role of government in providing sustainable, public investment in higher education. In 2015, 93.8% agreed that, “The government has a responsibility to invest in higher education”; in 2017, this was 97.2%. In 2015, 91.8% agreed that, “Government should provide sustainable funding for the sector”; in 2017, this was 90.2%. Staff continue to have concerns about the financial pressures faced by the sector and its impact on the quality of education. In 2015, 87.5% agreed that, “Universities are under too much pressure to make money and this is reducing the quality of education”. In 2017, this remained a key priority at 84.1%. In 2015, 80.8% agreed that, “Universities have become too corporate in their outlook”. In 2017, this was almost identical at 79.8%. Privatisation, high executive pay and increasing student fees continue in 2017 to have negligible support across the sector. In 2015, 7.7% agreed that, “Private providers should receive similar public funding to that provided to public universities”. In 2017, this remains the case, supported by only 9.3%. Furthermore, the proportion of staff who agreed that, “Private providers have a legitimate role in delivering tertiary education” has dropped from 34.6% to 27.2%. Only 16.6% of staff agreed “Executive staff at my university receive salaries that are appropriate for the work they do”, almost unchanged from 16.4% in 2015. Over a quarter (26.8%) of staff agreed “It is reasonable that students pay at least half the cost of their education”, an increase from 24% in 2015.
Perceptions of working conditions are improving, but higher education remains a sector under strain Employment conditions continue to be a major concern for higher education staff. However, the 2017 survey results suggest that staff have an improved view of their employment conditions, compared to 2015. For instance, while only 47.7% agreed that, “I can maintain a good balance between work and other aspects of my life”, this represents a 5.5 percentage point improvement compared to 2015. Likewise while only 45.4% agreed that, “My workload is manageable”, this represents a 4.7% improvement compared to 2015. Regardless of these marginal improvements, survey responses clearly suggest that higher education is a sector under strain. Only 27% staff agreed, “My university provides as good or better standard of education now than they did 5 years ago”. This has improved compared to 2015, when 22.1% of staff agreed with this statement, but demonstrates that still a small minority of all staff believe education standards are improving. One of the largest overall shifts in attitude was in relation to the claim, “Staff and students have an important role on university councils and senates”. Overall, 72.3% agreed in 2015, increasing to 83.8% in 2017. When asked to consider one thing that would improve higher education, the survey’s qualitative responses described a sector stretched to the limits to provide quality education with the immense growth of student enrolments and dependency on international student fees, and a workforce deeply unsympathetic to further funding cuts. Amongst the most recurrent recommendations was the call for free education, an issue that has had muted attention in higher education policy debates in Australia.
Job satisfaction now more widely associated with positive work relationships Overall, 73.2% of staff surveyed agreed that, “My work gives me satisfaction”. This increased marginally from 71.6% in 2015. Notably, there have been increases across all segments of staff analysed, whether male or female, academic or professional/general, union or non-union. In both 2015 and 2017 survey asked participants to list the three most important sources of job satisfaction. In 2015, 47.6% most commonly associated job satisfaction with an “Exciting and interesting work environment”. In 2017 this dropped to 41.5%. In contrast, “positive work relationships with colleagues” became the most common source of job satisfaction in 2017, rising from 42.8% to 52.2% – with significant increases across all sections of the workforce. 1
NTEU STATE OF THE UNI SURVEY 2017
There were also discernible increases in the importance attached to “Work-life balance” (38.4% up from 35.1% in 2015) and “Job security” (31.1% up from 28.1% in 2015).
Perceptions of university management are improving, but confidence remains very low Staff who responded in 2017 indicated very little support for the quality of their individual institution’s leadership, as was the case in 2015. Only 27.6% of participants said “I have confidence in the ability of senior management at my institution”. This was up from 23.2% in 2015 but remains a minority of university staff. On other industrial matters, only 15.2% of respondents agreed that, “Workplace change is handled well at my institution”. Only 24.3% of staff agreed they were consulted before decisions that affected them were made.
Response to the 2017-18 Federal Budget The State of The Uni survey was conducted between 18 May and 23 June 2017, soon after the release of the Coalition’s Higher Education Reform Package as part of the 2017-18 Federal Budget. The survey repeated questions asked in 2015 about government higher education policy, as well as questions unique to the 2017-18 package. Only 2.6% of respondents agreed that “current federal government policy settings are taking Australian universities in the right direction”, the same result as in 2015 survey; 69.9% of staff overall disagreed. Even among Coalition voters, only 10.6% felt that government policy settings were heading in the right direction and 44.6% said that higher education policy was going in the wrong direction. It is clear that funding cuts and efficiency dividends have virtually no support amongst higher education workers. Only 2% of staff approved of reducing public university funding by $2.8 billion which was even lower than approval for the Coalition’s overall policy direction at 2.6%. This weakness of support is also reflected in the fact that only 9.9% of staff support the Coalition Government’s 2017 proposition to increase student fees by 7.5% over 4 years and only 24.6% of staff supported the Coalition Government’s policy to lower the income threshold for student FEE-HELP repayments to $42,000.
Voting intention shifts from the Coalition to the minor parties The State of the Uni survey asked questions in both 2015 and 2017 about voting intention at the federal election previous to each survey and whether that has changed since. The 2017 survey response reveals that, while remaining very low, the Coalition benefited from a small increase in support at the 2016 election. However, while 10.8% of the sample said they voted for the Coalition in the House of Representatives in the 2016 2
election this dropped to 8.3% if an election were to be held now. Likewise, 8.9% said they voted for the Coalition in the Senate in 2016, dropping to 7% now. The change in voter intention is more pronounced among swing voters, with those voting for the Coalition in 2016 likely to drop from 15.2% to 9.8% in the House of Representatives and from 11.6% to 7.2% in the Senate. This shift in voting intentions however is not likely to benefit Labor or the Greens, who have also suffered minor losses of support since 2016. Minor party support (excluding the Greens) would have increases from 9.2% to 13.2% in the House of Representatives, and from 12.8% to 15.4% in the Senate.
Attitudinal differences between academic and professional/general staff are pronounced Differences between professional/general and academic staff were again pronounced in 2017. Academics had higher job satisfaction (77.3% compared to 69.1% amongst professional/general staff ), but felt they had less control over their work (47.9% compared to 55.8% amongst professional/general staff ) and much less ability to maintain work-life balance (32.7% compared to 62.7% amongst professional/general staff ). Professional/general staff had lower job satisfaction (as highlighted above) and they felt management performed far more poorly in relation to career promotion and progression (18.7% considered this satisfactory compared to 25.8% amongst academic staff ). More broadly, academic staff were far more likely to be worried about the financial probity of their institution, the impact of corporatisation and casualisation upon educational standards and had significantly lower confidence in senior management.
Job security Staff overwhelmingly see job security as an important principle of employment within the sector: 84% of the sample agreed that “Job security is important if intellectual freedom is to be protected”. In comparison, a majority of staff supported the statement, “Excessive reliance on casual and fixed term employment by universities is affecting the quality of education” (65.7%). Only 36% of staff agreed with the sentiment that, “My job feels secure”, and only 29.4% were satisfied with management’s performance in providing secure employment. Job security was also the fourth most common source of job satisfaction, listed by 31.1% of respondents.
INTRODUCTION
TOTAL RESPONSES AND DEMOGRAPHICS The 2017 NTEU State of the Uni survey received a total of 15,384 usable responses. With an estimated survey distribution of 178,300 emails, this represented a response rate of 8.6%. The survey is intended to become the most comprehensive longitudinal study of attitudes and values held by Australian higher education staff.
WA 9.3%
61% Female
50% General/ Professional
NT 1.4%
SA 6.8%
QLD 12.3%
41% Academic ongoing or fixed term
39% Male 9% Academic casual
VIC 27.9% NSW 33.2% TAS 2.9%
ACT 3.9%
49% Non members
51% Union members
Responses came from all states and territories. 61.1% of survey responses came from either NSW or Victoria.
