Voluntary Student Unionism Begins in Australia
A federal law that bans universal membership in student unions - the "Higher Education Support Amendment (Abolition of Compulsory Up-front Student Union Fees) Bill 2005" - is now (as of July 1) in force throughout Australia. As the law's Explanatory Memorandum explains, this law goes far beyond merely banning universal student unionism:
The organisation primarily responsible for the passage of this Act is the Australian Liberal Students' Federation (ALSF). Students aligned with the ALSF has happily participated in NUS (National Union of Students of Australia) meetings even while hoping for its demise. According to the ALSF's Wikipedia article, "No other faction carries the notoriety attached to the ALSF at NUS National Conference. ALSF does not recognise the Aboriginal welcome preceding the NUS conference, thus have sung 'God Save the Queen' throughout the welcome for the past three years." This can be confirmed by reading the online Minutes of NUS National Conference 2004, which record the Chair "call[ing] the Liberals to order" and ruling "that the Liberal caucus not sing on conference floor" during the Indigenous Welcome to Country. (The remainder of the Minutes are similarly full of hillarity; indeed, they are one of the most amusing set of minutes I have ever read!)
Other organisations were not as impressed. The National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU), representing faculty, as come out strongly against Voluntary Student Unionism, producing a host of documentation supporting their stance. So has the Australian Vice-Chancellor's Committee (AVCC), representing university administrations. Even the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) expressed concern at the estimated AUS$100 million loss to collegiate athletics. On the political side, the Australian Democrats expressed their opposition to such legislation. The opposition Labor Party tried (unsuccessfully) to split the bill into two portions - one banning universal membership in students' unions, and another banning compulsory fees for non-academic services, expressing their support for student services but opposing universal student union membership.
News on this issue:
If so, the initiator of similar legislation might be Harry Bloy, BC MLA for Burquitlam. In a Private Member's Statement, Mr. Bloy lamented that BC students "have to pay third-party fees to such organizations as the Canadian Federation of Students, CFS for short, and the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations." Expressing concern about students' welfare, Mr. Bloy suggested that "some students might feel better if their money were spent elsewhere." The valiant, eloquent response from the opposition NDP? "I'm afraid I just find it really difficult to find any passion to respond to what has been said."
A federal law that bans universal membership in student unions - the "Higher Education Support Amendment (Abolition of Compulsory Up-front Student Union Fees) Bill 2005" - is now (as of July 1) in force throughout Australia. As the law's Explanatory Memorandum explains, this law goes far beyond merely banning universal student unionism:
"The Bill will make student unionism a voluntary activity in higher education institutions.Thus, ancillary fees charged for institution-provided services such as health services, support for student clubs, or athletics, are banned. Further motivation can be found in this press release issued by the Minister for Education, Science, and Training.
"The Bill will amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003, to prohibit all higher education providers (public and private) from:
· requiring a person to become a member of a student association (union or guild)
· requiring a student to pay fees for non-academic student services"
The organisation primarily responsible for the passage of this Act is the Australian Liberal Students' Federation (ALSF). Students aligned with the ALSF has happily participated in NUS (National Union of Students of Australia) meetings even while hoping for its demise. According to the ALSF's Wikipedia article, "No other faction carries the notoriety attached to the ALSF at NUS National Conference. ALSF does not recognise the Aboriginal welcome preceding the NUS conference, thus have sung 'God Save the Queen' throughout the welcome for the past three years." This can be confirmed by reading the online Minutes of NUS National Conference 2004, which record the Chair "call[ing] the Liberals to order" and ruling "that the Liberal caucus not sing on conference floor" during the Indigenous Welcome to Country. (The remainder of the Minutes are similarly full of hillarity; indeed, they are one of the most amusing set of minutes I have ever read!)
