What the VC doesn't want you to read...
NTEU Members posting to the VC's latest blog, "Higher Finance" have started having their blog posts moderated. If you are in this situation, feel free to use the comment function on this blog to post what you sent to the VC's site. Let the debate continue!
People might need to read the VC's blog to understand the references to earlier posts - http://www.vc.mq.edu.au/blog/2010/11/24/higher-finance
One from the Branch President, Cathy Rytmeister:
Al, you don’t seem to get it. Academics don’t want double the income in order to do more work that they don’t wish to do. They want to be properly supported to do the work they love and have been trained to do – academic work.
There is no university in the world that could pay me enough to do more administration. I don’t want double the salary (although I do want the pay rise to keep me on par with colleagues elsewhere – which the University’s current offer won’t do), I want time to do high quality academic work.
Steven, your response to Abeed completely misses the point. He said nothing about cutting scholarship money – you’ve set up a straw man argument there so you can maintain the illusion that you are properly funding your strategy. (So who is being disingenuous now?) His point was about the loss of travel money that comes under the Department budget. And THAT is a direct result of this extraordinary attack on the Faculty of Science.
There are also grave concerns in some Departments that PhD students will also lose access to sessional teaching, as programs are cut – this income is also an important factor in them coming here, as living in Sydney on a scholarship is almost impossible without supplementation. Again, the cuts will make Macquarie less attractive to researchers, at odds with the MQ@50 goals.
The simple fact is that the shortfall in the Science budget is largely due to three things: the change in the WEFTSL rate, as Christophe pointed out; the imbalance introduced by the unfunded or underfunded imposition of CoRE positions; and the time lag between performance and reward in research funding. The change in WEFTSL rate is no doubt a response to a number of factors including the diversion of funds into capital works and projected falls in international student income – but we wouldn’t know, because no explanation or justification has been given to the University community.
Instead, we find that Macquarie’s apparent goal is to become one of Australia’s top 8 property developers – “the Multiplex of the Higher Education sector” (as Lance Dale has said in the NTEU’s response to the managing change proposals in Science). Is education and research just a sideline now, subservient to the property development ambitions of the University Management?
Oh, and for those who haven’t read my earlier post, I will declare my union roles: I am the President of the NTEU Macquarie Branch, with executive and committee roles at State and National levels.
P.S. You know, there is a fairly straightforward way out of all of this tension. Clearly the Faculty Funding Model needs more transparency and accountability. The elements of the model should be explained to the University Community, in particular the rationale and basis for the WEFTSL rate and the changes in research funding. The model should be reviewed to include some sort of short-term contingency funding to ensure that Faculties don’t suffer from the time lags in funding, especially where research in many CoRES is just getting going, as people come on board. This could be in the form of an advance on research funding, up to a reasonable projected income level (so that it can be made up later).
The CoRE strategy has brought many fantastic people into Macquarie – researchers whose work is of great value to their disciplines, the wider community and the university. But the central funding period is simply too short (if it exists at all – some positions have had no additional funding but people have been appointed anyway) to enable Departments to absorb the cost of the appointments. This needs to be stretched out over a longer time period, with perhaps a sliding scale of cost-sharing over 2-5 years. That would provide a much more sustainable financial basis for the appointments while enabling responsible workforce planning at the Department level.
Lastly, commit to the principle of no retrenchments (forced job losses) as a result of Faculty budget changes. This would take most of the heat out of the current situation and allow people to make sense of what is happening without the anxiety involved in having to rush through measures to accommodate budget cuts that are beyond their control and the rationale for which is not well understood across the University community.
Faculty of Science staff have lots of constructive ideas about a way forward, and are ready to talk. There are many opportunities in this situation but also great risks if it is allowed to continue to cause unrest and anxiety. It’s time to work together on a solution.
Faculty of Science staff have lots of constructive ideas about a way forward, and are ready to talk. There are many opportunities in this situation but also great risks if it is allowed to continue to cause unrest and anxiety. It’s time to work together on a solution.
Post a comment
Branch Contacts
Branch Office
15 Paxtons Walk 281 North Terrace Palais Apartment complex
University of Adelaide
Phone: 08 8227 2384
adelaide@nteu.org.au
http://www.nteu.org.au/adelaide
Rod Crewther
Branch President
rodney.crewther@adelaide.edu.au
Katherine Gale
Branch Organiser
kgale@nteu.org.au
Comments
[ 0 ] Australia has a reputation of creating and adopting new and innovative technologies. Australian Universities have placed a high importance in developing world class research facilities and centers of excellence. This reputation has been confirmed with eight Australian Researchers receiving Nobel Prizes in different areas. Austech Business Institute is Best Budget College in Australia
Like • Dislike •[ 0 ] The comodification of higher learning is reminiscent of the money changers setting up shop in the temple.