COALITION GOVERNMENT POLICIES Current Federal Government policy settings are taking Australian universities in the right direction
Coalition Government should increase student fees by 7.5% over 4 years
A budget cut is a good way to force universities to become more efficient
AGREE: 9.9%
AGREE/STRONGLY AGREE: 8.8%
Coalition Government should reduce public university funding by $2.8b
Coalition Government should require students to begin repaying FEE-HELP repayments at $42,000 rather than $50,000
The changes are necessary to reduce the Federal Budget deficit
AGREE: 2%
AGREE: 24.5%
AGREE/STRONGLY AGREE: 10.9%
Change in swinging voters’ support for the Coalition at the next election
Change in all voters’ support for minor parties (excluding the Greens) at the next election
AGREE: 2.6%
VOTING INTENTION Change in all voters’ support for the Coalition at the next election
House of Reps
10.8% 2016
8.3%
House of Reps
15.2% 2016
Next election
Senate
8.9% 2016
7% Next election
9.8%
House of Reps
9.2% 2016
Next election
Senate
11.6% 2016
Next election
Senate
7.2% Next election
13.2%
12.8% 2016
15.4% Next election
3
NTEU STATE OF THE UNI SURVEY 2017
UNIVERSITY STANDARDS Universities are under too much pressure to make money and this is reducing the quality of education
My university provides as good or better standard of education now than they did 5 years ago
AGREE/STRONGLY AGREE: 84.1% AGREE/STRONGLY AGREE: 27%
Universities have become too corporate in their outlook
AGREE/STRONGLY AGREE: 79.8%
University education should be free for all Australians
AGREE/STRONGLY AGREE: 55.9%
Universities have plenty of funding. They can absorb a funding cut without damaging the quality of education
AGREE/STRONGLY AGREE: 8.7%
SENIOR MANAGEMENT Have confidence in senior management at my institution
Was consulted before decisions that affected me were made
AGREE/STRONGLY AGREE: 27.6%
AGREE/STRONGLY AGREE: 24.3%
Satisfied with the performance of senior management
Satisfied with management’s ability to manage change in the workplace
AGREE: 22.1%
AGREE: 15.9%
Satisfied with staffing levels
AGREE: 19.4%
Satisfied with management’s ability to provide secure employment
AGREE: 29.4%
WORKING LIFE My job feels secure
AGREE/STRONGLY AGREE: 36%
I can maintain a good balance between work and other aspects of my life
Academic staff who work more than 60 hours in a typical teaching week
AGREE/STRONGLY AGREE: 47.7%
24.4%
Workplace change was handled well at my institution My workload is manageable
AGREE/STRONGLY AGREE: 45.4%
AGREE/STRONGLY AGREE: 15.2% Satisfied with management’s performance in relation to staff access to promotion and progression
AGREE: 18.7%
4
Average hours of unpaid overtime worked in addition to 38 hour week Academics General/Professional
14.6 hr 6.2 hr
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION The 2017 NTEU State of the Uni survey is an online survey of Australian higher education staff from around the country. It was conducted between 18 May and 23 June 2017, and received a total of 15,384 usable responses. With an estimated survey distribution of 178,300 emails, this represented a response rate of 8.6%. Responses more than doubled in 2017 with an increase from about 6,400 in 2015 to over 13,500 completed responses. The NTEU State of the Uni survey provides an industry‐ wide profile of attitudes on employment conditions and the workplace cultures within Australian universities. Repeated biennially, it is intended to become a comprehensive longitudinal study of attitudes and values held by the Australian higher education workforce. The first NTEU State of the Uni survey was conducted in 2015.1 No other data is collected on an ongoing, systematic basis (whether institutional or otherwise) that explores the values and attitudes of the Australian higher education workforce. The last major cross-institutional survey conducted at a similar scale was the 2011 Work and Careers in Australian Universities (WCAU), which in comparison surveyed staff from 19 universities, and received around 11,000 responses in total.2 This report also references the recent release of ABS 2016 Census data to make broad demographic comparisons with the 2017 survey sample (see Appendix A). In addition the following are valuable statistical sources of data on the character of the Australian higher education workforce:
The University of Melbourne was the only university to openly reject the NTEU’s request, and it appears several thousand emails were blocked by that university. The University of Western Australia and University of South Australia requested that the State of the Uni survey be distributed at a different time, because they were conducting similar internal surveys of their own. The timing of the invitations to participate in the State of the Uni survey was varied at these universities to accommodate these concerns. The Vice-Chancellor at the University of Sydney referred to the State of the Uni survey in his regular communication with staff, and the Union believes this contributed to the strong response from that university. Over the course of 2018 the NTEU will release a number of further reports that examine various aspects of employment in Australian higher education in greater detail. These reports will cover issues such as: • workloads, • insecure employment, and • young people working in Australian higher education. NTEU welcomes communication and exchange with NTEU members interested in further analysis of the aggregate data from this survey.
• The Department of Education and Training’s (DET) Higher Education staff statistics (published annually).3 • The Workplace Gender Equality Agency’s (WGEA) WGEA data explorer (published annually),4 and Several factors may have contributed to the significant increase in the survey response in 2017. Before the 2017 survey was sent to higher education staff, the NTEU wrote to every Vice-Chancellor seeking support in the email distribution of the survey.
1 NTEU State of the Uni survey results, https://www.nteu.org.au/ stateoftheuni/2015_results 2 Glenda Strachan et al., Work and Careers in Australian Universities, Griffith University, https://www2.griffith.edu.au/work-organisation-wellbeing/ research/projects/work-and-careers-in-australian-universities 3 Department of Education and Training. Staff Data, https://www.education. gov.au/staff-data 4 Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA). WGEA data explorer, http://data. wgea.gov.au. It is notable that, through the WGEA data explorer, workforce data is only aggregated at the ‘tertiary education’ level, and thus is not directly comparable because it includes the vocational education and training sector, estimating that tertiary education has 232,792 employees working for 85 organisations.
5
NTEU STATE OF THE UNI SURVEY 2017
NATIONAL OVERVIEW The State of the Uni survey was distributed to over 178,000 email addresses of people identified as having some employment within the higher education sector. According to the 2016 Census, 155,980 people identified as primarily working in higher education in Australia in 2016 (Appendix A). This is compared to 126,076 (FTE) and 120,688 (actual staff full-time and fractional full-time staff ), as outlined in the 2016 DET higher education statistics.5DET staffing data is provided to the Minister by each higher education provider, as a condition of funding under Subsection 19-70 (1) of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (HESA). The 2017 NTEU State of the Uni survey received a total of 15,384 usable responses. In comparison with 2016 Census data, the sample appears to broadly be a robust reflection of the Australian higher education sector in relation to gender and geographic distribution. The most importance differences between the NTEU sample and the sector’s broader demographic characteristics is in relation to age distribution, union membership, and to a lesser extent, responses of migrants from specific countries of origin.
In the 2017 survey, 61.1% participants identified as female, 38.5% as male, and 0.5% as other. In comparison, the 2016 Census identified 58% of higher education workers as female, an increase from 57.5% in 2011 (see Appendix A). Overall, only 28.5% of the State of the Uni survey sample were under the age of 40 years (see Figure 1). In comparison, the Census indicates that 44.3% of staff FEMALE
MALE 450
60–64 862
50–54
860
45–49
802 1381 1454
791
40–44
725 721
1232 1146 530
945
25–29
247
<25
75
1000
A&TSI 1.3%
OTHER 26% UK 10%
AUSTRALIA 64%
CITIZENSHIP OTHER 9.6%
AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN 89%
NOT A&TSI 98.7%
LENGTH OF RESIDENCE 10YR OR UNDER 27.5% 11–12YR 22.6%
MORE THAN 20YR 49.9%
500
Figure 2: Survey sample by key racial and migration characteristics
531 107
0
500
1000
Figure 1: Survey sample by age and gender 5 Department of Education and Training, Staff Data webpage, https://www. education.gov.au/staff-data
6
INDIGENEITY
1367
35–39 30–34
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders were wellrepresented in the survey sample, and to some extent migrants too (see Figure 2). Of the survey sample, 1.2% identified as Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander or both, which is in line with the 1.2% of higher education workers who identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander in the Census (see Appendix A). Almost two-thirds (64%) of survey respondents stated they were born in Australia. In comparison, 59.8% of the higher education workforce identified as being born in Australia in the 2016 Census (see Appendix A). Also, 89% of the sample identified as Australian citizens, with only 1.4% stating they were employed on a temporary Australian work visa. Citizenship results from the 2016 Census were not available at the time of publication.
ON A WORK VISA 1.4%
314
581
55–59
Racial and cultural identification
PLACE OF BIRTH
Age and gender
AGE >64
working in higher education in 2016 were under the age of 40 years (see Appendix A). We noted that in the survey sample, the greatest concentration of female participants as a proportion of each age group, were in younger age brackets, with women representing 67.7% of 25-29 year olds and 63.6% of 30-34 year olds.
