Volume 2, Number 3, March 2010
From the Branch President, Megan Clayton
UC Change Thermometer
With one change proposal implemented, two currently under consultation and one still to come, TEU members are in the eye of an extended storm of restructuring now more than six months old. As each phase is introduced, organisers and representatives meet with members to find ways of mitigating the uncertainty and dread that the change process brings, at the same time as looking for constructive ways to make submissions and challenge those aspects with negative implications for members and the University. The continuous scanning of proposals for auguries and errors along with gauging the best and yet at the same time most realistic expectations for those affected is taking its toll on members, representatives and organisers alike. It remains clear that, while current employment law and its precedents allow for engagement through consultation, the possibility of genuine and meaningful partnership between union and institution is precluded by the critical power remaining in the hands of the employer – or, as the VC has put it many times, “At the end of the day, I am the decision-maker”. The TEU initiated bargaining at a national level in 2009 with the claim that no redundancies should take place during the term of settlement. The loss of this national claim and the devolution to local bargaining does not make this any less the view of the union. The pace of current changes at Canterbury and the extent of the union’s involvement in administratively facilitating this process should not elide for members the fact that TEU remains fundamentally opposed to redundancies as a means of managing the university’s labour force and cutting costs. Wherever we can, our engagement with the employer is in defence of this principle and in support of stability of employment for the greater good of the institution’s goals. The employer’s position is itself significantly conditioned by the increasingly constrained levels of tertiary funding under the present government. The loss of ACE funding nationwide has had its flow-on effect in the loss of academic positions from the sector at Canterbury under the current restructuring, and the TEC directive to tertiary institutions to reduce offerings in preparatory programmes and learning support may yet threaten these areas – and the research that supports them – at this university. Just as New Zealand is paying a price for its previous lack of investment in trade training and apprenticeships, so this Government appears to be setting up the tertiary education sector for a similar fall. More generally, the government’s stated position that there will be no increase to tertiary funding brings about an enrolment funding crisis in which institutions run the risk, in having to do more with less money, of in fact doing less for more students. The TEU’s view is that partnership between the university and the union – with the latter’s strength of grass-roots’ knowledge, organisational expertise and ability to facilitate supported outcomes – is a better way through the currently constrained times than simply cutting the University’s labour resources at their roots, to the detriment of both parties.
Redundancies:
47
Redeployments: 0 Additional redundancies proposed: 51
The Co-Location Argument The change proposals for the new Communications/External Relations and International/Student Services portfolios rely on service and administrative co-location: all services being offered from the same location. In the case of Communications/External Relations this refers to all roles, and in the case of International/Student Services it involves, at this stage at least, bringing together administrative support across the portfolio into one location. In both portfolios administrators will thus be in a “hub” together. The “efficiencies” the employer is seeking are assumed in these proposals to come from reducing the number of administrative positions across both portfolios, with the expectation that co-location will lead to the same amount of work done more efficiently by fewer people. In the Communications/External Relations portfolio, this “hub” is proposed to involve just one staff member: a receptionist/administrative assistant. The new director’s proposed Executive Assistant would, under the proposal, be required to provide relief cover and support where needed. The TEU is willing to support co-location as a feature of these new portfolios but opposes such drastic and impractical cuts in administrative support. We are currently working with affected members to create an inventory, for the purposes of writing alternative position descriptions, to propose a more realistic alternative for these portfolios.
Why We Need Administrators As an administrator, I was deeply concerned by suggestions in recent change proposals that the work of administrative staff could be easily taken up by other staff. Like all general staff, administrators are experts in what we do. While non-administrators may be able to carry out many of the tasks we do, our specialist skills mean that we are able do them better and certainly more efficiently. The tasks we do may be considered low value by some, but they are still essential to keep the university running, and we take pride in the service we provide. With our willingness to take care of all the tedious day-to-day tasks, we free up our colleagues in other roles to concentrate on their own areas of expertise, and do their own jobs efficiently. We are the tiny cogs that keep the big wheels of the university turning smoothly. We are also the face of the university. We are the first point of contact for student, staff, and public enquiries. Through specializing in our particular areas of the university, we have a breadth and depth of knowledge that allows us to provide the excellent level of customer service that UC is known for. We know everything that is going on in our department (and a lot of what’s going on in the wider university), so we can direct students and the public to the right person or the resource they need, solve our colleagues’ problems, and help ensure that everyone’s experience of the university is a good one. We are professionals, we are experts in our jobs, and we are specialists in our areas. And we are proud of what we do. Perhaps one day the university will recognise our value too. Jennifer Middendorf UC Branch Vice-President, and Administrator in the School of Humanities
The Submission Process: How TEU Can Help So you or your colleagues have received a change proposal – now what? Here are some of the ways in which TEU can facilitate and assist with the preparation of submissions on the change proposal. If there are any factual errors in the proposal as it pertains to your area of work, please let TEU know promptly so we can communicate this information to HR for correction. Thank you to those of you who have already done so. If there are members of the university or wider community to whom you think the change proposal should be made available, please contact Megan Clayton and Jennifer Middendorf and we will circulate it on your behalf, anonymously if you wish. If you would like to meet with TEU representatives either individually or together with colleagues to discuss the preparation of a submission, please contact Megan and Jennifer. Such a discussion can also occur via email. This is the level at which substantive issues relating to the proposal and your area of work can be discussed. If you wish to write a submission under the TEU umbrella – this is particularly useful for those of you who want to comment on areas of the proposal by which you are not directly affected – then please make a time to meet with Megan and Jennifer to discuss this. Alternatively, if you and colleagues are making a submission to which you would like the TEU to give its support, please do the same. The TEU will support those submissions which it thinks have a good chance of success, and Megan, Jennifer, and the organisers will offer editorial and industrial advice accordingly. Again, we are happy to do this via email or phone if you prefer. If you have any other questions or concerns that you would like to raise with TEU, please contact us: Gaby Moore (Ilam Organiser) extension 6485 email tertiaryunion@canterbury.ac.nz Paul Corliss (Ilam Organiser) extension 6288 email paul.corliss@teu.ac.nz Megan Clayton (UC Branch President) extension 4931 email megan.clayton@canterbury.ac.nz Jennifer Middendorf (UC Branch Vice-President) extension 6212 email jennifer.middendorf@canterbury.ac.nz
The university is prepared to engage with TEU members as part of the change process and we have had some significant successes with regard to submissions thus far. Finally, if you or your colleagues are not TEU members and would like to join, it is not too late. Please contact us by email and we will send you the membership forms.
Contact your organisers Ilam Members Gabrielle Moore 021 190 2396 extension 6485 tertiaryunion@canterbury.ac.nz
College of Ed Members Paul Corliss 021 859 129 extension 6288 paul.corliss@teu.ac.nz
Phil Dodds 027 44 99 422 extension 6768 phil.dodds@teu.ac.nz
2