Like • Dislike •The objective is a better Australia. Is this the way to achieve it. I can see the text book logic. An economy of scale model.
The model was originally cut and pasted from the textile industry.
You'd have a factory floor with hundreds of machines. Workers operating them.
This model was designed for garment and clothing manufacture. How it came to be the standard for higher learning is beyond me.
I here a lot of talk about globalisation. Which is a colaboration of ideas and cultures. That sounds fair enough. There is some logic there. But what I'm seeing is UK culture. American culture. Globalisation is globalisation. Not britisiation or Americanisation. Which is what is unfolding.
Where not a part of the union of the united states or a country in the UK but where being driven that way.
Are our higher education facilities tertiary skills clearing houses for UK and US companies. I wonder.
[ +8 ] In response to 'Survival of Universities' on the Schwartzblog:
Like • Dislike •Always thought-provoking, Simon Marginson.
Not, however, a historian. Briefly, the Library of Alexandria was destroyed in 48 BC, when Julius Caesar had to set fire to his own ships in the harbour (and the fire spread); then between AD 270 and 275, when the Emperor Aurelian attacked Alexandria; then in 391 when the Emperor Theodosius I ordered the demolition of pagan temples; then in 642 on the orders of the Caliph Omar when 'Amr bin al-As captured Alexandria. Evidently this Library was difficult to get rid of.
On the English monasteries, too, it would have been relevant for Simon Marginson to be sharper. Yes, the monasteries were dissolved--those which (to simplify) produced a public good only in the form of prayer. The monastic institutions which were preserved were the universities--which, indeed, King Henry thought represented the best value of anything he spent his money on. Their residual monastic character (in Protestant England) is clear from the fact that Fellows of Cambridge colleges had to remain unmarried until the 1870s, two decades after the University of Sydney was founded.
So there's a record of resilience to which Simon Marginson has not given full value. But it would be unfair to say that he thinks universities in general deficient in terms of a public good contribution. Elsewhere in his address he says:
'The larger enemy of the public good and public sphere is not the economic market, but the status hierarchy.'
And a little later:
'The antidote to status competition—one that creates space for the global public good to evolve—is the third imaginary, the communicative world of flat networks and collegial relations. There is already a vast traffic of shared messages, ideas and knowledge. This subverts status hierarchies by fostering "flat" social relations and giving authority to knowledge from anywhere. Communicative technologies, and the knowledge running through them, lend themselves to open, democratic collaborative forms.'
The attack on the status hierarchy, I'd admit, would not be easy for someone of exalted status to cite with approval. But a view like Simon Marginson's is behind NTEU's present efforts to counteract moves to continue increasing the numbers and proportion of fixed-term and casual staff at Macquarie.
NTEU would be very pleased to meet Steven Schwartz to discuss how we can develop a communicative world of flat networks and collegial relations at Macquarie, and move in the direction of open, democratic collaborative forms.
[ +4 ] Just to add to the VC blog issue - in response to a member's query, the blog moderator (who is not the usual moderator but a stand-in who obviously doesn't really understand what he or she is meant to be doing) has stated that NTEU members have not been blocked from the blog but restricted to posts that are "clear, concise, and on-topic". Some points you might like to make to this hidden moderator:
Like • Dislike •a) How could you say that Wylie's post at least was not "clear, concise and on-topic"?
b) my second post (the "PS") was extremely clear, concise and on-topic
c) other people have also been blocked
d) I CANNOT post to the blog now - my comments don't even show up as "awaiting moderation" - so the statement that I will be published if I am "clear, concise and on-topic" appears to be false, as I can't even get to the first base of "moderation".
Still, being banned from the VC's blog must mean that our posts were having an impact. And of course, we have our own blog here so we'll be using that as we like.
[ -1 ] Thanks Steve. Annabelle, it's not 50% as far as I know (it's Astronomy and Physics) but the savings target is substantial. The Head of Department will be addressing Council today about the situation - I encourage you to come to the Council meeting as an observer to hear more, and to join our gathering beforehand to distribute information to Council members.
Like • Dislike •[ 0 ] I have heard the Dept of Astronomy has been cut by 50%. Can anyone verify this?
Like • Dislike •[ +17 ] Tony, the members of the NTEU who decided to carry out this action are just academic staff members at Macquarie concerned about the way that they are being treated. The NTEU isn't an outside group although it does support members at other Universities. This dispute is about the future of Macquarie and involves Macquarie staff who are NTEU members.