The major countries of origin other than Australia were Great Britain (10%), New Zealand (3%), United States (2.6%), Germany (1.6%) and China (1.4%). Amongst overseas-born participants, almost 50% had lived in Australia for more than 20 years. Furthermore, 95.8% of participants stated that the language they speak most fluently is English, with 1% speaking Mandarin and 1%
NATIONAL OVERVIEW NO. OF RESPONSES
% RESPONSE RATE (FTE proxy)
1500
50%
1200
40%
900
30%
600
20%
300
10% 0%
US YD Me Mo lb nas h RM Ne IT wc ast le UN SW QU T U Q Ade laid e UT S UW Ma cqu A ari Dea e kin UTA S AN U WS U UO W E La CU Tro b UN e ISA VU Gri ffit h Cur t i n Mu rdo ch US Q UN E CD Flin U Sw ders in b urn e CSU SCU Oth er
0
Figure 3: Survey sample by institution speaking German more fluently. In comparison, the Census suggests the five largest migrant groups were: 5.8% born in England, 3.8% born in Mainland China, 2.7% born in India and 2.3% born in New Zealand (see Appendix A).
By institution and state Table 1: Survey sample by state compared to 2016 Census 2017 survey ACT
% total
ABS 2016 % total
588
3.9%
6,073
3.9%
5,112
33.2%
46,246
29.6%
211
1.4%
1,319
0.8%
QLD
1,866
12.3%
28,545
18.3%
SA
1,048
6.8%
11,181
7.2%
NSW NT
TAS
448
2.9%
3,368
2.2%
VIC
4,291
27.9%
44,970
28.8%
WA
1,428
9.3%
14,282
9.2%
269
1.8%
Other
On an institutional basis, the largest number of responses came from the University of Sydney (1,383), University of Melbourne (1,199), and Monash University (1,029) (see Figure 3). When we account for relative workforce size at each institution,6 the best apparent response rates are from universities such as Charles Darwin University (CDU), University of Newcastle, Edith Cowan University, Victoria University and University of Sydney. The lowest response rates were from Bond University, James Cook University, Australian Catholic University and CQUniversity. By state, the greatest proportion of responses came from NSW and Victoria together representing 61.1% of all survey respondents (see Table 1). The distribution across States and Territories however was broadly comparable to the 2016 Census distribution in relation to higher education
employees. The one exception was Queensland where there was significant under-representation compared to the Census.
By employment and type The survey attracted participation from higher education staff who had worked in the sector for some time and who were trade union members (see Figure 4). Because there is the absence of directly comparable evidence in the 2016 Census, these are general observations. More than half of the sample (53.2%) had worked in the university sector for more than ten years, with only 11.6% working in the university sector for less than 3 years. Almost two-thirds (65.7%) of participants were in ongoing or permanent employment, with a total of 32.5% employed on an insecure basis. A fifth (20.4%) of participants were fixed-term or contract staff. A total of 11.1% were casuals, including academic teaching casuals.
YEARS WORKING IN SECTOR
FORM OF EMPLOYMENT OTHER CASUAL 1.9% 12.1%
<3YR 11.6% >10YR 53.2%
CONTRACT/ FIXED TERM 20.4% ONGOING/ PERMANENT 65.7%
4â&#x20AC;&#x201C;10YR 35.2%
UNION MEMBERSHIP
NO 49%
YES 51%
Figure 4: Survey sample by key employment characteristics
6 This comparison relies upon 2015 DET staff data broken down by institution, and in comparing headcount to FTE, it represents a very rough proxy.
7
NTEU STATE OF THE UNI SURVEY 2017
Union membership Of respondents, 6,997 were union members, representing 51% of the total who responded to that question, whilst 6,736 respondents identified as non-union members. This response is greater than the union’s density across the higher education sector. However, the 2017 survey saw a significant increase in the proportion of non-union participation, with 59% of the 2015 respondents identifying as union members. The 6,736 respondents (49%) who stated they were not a member of a union in 2017 assists in building the NTEU’s capacity to provide information about higher education workforce attitudes beyond our members views. The survey findings contained throughout this report identify attitudinal differences between union members and the non-union members.
Academic and professional/ general staff Half (50%) of participants identified as professional/general staff, whilst 40.9% identified as academics in non-casual teaching positions. In addition, just over 1,400 survey participants identified as academic casuals. When added to other academic staff, total academics constituted 50% of all participants (see Figure 5).
8
PROFESSIONAL/ GENERAL 50%
ACADEMIC (not casual) 41%
ACADEMIC CASUAL or SESSIONAL 9%
Figure 5: Survey sample by classification In broad comparison, 56.7% of the FTE workforce are categorised professional/general staff, and 43.4% as academic staff in the DET data. In contrast, the 2016 Census outlines that 46,797 staff identified as a university lecturer or tutor, representing only 30% of staff working in the sector (see Appendix A). While use of the ‘university lecturer or tutor’ occupation in the Census appears to be unreliable as a proxy for all staff employed on an academic basis, it would appear that the survey results have an overrepresentation of academic staff when compared to the workforce’s actual composition.
HIGHER EDUCATION STAFF VALUES
HIGHER EDUCATION STAFF VALUES The 2017 State of the Uni survey reveals that little change has occurred in the overall opinions of higher education staff about what is important to the sector. These results reinforce that staff overwhelmingly believe that higher education is a public good and that strong public funding is necessary for its sustainability.
the provision of sustainable funding by government is overwhelming. Very few higher education staff agreed or strongly agreed that “private providers should receive similar public funding to public universities” (9.3%). Over a quarter (27.2%) agreed or strongly agreed that “private providers have a legitimate role in delivering higher education”, a larger proportion of staff but still an unambiguous minority.
Higher education staff universally agreed (97.2%) that “government has a responsibility to invest in higher education” (see Table 2). There was an overall increase in support from 2015, of 3.4% points across all staff, and a 6.5% point increase among non-union members alone. An overwhelming majority agreed or strongly agreed that “government should provide sustainable funding for the sector” (90.2%), with little discrepancy compared to 2015. This demonstrates that the commitment of the sector to
The vast majority of participants believed that “universities are under too much pressure to make money and this is reducing the quality of education” (84.1%), that “universities are too corporate in their outlook” (79.8%) and that “universities are under financial pressure” (78.1%), although notably fewer professional/general staff and non-union members shared these views. The 2017 results reinforce that union members have a much stronger awareness about insecure work and
Table 2: “About the higher education sector”, agree or strongly agree segmented by key cohort Male
Female
Prof/ Gen
Academic
Union
Nonunion
All
The Government has a responsibility to invest in higher education.
97.1%
97.4%
96.1%
98.4%
98.4%
96.6%
97.2%
Government should provide sustainable funding for the sector.
89.5%
90.7%
87.0%
93.3%
94.0%
87.0%
90.2%
Universities are under too much pressure to make money and this is reducing the quality of education.
84.4%
83.9%
77.9%
90.4%
89.9%
79.5%
84.1%
Staff and students have an important role on university councils and senates.
80.8%
85.8%
82.2%
85.4%
87.8%
80.8%
83.8%
Universities have become too corporate in their outlook
83.0%
77.8%
71.1%
88.6%
89.0%
72.1%
79.8%
Australian universities are under financial pressure.
76.5%
79.1%
74.2%
81.9%
80.9%
76.5%
78.1%
Excessive reliance on casual and fixed term employment is affecting the quality of education.
66.3%
65.3%
59.4%
72.0%
77.2%
55.8%
65.7%
University education should be free for all Australians
54.9%
58.3%
54.9%
59.2%
64.8%
50.0%
57.0%
Private providers have a legitimate role in delivering tertiary education.
30.3%
25.2%
29.7%
24.7%
21.2%
32.6%
27.2%
It is reasonable that students pay at least half the cost of their education.
27.0%
26.8%
31.5%
22.1%
20.5%
32.9%
26.8%
Executive staff at my university receive salaries that are appropriate for the work they do.
15.9%
17.1%
18.3%
14.9%
11.7%
21.2%
16.6%
Private providers should receive similar public funding to that provided to public universities.
9.7%
9.1%
10.9%
7.8%
7.0%
11.0%
9.3%
9
NTEU STATE OF THE UNI SURVEY 2017
corporatisation in the sector. A vast majority (89%) of union members agreed that “universities have become too corporate in their outlook”, compared to 72.1% of non-union members. Over three-quarters (77.2%) of union members agreed that “excessive reliance on casual and fixed term employment by universities was affecting the quality of education”, this compared to 55.8% of non-union members.