Other organisations were not as impressed. The National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU), representing faculty, as come out strongly against Voluntary Student Unionism, producing a host of documentation supporting their stance. So has the Australian Vice-Chancellor's Committee (AVCC), representing university administrations. Even the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) expressed concern at the estimated AUS$100 million loss to collegiate athletics. On the political side, the Australian Democrats expressed their opposition to such legislation. The opposition Labor Party tried (unsuccessfully) to split the bill into two portions - one banning universal membership in students' unions, and another banning compulsory fees for non-academic services, expressing their support for student services but opposing universal student union membership.
News on this issue:
- 'Voluntary student unionism' law takes effect (Green Left weekly)
- Grim future predicted for student association (ABC North Queensland)
- Union services scaled back as VSU takes effect (The World Today, ABC)
- Anti-union law costs jobs, help on campus (Sydney Morning Herald)
- Union a closed shop as funds dry up (The Australian)
If so, the initiator of similar legislation might be Harry Bloy, BC MLA for Burquitlam. In a Private Member's Statement, Mr. Bloy lamented that BC students "have to pay third-party fees to such organizations as the Canadian Federation of Students, CFS for short, and the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations." Expressing concern about students' welfare, Mr. Bloy suggested that "some students might feel better if their money were spent elsewhere." The valiant, eloquent response from the opposition NDP? "I'm afraid I just find it really difficult to find any passion to respond to what has been said."
Labels: international
9 Comments:
I have to say that I like this. It is a little too far for me and not something I work towards but not something I necessarily oppose either.
I believe that an opt-out is better. I know a lot of people that do not want anything to do with students unions both at UMSU (University of Manitoba Students' Union) when I was on Council and at the MSU (McMaster Students Union) where I currently attend.
PIRGS operate with an opt out. I worked at a very left PIRG for years and we liked the opt out--it kind of kept us accountable and also didn't force us to defend our work to those who *really* hated us.
I don't object to mandatory fees, but I do think that students need to be able to hold the union accountable and barriers to that shouldn't be in place. Therefore, a student union should have a means for referendum to remove students fees from the union.
A good students union should face such an attack--they will be making good use of the fee and the members will by and large, get enough out of it to support it.
A student union that wastes students money *should* be held accountable.
I disagree with opt out and with voluntary membership.
I do feel that there needs to be say a "Student Society Act" or just an overhaul to the "Society Act" to ensure tighter controls to ensure:
- stronger financial protections for members of societies in regards to financial reporting and fee collection (making it more transaprent - they've done it for corporations in light of things like Enron);
- making public salaries of those working a society, just as you would for say an institution like UBC or Kwantlen (annually as part of their audited statements is an exact breakdown of each worker's / teacher's / admin's salary and expenses);
- guidelines for basics in how elections and referenda are run to ensure fairness and equality;
- if a student union is to become a member of any other organization that it is done through referendum;
- ensuring whistleblower protection for staff members of a Society;
- bringing in conflict of interest definition for staff and elected officials of a society;
and much more... they could do a lot!
If you look at the CFS, the fatal flaw with them is that they don't properly define what a member is. It doesn't match up with the definition of a member in the Society Act of BC.
A studnets union can do a lot of good for its members if it is properly run. The sad thing is so many are corrupt and improperly run. But crippling their ability to function without addressing the real faults is not the solution.
A great book to read is called "The Naked Corporation" by Don Tapscott and David Ticoll. Many of its principles can be applied to the non-profit world just as easily as they are applied to the corporate world.
In response to the 10:59 anonymous comment: CFS-BC quite clearly defines what constitutes a "member". Bylaw II clearly states that "local students' associations" are eligible to be members. And there is nothing in the Society Act of British Columbia that would prohibit a society from being a member of another society.
http://www.sfu.ca/~tgregory/cfs/bc/bylaw2.html
http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/S/96433_01.htm
As to the CFS membership debate... it seems to me a huge flaw in their membership bylaws, as shown by previous discussion, is that they make it virtually impossible for student unions to democratically leave the CFS and that the standards for a referendum to join the CFS are far easier to meet. It should be the same process for ANY referendum!!!!