Like • Dislike •I have no problem with my pay being withheld if I take part in industrial action. I should not be paid for work if I refuse to do it.
Unfortunately, withholding marks will affect students which is not something any academic staff member wants to do. We're all hoping that we won't need to go that far and the University management will begin talking again. Refusing to do certain tasks is one of the few ways we have of making a point to management and the wider community; we don't enjoy it, we are committed to making Macquarie the best it can be for students like you. We think that people who have been working hard to further the goals of the University shouldn't lose their jobs because of a short term budgetary shortfall. We think that units should not be cut from the schedule at short notice, restricting student options. We think that you should be taught by staff who have a reasonable workload and can provide you with the support you need to progress through your degree.
I'm sorry you don't agree with our position. Not everyone will, but please try to understand it.
Steve Cassidy
[ -7 ] To the obnoxious and self centred folks pulling the strings at the NTEU,
Like • Dislike •All you are doing is harming students like me - your decision to politicise my (and every other student's) marks reeks of self interest: for this reason I will not support your industrial action.
I look forward to the University's decision to do the responsible thing and withold your pay packets - just like both my two bosses would do if I refuse to fulfil part of my obligations.
Regards,
Tony Clark
[ +5 ] So, what a GREAT LOOK for a University that professes a belief in freedom of speech and public debate. Now the VC has now shut down union voices and an Indigenous voice. And I have been COMPLETELY blocked from the VC's blog - that is, when I post something it doesn't even come up as "awaiting moderation" - they're just chucking it. So, members, what do you think of that?
Like • Dislike •Luckily we have our own blog and I can say what I like here!
And what I like to say is that you are all bloody marvellous - it's the members that make the union strong, not the Branch Committee or officers or staff. When things get tough for us in bargaining, we take great comfort from the fact that the VC has only a handful of people supporting him, while we have hundreds.
Stand fast, folks - we have already elicited responses from the management - they have defended (weakly) their budget decisions and are spreading misinformation about the situation in bargaining, which shows that we are having an impact. We believe that the MQ Announcements today are full of inaccuracies and we will be circulating our refutation of them asap.
We have solutions ready to the problems we're facing - we have offered trade-offs in bargaining and we have suggested a way forward in the dispute over Faculty funding - we are READY to cooperate and collaborate in working on solutions that will prevent job losses and ensure that MQ staff enjoy conditions on a par with colleagues elsewhere.
NOW IS THE TIME to hold to our resolve and support the bargaining team and each other. No-one taking action is alone - there are people observing the bans in almost all of the Departments - and that's just the ones who have filled out the survey on action - we know that there are others preparing to take action as well who just haven't told us about it yet. Others are acting as "bankers" to support those taking action - so we're all in this together.
Cat and I will be around this week and next to answer questions and build even more support, although I expect to be stood down with others if the university fulfils its threat to take the most extreme form of retaliation open to it.
Thanks to all the wonderful members and supporters who have written to us and to the VC in the last couple of weeks, and who have added their comments to the VC's blog. Thanks to all those taking or supporting action this week and prepared to stand up for our working rights and job security. Thanks to our staff - Cat here at the Branch, Lance and Josh in the NSW Office and Ken and others in the National Office. And thanks to the Branch Committee, who are a great team and totally committed to representing the members and making a difference.
Love your work!
In Solidarity
Cathy
[ +19 ] Here's another one that didn't get through the pall of censorship held aloft by the VC's minions:
Like • Dislike •__
As the identification of affiliations appears now to be de rigueur I'll start by owning up to being the Indigenous Staff representative on the NTEU Branch Committee.
Vice-Chancellor, your reliance on the standard 'fixed pie' argument in relation to funding of Faculties is hardly credible given that the determination of the shares of expenditure going to various University activities is not exogenous.
A case in point - the Professional staff agreement that the University put to ballot promised a $1000 signing on bonus. As there were 3413 eligible voters it appears that the University Executive was prepared to spend somewhere in the region of $3 million in order to achieve its industrial relations aims (even allowing for the fact that the payment was to be made on a pro-rate basis with regard to hours we are still talking a 7-figure sum) in a manner unrelated to the productivity of any core University activity.
The proposed agreement is still awaiting approval by Fair Work Australia. In the (not unlikely) event that the Agreement is rejected will you pledge to use the sign-on bonus savings to alleviate the University-imposed financial stress in the Faculty of Science?
After all, refusing to do so would invite the inference that, in terms of the distribution of funding, the pursuit of long-term bargaining advantage to be employed against staff is more important than the maintenance and integrity of the core activities of the University.
Wylie Bradford
-----
fraternally,
Wylie Bradford