2015 RESPONSE
100%
80%
84%
2017 RESPONSE
88% 78%
72% 60%
40% 35% 20%
27%
There were considerable differences 0% Australian universities Private providers have Staff and students have between academic and professional/ are under a legitimate role an important role on general staff about their core values financial pressure in delivering university councils in relation to the sector. Over threetertiary education and senates quarters (77.9%) of professional/ Figure 6: Key changes in sectoral attitudes to Australian higher education: general staff agreed that “universities agree or strongly agree are under too much pressure to make money and that this is reducing the The other major change was in relation to those who quality of education”, compared to 90.4% of academics. agreed that “Private providers have a legitimate role in And 71.1% of professional/general staff agreed that delivering tertiary education”. Support for this proposition universities had become too corporate in their outlook, was already low on 34.6% in 2015 and this fell by 7.4 compared to 88.6% of academics. percentage points in the 2017 survey. Differences on the basis of gender were by and large not significant. However, women were less likely to believe universities have become too corporate in their outlook, less likely to believe that private providers have a legitimate role in delivering tertiary education, but more In the survey, participants were invited to suggest women agreed that staff and students have an important one change to improve Australian higher education. role on university councils and senates. Almost two-thirds (9,246 respondents) provided written responses. This in itself reveals the high level of concern staff have about the state of Australian higher education.
One change to improve higher education
Change since 2015
Overall, there was limited change in the attitudes of staff between 2015 and 2017. The 2017 results reflect broad stability in the perception of staff concerning key issues affecting the sector. There were, however, three exceptions where changes in opinion stood out (see Figure 6). The greatest change was in relation to the role of staff and students on university councils. Staff who agreed or strongly agreed that, “Staff and students have an important role on university councils and senates” grew from 72.3% up to 83.8%, becoming one of the four most strongly held views in the group of questions. Amongst academic staff, this was an even larger increase, by 15.2 percentage points, and among union members, and women. Even amongst non-union members, this sentiment increased between 2015 and 2017 by 11.1 percentage points. The largest decline in support was in relation to the claim “Australian universities are under financial pressure”, which fell by 10 percentage points from 88% to 78.1%. The greatest change occurred amongst professional/general staff, with an 11.4 percentage point decrease, and nonunion members with a 10.6% point decrease. 10
The impact on the quality of education caused by the massive growth of student enrolments through the student demand-driven system; and the dependency on international student fees to sustain core business rather than increased government funding were the dominant themes. The intensity of sentiment displayed by both union and non-union participants in support of greater public funding depicts a sector under severe strain. Two word clouds (see Figure 7) depict the most frequent phrases used by union and non-union participants in relation to how higher education could be improved. There were some minor differences between the two groups, with phrases like ‘casualisation’, ‘cost’ and ‘senior’ used more predominantly by union members, and phrases like ‘employment’ and ‘financial’, ‘international’ and ‘positions’ used more by non-union members. However almost all of these key terms were evident in both groups. On a broad qualitative analysis, union members were more likely to depict the needs of the sector in terms of the industrial relationship, more frequently referring to the distinction between ‘management’ and ‘staff’. Union
HIGHER EDUCATION STAFF VALUES
members also more frequently described their key concerns for the sector in terms of casualisation or poor job security. Non-union participants had similar concerns about the direction of the sector, but more frequently referred to sector needs in terms of ‘quality’, ‘research’ and ‘support’.
Increased funding Increased public funding was the most frequent change suggested by both union and non-union members, matched to a range of phrases such as ‘increase’, ‘more’, ‘secure’ and ‘adequate’. The assertion was frequently linked to more secure employment and reduced reliance on international student income: Increase government funding to sustainable levels to support higher education at least equivalent to comparable countries in OECD. (union) Increase funding to take the pressure off the requirement to take in international students in large numbers. (non-union) Non-union participants were more likely to use phrases like ‘stability’ in relation to funding increases and to focus on ‘research funding’, ‘full-indexation’ and ‘competitive grants’. Recommendations put forward by non-union participants were predominantly consistent with union members: Increase funding to the level where people can think long term. (non-union) Fund teaching to an institution, separated from research funding and not transferable to research funding. (nonunion)
UNION
Changing the federal funding arrangements would relieve some of the pressure on universities to keep costs low and revenues high, which would have multiple flow on effects for the governance, culture, accessibility and principles of the university. (non-union)
Free education More than a half (57%) of survey participants agreed or strongly agreed that “University education should be free for all Australians”. Almost two-thirds (64.8%) of union members agreed or strongly agreed with this claim, and 50% non-union members also agreed or strongly agreed. A common reason for saying that education should be free was to reduce the current corporate focus of universities and the treatment of students as sources of income. For some, making education free was also necessary to reduce the dependence of universities upon international student fees: University education should be free for all Australians, as it is for primary and secondary education. (union) Make it similar to European model whereby tertiary education is free, less pressure of passing students who do not deserve to pass at all. (non-union) Free education to students who reach an academic standard to attend not a money making scheme where it is the third biggest money maker for government. (union) I would make university education free. Education is not a business and the high cost of study is preventing many young Australians from accessing higher education and the opportunities that higher education brings. (non-union)
NON-UNION
Figure 7: “One change to improve higher education”: union vs non-union word cloud
11
NTEU STATE OF THE UNI SURVEY 2017
STAFF VIEWS OF PROPOSED GOVERNMENT POLICIES The 2017 State of the Uni survey results provide insight into higher education staff attitudes on the Coalition Government’s performance with the change of Prime Minister and Minister for Education since the last survey.
Sector response to 2017 Higher Education Reform Package
Overall only 2.6% believe that “current federal government policy settings are taking Australian universities in the right direction”. There has been no change between 2015 and 2017 in the proportion that believe the Australian Government is taking Australian universities in the right direction, which was also 2.6% in 2015. What has changed is the proportion of staff who are unsure. This was 27.5% in 2017, up from 16.7% in 2015. Amongst non-union members, a large majority opposed the current policy direction (62.1%). The most significant difference across all segments was the proportion of staff who were unsure, representing more than 1 in 4 overall (or 27.5%), but as much as 1 in 3 amongst non-union members (34.3%) and professional/general staff (34.7%).
The higher education reform package proposed an efficiency dividend (funding cut) of 2.5% per annum to Commonwealth Grant Scheme (CGS) grants in 2018 and 2019, while making students pay 7.5% more in real terms in order to finance $2.8 billion of financial sustainability savings. The Government has not been able to convince the Senate to support this reform package and has been abandoned for other cost saving measures in MYEFO.
The 2017 survey asked a number of supplementary questions about the Coalition Government’s 2017 higher education reform package (see Table 4). The survey response reveals that an even smaller proportion of staff agree with reducing public university funding by $2.8 billion (2%), compared to the overall direction of Coalition higher education policy (2.6%). The almost indiscernible levels of support were evident irrespective of whether or not you were a union member.
The survey results reveal that higher education staff do not support the reforms proposed in the 2017 Federal Budget. This is similar to lack of support for the Pyne reforms proposed in the 2014 Federal Budget. This sentiment is evident irrespective of gender, classification or union membership (see Table 3).
Higher education staff also did not agree with the Coalition Government’s proposition to increase student fees by 7.5% over 4 years, with only 9.9% support overall. The proposal to begin student FEE-HELP repayments at $42,000 rather than $50,000 had greater support, but this was still deeply unpopular in the sector, with only 24.5%
The 2015 and 2017 surveys asked consistent questions about proposed government policies, along with new questions specific to the Coalition Government’s 2017 higher education reform package announced in May.
Table 3: “Are current federal government policy settings taking Australian universities in the right direction?” segmented by key cohort Male
Female
Prof/ General
Academic
Union
Nonunion
Total
Yes
3.6%
1.9%
3.0%
2.1%
1.5%
3.6%
2.6%
No
73.5%
67.5%
62.3%
77.5%
79.6%
62.1%
69.9%
Unsure
22.9%
30.5%
34.7%
20.4%
18.9%
34.3%
27.5%
Table 4: “Do you approve of the following changes to higher education staffing arrangements?” segmented by key cohort Male
12
Female
Prof/ General
Academic
Union
Nonunion
Total
Reducing university funding by $2.8 billion
2.5%
1.6%
2.4%
1.6%
1.3%
2.6%
2.0%
Increasing student fees by 7.5% over 4 years
12.7%
8.0%
10.6%
9.1%
6.8%
13.4%
9.9%
Requiring students to begin repaying FEE-HELP loans at $42,000 rather than $55,000
25.2%
24.2%
28.4%
20.7%
18.6%
31.1%
24.5%
HIGHER EDUCATION STAFF VALUES
support overall, and only 31.1% of support among nonunion members. The 2017 survey asked a number of other unique funding questions which reinforce the sector’s reservations with proposed funding cuts to the sector (see Table 5). Only 8.7% agreed or strongly with the claim, “Universities have plenty of funding and can absorb a cut without damage”. Only 8.8% overall agreed that “A budget cut is a good way to force universities to become more efficient”. In terms of the Coalition Government’s rationale for the funding cuts, the sector was similarly unable to agree that, “The changes are necessary to reduce the Federal Budget deficit”, with only 10.9% agreeing or strongly agreeing. Over three-quarters (77.6%) of university staff agreed or strongly agreed that, “With uni fees up, penalty rates reduced, and housing affordability becoming harder, young people have cause to feel they are under attack”. Almost three-quarters (73.9%) agreed or strongly that, “Casualisation and insecure work is damaging university education. These changes will only make that worse”. While these statements enjoyed strong support, they
did not enjoy the same breadth of support as staff attitudes around funding sustainability or the effect of corporatisation upon higher education.
Party preference Both the 2015 and 2017 surveys asked questions about the party preference of participants in the 2016 Federal election and their voting intentions in the future. The overall breakdown demonstrates that 90.2% of participants were eligible to vote. Compared to the broader population it would appear that survey participants were more supportive of the Australian Greens, and far less supportive of the Coalition, particularly in the Senate (see Figure 8). The survey results also reveal that on the basis of party preference (see Table 6), the Coalition Government’s proposed higher education reform package did not even enjoy support among Coalition voters. Only 10.6% of Coalition voters responded that government policy settings were going in the right direction, whilst 43.2% of individuals who had voted for the Coalition in the Senate in 2016 were
Table 5: Opinion in light of the Government’s plan to increase student fees: agree or strong agree segmented by key cohort Male
Female
Prof/ General
Academic
Union
Nonunion
Total
With uni fees up, penalty rates reduced, and housing affordability becoming harder, young people have cause to feel they are under attack
77.7%
77.6%
76.0%
79.2%
83.3%
73.3%
77.6%
Casualisation and insecure work are damaging university education. These changes will only make that worse
73.8%
73.9%
69.3%
78.5%
83.7%
65.8%
73.9%
The changes are necessary to reduce the Federal Budget deficit
12.7%
9.7%
12.5%
9.2%
7.1%
14.4%
10.9%
Universities have plenty of funding. They can absorb a cut without it damaging the quality of education
10.7%
7.5%
10.1%
7.3%
7.2%
10.3%
8.7%
A budget cut is a good way to force universities to become more efficient
10.6%
7.5%
11.4%
6.2%
5.8%
11.9%
8.8%
40%
AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 30%
AUSTRALIAN GREENS LIBERAL/NATIONAL COALITION ONE NATION
20%
NICK XENOPHON TEAM 10.8 10%
INDEPENDENT
8.9
8.3
7.0
1.5
2.6
2016 election
Next election
+1.1
3.2
4.0 +0.8
0% -5%
-1.9
-2.5 % change
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2016 election
Next election
% change
SENATE
Figure 8: Voting preferences at 2016 and future Federal election 13
NTEU STATE OF THE UNI SURVEY 2017
Table 6: “Are current federal government policy settings taking Australian universities in the right direction?” segmented by party preference ALP
Coalition
Greens
NXT
Other
Total
Yes
1.3%
10.6%
0.6%
1.9%
3.9%
2.6%
No
78.1%
44.6%
86.2%
72.9%
67.9%
69.9%
Unsure
20.6%
44.9%
13.3%
25.2%
28.2%
27.5%
n=
2,735
994
4,000
361
1,073
11,118
unsure about whether Federal Government policy was taking Australian universities in the right direction. Close to half (44.6%) of Coalition supporters said that current government policies were going in the wrong direction. Results on the basis of party preference illustrate that no voters supported the direction taken by the Coalition Government in relation to higher education policy. This extended across the political spectrum, from the ALP, the Greens, the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) to ‘other party’ supporters, ranging from 86.2% of Greens to 67.9% of ‘other party’ supporters.
Future voting intention A significant proportion of Coalition voters working in higher education intended to change their vote at the next election (see Table 7). The survey results reveal a small boost in Coalition support at the 2016 election, in both the House of Representatives (+1.3%) and Senate (+0.6%), largely at the expense of Labor and the Greens. In 2017, some Coalition voters intend to change their voting preference, with Coalition support likely to drop by 2.5% points in the House of Reps and by 1.9% in the Senate. There appears to also be some drift away from Labor, with Labor support potentially to drop by 2.2% points in the House of Reps, and by 0.4% points in the Senate.
The major beneficiaries of the change in voter intention are the minor parties. On the basis of this data, at the next election, among all voters minor party support (excluding the Greens) is set to increase from 9.2% to 13.1% in the House of Representatives, and from 12.8% to 15.4% in the Senate (see Table 7). In the 2015 survey 4.3% said that they voted for an independent candidate in the House of Representatives. This looks to increase to 4.9%. For the Nick Xenophon Team, 3.2% of participants supported NXT for the Senate in 2016. This looks to rise to 4% at the next election (see Figure 8). Analysing South Australian voters alone, while a much larger proportion voted for NXT at the 2016 election, there does not appear to be a special concentration of voter preferences flowing to NXT in South Australia. The intention to vote against the major parties is accentuated amongst participants who self-described as swing voters (see Table 8), with votes in the House of Representatives rising from 14.5% to 22.6% and in the Senate from 20% to 25.3% for the minor parties excluding the Greens. The voting intention of Coalition supporters in 2016 is likely to drop from 15.2% to 9.8% in the House of Representatives and from 11.6% to 7.2% in the Senate. Support for the Nick Xenophon Team will likely increase from 5.7% to 7.3% in the Senate, and from 8.8% to 9.7% for Independents.
Table 7: Voting preference and intention: party distribution across all voters HoR 2016
% change next
HoR 2013
% change previous
ALP
32.4%
-2.2%
36.8%
-4.4%
24.6%
-0.4%
27.4%
-2.8%
Greens
30.0%
-0.2%
31.6%
-1.6%
35.9%
-0.9%
40.3%
-4.4%
Coalition
10.8%
-2.5%
9.5%
1.3%
8.9%
-1.9%
8.3%
0.6%
9.2%
3.9%
5.4%
3.8%
12.8%
2.6%
7.2%
5.6%
17.5%
1.0%
16.8%
0.7%
17.7%
0.8%
16.7%
1.0%
Other I’d rather not say
Senate 2016
% change next
Senate 2013
% change previous
Table 8: Voting preference and intention: party distribution across swing voters
14
HoR 2016
% change next
HoR 2013
% change previous
Senate 2016
% change next
Senate 2013
% change previous
ALP
21.9%
-3.3%
25.6%
-3.7%
16.4%
-1.2%
24.8%
-8.4%
Greens
22.2%
-1.2%
25.0%
-2.8%
25.6%
-1.8%
26.4%
-0.8%
Coalition
15.2%
-5.4%
13.3%
1.9%
11.6%
-4.4%
8.5%
3.1%
Other
14.5%
8.1%
7.7%
6.8%
20.0%
5.3%
11.5%
8.5%
I’d rather not say
26.3%
1.8%
28.3%
-2.0%
26.4%
2.0%
27.9%
-1.5%
STAFF VIEWS OF THEIR WORKPLACE
STAFF VIEWS OF THEIR WORKPLACE Almost half of all Australian universities entered Round 7 enterprise bargaining in 2017, including as the survey was conducted. Analysing the sector’s view about employment conditions provides an important opportunity to evaluate differences between union members and the larger workforce in their approach to collective bargaining issues.
Sources of job satisfaction The survey revealed that people who work in higher education predominantly still acquire satisfaction from their employment, with a majority of staff (73.2%) agreeing or strongly agreeing that, “My work gives me satisfaction” (see Table 10). This increased marginally from 71.6% in 2015, and reflected increases across all segments of staff in the segmented analysis, whether male or female, academic or professional/general, union or non-union. The State of the Uni survey asked in both 2015 and 2017 a question that allowed staff to list three important sources of job satisfaction (see Table 9). In aggregating survey responses, the results demonstrate that workplace relationships have been significantly elevated as a source of job satisfaction. The most common source of job satisfaction was “Positive work relationships with colleagues”, with 52.2% of participants listing this in their top three, followed by “Exciting and interesting work environment” (41.5%) and “Good work-life balance’ (38.4%).
The most notable difference between key workforce segments was between academic and professional/ general staff in relation to the priority of “opportunity to participate in the education of young people”, with only 14.4% of professional/general staff listing this compared to 42% of academics, and to a lesser extent “good work-life balance”, which had a much greater priority for staff (47.4%) compared to academics (29.5%). Also, the opportunity to participate in the education of young people was more commonly prioritised by union members (33.6%) than non-union members (23.5%). In comparison to 2015, the most significant change in 2017 was over the value of “positive work relationships with colleagues”, listed by 52% of survey respondents in 2017 up from 35% in 2015. It displaced “exciting and interesting work environment” as the most common source of job satisfaction (see Figure 9). This shift was consistent across all workforce segments. In fact, it was marginally more pronounced amongst non-union participants (52.9%) compared to union members (51.9%), for women (56.3%) compared to men (45.8%), and for professional/general staff (55%) compared to academic staff (49.4%). The most significant decrease was around “Exciting and interesting work environment” which was listed by 42% participants, down from 48% in 2015. Aside from some increase in “Work-life balance” and “Job security”, other factors remained stable in their relative importance as a measure of job satisfaction.
Table 9: Three most important sources of job satisfaction, segmented by key cohort Male
Female
Prof/ General
Academic
Union
Nonunion
All
Positive work relationships with colleagues
45.8%
56.3%
55.0%
49.4%
51.9%
52.9%
52.2%
Exciting and interesting work environment
43.0%
40.6%
39.1%
44.0%
38.5%
44.9%
41.5%
Good work-life balance
38.6%
38.4%
47.4%
29.5%
33.2%
42.9%
38.4%
Job security
33.2%
29.9%
34.2%
28.0%
32.4%
29.9%
31.1%
Opportunity to participate in education of young people
31.3%
26.1%
14.4%
42.0%
33.6%
23.5%
28.2%
Having a manageable workload
23.7%
25.2%
22.0%
27.1%
27.3%
21.6%
24.6%
Opportunities for career development
19.2%
22.9%
24.1%
18.8%
16.5%
25.7%
21.4%
Competitive salary
23.8%
19.2%
26.4%
15.6%
16.8%
25.3%
21.0%
A workplace free from bullying
10.2%
12.6%
12.8%
10.6%
13.5%
9.6%
11.7%
Strong workplace rights and entitlements
9.5%
9.8%
11.2%
8.2%
13.5%
6.1%
9.7%
Freedom to speak publicly about your area of work
8.2%
5.9%
3.6%
10.0%
8.1%
5.7%
6.8%
Indigenous employment opportunities
0.6%
0.9%
0.9%
0.7%
0.9%
0.6%
0.8% 15
NTEU STATE OF THE UNI SURVEY 2017
Employment conditions
agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “Workplace change is handled well at my institution”. Only 24.3% of staff stated they were consulted before decisions that affected them were made. Only 27.3% of participants said they had confidence in senior management at their institution.
While the majority of participants stated that their work gives them satisfaction, it is important to highlight that a bare majority of participants agreed or strongly agreed that “I have adequate control over the work I do” (51.9%) and “I feel my work is valued” (50.3%) (see Table 10). Less than 1 in 2 could agree or strongly agree that they could maintain a good balance between work and other aspects of their life (47.7%) and that their workload was manageable (45.4%). Job security faired even more poorly in the attitudes of staff. Only 36% of staff agreed that “their job felt secure”, a view shared across all key workforce segments. This was compared to the statements “Job security is 60% important if intellectual freedom is to be protected” with 84% agreeing or 52% 50% strongly agreeing. While there has been an improvement across a range of factors involving workloads, autonomy and institutional leadership since 2015, these have come from a very low base. While more participants believe that their “University provides as good or better standard of education now than they did 5 years ago” rising from 22.1% in 2015 to 27% in 2017, they still remain a significant minority of all respondents.
The survey also provided the opportunity for staff to outline three factors that would persuade them to leave their current employment. The most common factor was “Improved salary”, listed by 48.5%, followed by “Opportunity for career development” (37.4%) and “Job security” (32.5%).
2015 RESPONSE
2017 RESPONSE
48% 40%
42%
43% 38%
30%
35% 31% 28%
20%
10%
0%
Of concern is the lack of support for institutional leadership. Only 15.2%
Positive work relationships with colleagues
Exciting and interesting work environment
Good work-life balance
Job security
Figure 9: Change in factors contributing to job satisfaction
Table 10: ‘About my institution’, agree or strongly agree segmented by key cohort Male
16
Female
Prof/ General
Academic
Union
Nonunion
All
My work gives me satisfaction
71.9%
74.0%
69.1%
77.3%
71.5%
74.7%
73.2%
I have adequate control over the work I do
51.6%
52.1%
55.8%
47.9%
43.5%
59.6%
51.9%
I feel my work is valued
47.8%
52.0%
55.0%
45.6%
42.5%
57.4%
50.3%
I can maintain a good balance between work and other aspects of my life
46.0%
48.7%
62.7%
32.7%
38.1%
56.3%
47.7%
My workload is manageable
44.5%
46.0%
55.8%
35.0%
36.4%
53.5%
45.4%
My job feels secure
36.0%
36.1%
38.2%
33.8%
33.2%
38.1%
36.0%
I have confidence in the ability of senior management at my institution
24.2%
29.8%
32.5%
22.8%
18.0%
36.0%
27.6%
There is sufficient staff in my workplace to get the work done effectively
26.3%
28.0%
34.4%
20.2%
20.4%
33.5%
27.3%
My University provides as good or better standard of education now than they did 5 years ago
25.7%
27.8%
30.3%
23.6%
21.6%
31.7%
27.0%
I am consulted before decisions that affect me are made
24.0%
24.6%
28.3%
20.3%
17.9%
29.7%
24.3%
Workplace change is handled well at my institution
15.5%
15.1%
17.9%
12.6%
9.1%
20.3%
15.2%
STAFF VIEWS OF THEIR WORKPLACE
Performance of university management
Perspectives on management culture
The 2017 survey again explored the sector’s opinions about the quality of university management, providing participants an opportunity to rate university management performance. The following table represents the aggregate of responses claiming university management was satisfactory on these matters (see Table 11).
The overall negative view of management culture is evident in the open responses to a question that provided participants an opportunity to list one thing to improve higher education. Both union and non-union participants spoke extensively about the quality of university management.
The closest response to a majority of staff support was in relation to “Treating staff with respect” which 35.9% of participants in total said was satisfactory. Notably fewer academics thought university management treated staff with respect, only 30.7%. Even among the non-union workforce, this was only 45.8%.
In many instances, the criticism made by survey respondents against university management was tied to the support university leaders gave to the failed Abbottera higher education reforms through their representative and lobbying groups:
The lowest response was in relation to “managing change in the workplace” with only 15.9% stating that this was satisfactory. Only 22.1% of participants found the performance of senior management satisfactory, including only 29.3% of non-union participants. What is distinctive within the overall negative response to the quality of university management is the accentuated negative perception of management from academic staff. Only 18.5% of academic staff found the performance of senior management satisfactory.
Reduce senior management capture of universities, which is wrecking once-great institutions. (union) Remove highly paid Senior Management Positions, education is a service not a business with some VCs being like CEOs. (non-union) Make senior management advocates for the value of tertiary education rather than agents of federal government policies. (union) Management too top heavy and the constant restructuring shows that no one in management knows what they are doing. (non-union)
In terms of positive outcomes for management, “Workplace culture” and “Treating staff with respect” significantly improved compared to 2015, and across all workforce segments. This however was from a low base. For “Workplace culture” this was an increase from 25.3% to 33.2% in 2017 and with ‘Treating staff with respect’ from 30.7% to 35.9%.
Reduce corporatisation and recruit executive managers committed to higher education – not merely in enriching themselves. The senior management at my university are remote, completely disinterested in student or staff welfare. Our VC is in his second term and has never visited our School. Being remote and detached means that they do not have to be accountable for decisions that are poor. (union) Less corporate model style management of the Universities as a whole. The same methodology and management frameworks, applied to the banking sector (for example), has no place at Universities. (non-union)
Table 11: Satisfactory or very satisfactory management performance, segmented by key cohort Male
Female
Prof/ General
Academic
Union
Nonunion
All
Treating staff with respect
35.1%
36.4%
41.1%
30.7%
24.9%
45.8%
35.9%
Workplace culture
33.3%
33.2%
37.4%
28.9%
24.2%
41.5%
33.2%
Providing secure employment
30.0%
29.0%
33.9%
24.8%
23.2%
34.7%
29.4%
Access to promotion and progression
24.4%
20.9%
18.7%
25.8%
18.1%
25.4%
22.2%
Workloads management
22.4%
22.0%
28.7%
15.6%
13.4%
29.7%
22.1%
Performance of senior management
20.2%
23.4%
25.8%
18.5%
13.8%
29.3%
22.1%
Staffing levels
19.2%
19.6%
24.2%
14.6%
12.0%
25.9%
19.4%
Managing change in the workplace
16.1%
15.8%
18.6%
13.3%
9.1%
21.7%
15.9%
17
NTEU STATE OF THE UNI SURVEY 2017
COMPARING PROFESSIONAL/ GENERAL & ACADEMIC STAFF The State of the Uni survey has already revealed that some of the greatest differences in higher education attitudes was demonstrable on the basis of whether the participant was employed in a professional/ general or academic staff position. The survey has demonstrated that academics had higher job satisfaction, but felt they had lower control over their work and less ability to maintain work-life balance. Professional/general staff felt they had lower job satisfaction and much less access to career promotion and progression. Academic staff were far more likely to be worried about the financial probity of their institution, the impact of corporatisation and casualisation upon educational standards, and expressed lower confidence in senior management. Professional/general staff were far less sure whether the Coalition Government’s higher education reforms were taking higher education in the right direction.
Survey demographics
academics where only 53.2% were female. In comparison, 66.3% of professional/general staff were women in 2016, according to DET figures.7 Casual academic respondents were also predominantly female, representing just over 60% of all casual academics. In terms of level, the average professional/ general staff member was a HEW level 5 and the average academic staff member was an academic Level B (see Figure 10). Another important demographic factor was age. While academics represented 50% of the overall sample, there was a steady gradation in the proportion of academics in each age group, representing 73.9% of the ‘Over 64’ group, down to 21.2% of the ‘Under 25 year olds’. This was in inverse relationship to professional/general staff. On the basis of occupation, the most prevalent professional/general staff occupational category was ‘General Administration’ representing 11.3% of the total, followed by ‘Other’, ‘Student administration’, ‘IT’ and ‘Technical/scientific’ staff. The lowest responses were from staff working in ‘Hospitality’ and ‘Security’ (see Figure 11). In comparison, academic staff were asked to identify themselves by Field of Education (FoE), as a basis to depict their broad disciplinary orientation (Figure 12). The largest academic grouping was from Health (24.1% of the total), followed by Society and Culture (15.6% of the
In terms of gender, there was a much greater concentration of female participants in professional/ general staff roles, with 68.3% women, compared to MALE
FEMALE
OTHER
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Other admin
Level 1–5
Level 6–8
PROFESSIONAL/GENERAL
Level 8+
A&B
C&D
E+
ACADEMIC
Figure 10: Academic and professional/general staff classification segmented by gender 7 Department of Education and Training. Staff Data, Table 2.1, https://www. education.gov.au/staff-data
18
COMPARING PROFESSIONAL/GENERAL & ACADEMIC STAFF Hospitality Security Curriculum Development Maintenance, trades, bldgs & grounds HR Professional Finance Management Marketing & Communications Academic Support Research Library Student Services and Support Technical/Scientific IT Student Administration Other General Administration 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Figure 11: Professional/general staff by occupation total). The lowest was from ‘Architecture and Building’ and ‘Information Technology’.
Significant distinctions exist between union members and non-union colleagues on a range of professional/ general staff matters: 60.7% of non-union professional/ general staff agreed that their work was valued, compared to only 47% of union members. There were also significant differences between union and non-union members in relation to whether the position description properly described staff member’s jobs and whether the staff member’s classification properly represented their skills and contribution.
Professional/general staff issues Professional/general staff were asked a unique set of questions about the workforce challenges that they faced (see Table 12). Their responses reinforce the strong perception amongst professional/general staff that career progression is a significant challenge and that their talents and contribution are under-recognised. Only 23.2% agreed that there was a meaningful career path available at their current university and only 33.1% agreed that there is adequate staff development and training. Only 33.9% said the classification system at their university was fair.
The largest difference, however, was on the phrase, “I trust management to fairly decide my classification and pay levels without union involvement”. While only one in three (30.8%) of non-union members agreed with this statement, only one in ten (9.8%) of union members agreed with this statement.
Architecture & Building Information Technology Mixed fields Agriculture, Enviro. & related studies Creative Arts Engineering & related technologies Other Management & Commerce Education Natural & Physical Sciences Society & Culture Health 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Figure 12: Academic staff by field of education 19
NTEU STATE OF THE UNI SURVEY 2017
Academic staff issues Over three-quarters (76.7%) of academics agreed or strongly agreed their performances would not be considered satisfactory if they did not work the number of hours they do (see Table 13). This view was significantly higher amongst women and union members. In relation to job security, 46.3% stated that if they did not work the hours they do, that they would run the risk of being made redundant.
Over a quarter (28.3%) of academic staff felt pressure to pass full fee paying students whose work was not good enough. Only 14.5% agreed or strongly agreed that benchmarking had improved the quality of research. The results in relation to being made redundant/non-renewal of contracts and pressure to pass international students were very consistent irrespective of gender or union membership.
Table 12: Professional/general staff workforce issues, segmented by key cohort Male
Female
Union
Nonunion
Total
Staff should receive recognition for the knowledge and skills they develop over time
92.6%
94.2%
94.7%
93.5%
93.7%
In the past 5 years the complexity of work that I am expected to perform has increased
70.5%
67.6%
72.0%
66.8%
68.5%
I see my job as part of a career
65.2%
65.4%
62.7%
67.2%
65.3%
In the past 5 years the volume of work that I am expected to perform has increased
65.7%
61.7%
68.1%
59.9%
63.0%
I feel my work is valued
54.0%
55.5%
47.0%
60.7%
55.0%
My Position Description properly describes my job
51.1%
51.0%
45.6%
54.5%
51.0%
My classification properly represents my skills & contribution
45.9%
47.5%
42.7%
49.6%
46.9%
The application of the classification system at my University is fair
33.6%
34.1%
26.8%
37.8%
33.9%
There is adequate staff development and training available to me to enable me to develop a career
30.8%
34.2%
26.1%
37.5%
33.1%
There is a meaningful career path available to me at my current university
21.8%
24.0%
16.8%
27.5%
23.2%
I trust management to fairly decide my classification and pay levels without union involvement
21.7%
23.0%
9.8%
30.8%
22.6%
Table 13: Academic workforce issues, segmented by key cohort Male
20
Female
Union
Nonunion
Total
If I did not work the number of hours that I do, my performance would not be considered satisfactory
71.5%
81.5%
80.7%
71.0%
76.7%
I cannot teach or conduct research in the way I would prefer because of financial shortages
57.3%
61.6%
62.7%
54.9%
59.5%
If I did not work the number of hours that I do, I would run the risk of being made redundant / not having my contract renewed
46.5%
46.3%
46.7%
45.9%
46.3%
I feel pressure to pass full fee paying students whose work is not good enough
29.1%
27.5%
28.3%
28.4%
28.3%
I think that academic benchmarking has improved the quality of research
15.3%
13.7%
11.9%
17.7%
14.5%
APPENDIX A: 2016 Census summary
APPENDIX A: 2016 Census summary The following summary is based upon the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ (ABS) Employment, Income and Education data collected as part of the 2016 Census. It is an analysis of all Census respondents who stated their industry of employment was ‘higher education.’8 Analysis of this data is usable because the Census provides a comprehensive enumeration of the Australian people, and is thus the basis for a staff headcount, unlike Department of Education and Training (DET) higher education statistical data, which utilises either Full Time Equivalence (FTE), or actual numbers excluding casuals. The richness of the Census data also enables important demographic observations to be depicted about groups on the basis of employment, such as the characteristics across an industry’s workforce. With the collection of Census data every five years, workforce changes can also be mapped over time.
Key workforce characteristics According to the Census, 155,980 people identified as working in higher education in Australia in 2016. This is compared to an FTE of 126,076 and a headcount of 120,688 full-time and fractional full-time staff (excluding casuals), as outlined in the 2016 DET higher education statistics.9
Gender A total of 90,445 higher education staff identified as women in 2016; 65,539 identified as men. These were the options provided to Census respondents. The higher education workforce is more feminised than the overall Australian population: 58% of higher education workers in 2016 were female, compared to 50.7% female in the general populace.
Age The mean age for staff working in higher education in 2016 was 42.6 years. The median age was 41 years. 8 ‘Higher education’ is a subset of the ‘tertiary education’ category and for the purpose of this analysis will exclude staff working in ‘Technical and vocational education’ or ‘Higher education, not further defined (NFD)’. The purpose is to provide as close a proxy to the Australian university sector as possible, and we make this delineation even though some survey respondents were employed in the delivery of higher education degrees through TAFEs and other VET providers. 9 Department of Education and Training. Staff Data, https://www.education. gov.au/staff-data
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders A total of 1,877 higher education staff identified as Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander or both, representing 1.2% of the total workforce in 2016.
Migration A total of 62,716 staff were born overseas, representing 40.2% of the total workforce in 2016. A much larger proportion of the higher education workforce were first generation migrants, when compared to the general population, where 33.3% were born overseas. Representing 5.8% of the workforce, 9,001 higher education staff were born in England; 5,934 were born in Mainland China, representing 3.8% of the workforce; 4,190 were born in India, representing 2.7% of the workforce; and 3,629 were born in New Zealand, representing 2.3% of the workforce. Citizenship data was not available from the Employment, Income and Education data cube at the time of publication.
Language A total of 115,706 higher education staff spoke English at home, representing 74.2% of the total. This was marginally greater than the general population, for whom 72.7% spoke English at home. A number of languages other than English were spoken at home more prevalently amongst households with higher education workers. The largest non-English languages spoken were Mandarin (4.6%), Cantonese (1.5%), Spanish (1.2%), German (1.1%), French (0.9%), Hindi (0.9%), Persian (0.9%) and Bengali (0.8%). While more higher education staff spoke only English (74.2%) compared to the general populace (72.7%), a much larger proportion claimed to speak a language than English very well. This was 21.5% compared to 11.7% of the general population.
Disability Up to 986 people working in higher education identified as needing assistance with core activities. This represented 0.6% of the total workforce. In comparison, 5.1% of the general population identified as needing assistance with core activities.
Educational attainment In 2016, 76.4% of staff working in Australian higher education had a bachelor qualification or above. 21
NTEU STATE OF THE UNI SURVEY 2017 MALE:
2006
2011
2016
FEMALE:
2006
3000
6000
2011
2016
YEARS 80 – 84 75 – 79 70 – 74 65 – 69 60 – 64 55 – 59 50 – 54 45 – 49 40 – 44 35 – 39 30 – 34 25 – 29 20 – 24 15 – 19 10 – 14 15000
12000
9000
6000
3000
0
9000
12000
15000
Figure 14: Higher education workforce growth by gender and age group, 2006-2016 Source. Employment, Income and Education data, ABS 2016
Income The median income for someone who worked full-time in higher education was $1,250-$1,499 per week (or $65,000$77,999 per annum).
Marital status Half (50.6%) of staff working in higher education were in a registered marriage in 2016, 13.6% were in a de facto marriage and 31.4% were not married.
Care for children In 2016, 35.1% staff cared for their own children and/or for other children; 64.5% of staff did not care for children.
Workforce change in age and gender, 2006-2016 The Australian higher education workforce expanded from 136,136 in 2011 to 155,980 in 2016, growing by 14.6% between 2011 and 2016. This was a slower rate of growth, compared to a 24.8% increase between 2006 and 2011. In older age categories, such as males between the ages of 60-64 years, there were minor contractions in staff numbers between 2011 and 2016. Higher education is a highly feminised workforce and this trend has continued between 2011 and 2016, increasing from 55.8% female in 2006 to 57.5% in 2011, and now up to 58% in 2016 (see Figure 14). There has also been a notable shift in age distribution over the last ten years, reinforced by the gradual reduction in the median age. In 2016, the median age was 41 years, falling from 42 years in 2011 and from 43 years in 2006 (see Figure 14). 22
Other notable workforce changes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are growing as a proportion of the higher education workforce. In 2016 1.2% of the total higher education workforce was Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. This was a marginal increase, up from 0.9% in 2006 and 1% in 2011. Migrants are growing significantly as a proportion of the total higher education workforce: 40.2% of the total higher education workforce in 2016 was born overseas, now representing two out of five staff. This was a notable increase, up from 35.7% in 2006 and 37.8% in 2011. Migrants working in higher education have arrived more recently in Australia than in the general population. A total of 48,929 of higher education workers in 2016 arrived in Australia from 1986, representing 31.4% of the total higher education workforce. This also represents 80.2% of all migrant higher education workers in 2016, compared to Table 14: State distribution of higher education workforce, 2016 ABS 2016 (No.)
% Total
DET 2016 (FTE)
% Total
NSW
46,246
29.6%
35,575
28.2%
Victoria
44,970
28.8%
32,170
25.9%
QLD
28,545
18.3%
24,699
19.6%
SA
11,181
7.2%
9,431
7.5%
WA
14,282
9.2%
12,263
9.7%
Tasmania
3,368
2.2%
2,924
2.3%
NT
1,319
0.8%
827
0.7%
ACT
6,073
3.9%
5,301
4.2%
Total
155,980
126,076
Source. Employment, Income and Education data, ABS 2016; Department of Education and Training 2016
APPENDIX A: 2016 Census summary
Table 15: Most common occupational groups in higher education, 2016 Male Education Professionals
Female
Total
% Male
% Female
26,486
27,172
53,654
49.4%
50.6%
Specialist Managers
5,318
7,061
12,379
43.0%
57.0%
Professionals, nfd
5,095
6,593
11,691
43.6%
56.4%
Business, HR & Marketing Professionals
3,199
7,727
10,924
29.3%
70.7%
Design, Engineering, Science & Transport Professionals
4,730
4,426
9,161
51.6%
48.3%
General Clerical Workers
1,180
6,493
7,674
15.4%
84.6%
Office Managers & Program Administrators
1,477
6,133
7,617
19.4%
80.5%
Engineering, ICT & Science Technicians
3,161
2,026
5,190
60.9%
39.0%
ICT Professionals
3,645
1,094
4,734
77.0%
23.1%
Legal, Social & Welfare Professionals
1,106
2,912
4,019
27.5%
72.5%
Other Clerical & Administrative Workers
1,172
2,351
3,524
33.3%
66.7%
Inquiry Clerks & Receptionists
597
2,484
3,080
19.4%
80.6%
Health Professionals
577
1,884
2,456
23.5%
76.7%
Carers and Aides
726
1,690
2,412
30.1%
70.1%
Numerical Clerks
411
1,858
2,269
18.1%
81.9%
53
2,180
2,228
2.4%
97.8%
Hospitality, Retail & Service Managers
897
1,243
2,141
41.9%
58.1%
Other Technicians & Trades Workers
413
687
1,100
37.5%
62.5%
Arts and Media Professionals
458
501
959
47.8%
52.2%
Chief Executives, General Managers & Legislators
486
380
867
56.1%
43.8%
61,187
86,895
148,079
Personal Assistants & Secretaries
Subtotal
Source. Employment, Income and Education data, ABS 2016
68.8% of migrants who have arrived after 1986 in the overall population. In terms of recent migration, 25,178 higher education workers have arrived in Australia since 2006, now representing 16.1% of the higher education workforce. The median income for higher education workers remains unchanged in 2016 compared to 2011, which was also $1,250-$1,499 per week.
State distribution The state with the largest number of higher education workers in 2016 was NSW, with 46,246 staff or 29.6% of the total. Over half (58.4%) of all staff working in the sector lived in NSW and Victoria combined (see Table 14).
Key occupational groups Staff working in higher education in 2016 predominantly fell into one of three major occupational categories (OCCP): professionals, clerical and administrative workers, or managers. Staff working in these major occupational categories represented 90% of all staff in higher education. Analysing occupational groups aggregated at the two digit OCCP level, we can identify the following categories as the most prevalent in higher education (see Table 15). These twenty categories represented 94.9% of all higher education workers.
Table 15 depicts gender stratification in a number of key higher education occupational groups. Personal assistants, clerical workers, office managers, program administrators and receptionists were overwhelmingly female, as were business, HR and marketing professionals and legal, social and welfare professionals. Staff working in ICT and technicians working in engineering, ICT or science were predominantly male. Gender stratification was not as significant in the leading employment category, education professionals. University lecturers and tutors are a subset of the Education Professionals category, which includes primary, secondary and tertiary educational teachers. In 2016, the most common specific occupation in higher education was university lecturers and tutors. A total of 46,797 staff identified as a university lecturer or tutor, representing 30% of staff working in the sector.10 Over 26,000 staff identified as a university lecturer or tutor working in higher education full-time. This represented only 57.1% of all lecturers and tutors, highlighting that based on the 2016 Census, more than 2 in 5 university lecturers were not employed on a full-time basis.
10 This occupational category in itself is not a good proxy to identify those employed on an academic basis, considering that numerous managers, professionals, education-focused, scientific and research roles would also likely be classified as academic modes of employment.
23
nteu.org.au/stateoftheuni