You can't hold the referendum May - Aug (good rule--protects students) but need to give 6 months notice of the referendum. This means you need to get the 10% signatures, serve notice in September in order to hold the referendum in March when students are around.
Then the CFS has the right to appoint two people to an oversight committee and set the rules of the referendum. They could, for example, insist on paper balloting on campus for a school that is primarily distance learners who normally vote on the web.
All of this flies in the face of a fair and unbiased process--making it almost impossible for student union locals to hold the CFS accountable for actions they disagree with.
I don't know why they do this, it doesn't exactly create positive public relations for the CFS.
Even if everyone acts with absolute fairness, the perception will be that the process is not fair, and that will never give students a good impression of the CFS.
In fact, as a CFS supporter (generally), I find it impossible to defend the CFS when they insist on participating in oversight of referenda that they have an interest in.
It would be far better to ensure that both the student union and the CFS (and the students initiating the petition as well, if the student union favours the CFS) must all agree on who to hire as the electoral officer. This would be similar to when a union and employer must agree to a mediator they both feel will work for fairness.
I think that whether students support the CFS or not, these bylaws restricting defederation by referendum should be changed. Of course, that would require a mammoth effort to get 51% of the locals to vote for the change at a national conference, which seems completely insurmountable.
My other concern is when the student union local has bylaws about referenda that conflict with the CFS rules. Who's bylaws trump the others. What if you have bylaws restricting interested parties from invovlement in the process of the referendum? What if only members of the local student union are allowed to be invovled? What if you are required to hold a referendum within two months of receiving a formal petition with 10% of your members signatures on it? Do you have to break your own rules, or is the CFS forced to accept the local bylaws.
As to "stronger financial protections" everyone has the right to see their student unions financials and their audit. Members also have the right to view the CFS financials and audit. The key is ensuring that there are no barriers to that access, or to the means members have to protest when things are not done properly. In my experience, for example, the CFS audits are not sent out to member locals prior to the AGM. You get the motions that will be voted on, but not the audit. That doesn't aid transparency.
Another interesting thing (sorry to go on) is the Olympics folks protesting what happened in Australia because of the loss of so much money for athletics!
Many schools in Canada also fund athletics through a fee referendum at the student union. Childcare, scholarships, emergency funds, health plans, clubs... these are some of the things that could be lost by making mandatory fees illegal.
I think mandatory fees are reasonable if they are set by referendum--provided students have the ability to take away the fund by referendum and that there is not an undue barrier.
I think the CFS, and any student union that obstructs referenda they don't support should be aware that they are assisting in making the case against mandatory fees by being so un-democratic. If we want the fees (and I do!) our best protection is being reasonable, responsible, and responsive to our memebrs.
Sorry...do I get to opt out of my provincial and federal representation somehow as well? Like by not paying taxes? No, didn't think so. The same argument can be made for student unions.
People who advocate for voluntary student unionism have a very narrow view of what the student union does. If you want to opt-out of the student union, fine, but don't ever come into the student union building, don't use the health plan, don't go to the campus bar or ANY event on campus, don't join a society, go to a lecture, or benefit from any position the SU ever took against the administration/provincial or federal gov't....you get my point. I agree that there need to be stronger measures in place for when less than savoury people start running students unions, but lets' not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
... except for the minor fact that provincial and federal governments usually spend less than 1% of their money on political advocacy/communications, compared to much larger fractions in the case of students' unions.
Right...but since provincial and federal governments are...the government...it would make sense that they would have to spend less on political advocacy than, say, a special interest advocacy group, like a student union, who must garner the attention of said governments.
Re Comparing student union fees to taxes
It is interesting to hear mandatory student fees compared to taxes. As far as far as I know it has generally been progressive principled groups who have refused to pay taxes.
The most common tax resistance I know of is in the peace movement, where people deduct the % of their taxe dollars that goes to the military. This has been a prominent form of resistance in the US and has also been an ongoing feature in Canada.
And actually, a group of Canadian students, I don't remember where, recently had a tuition strike where they withheld tuition fees in protest of something.
I think it can be legit as an action, but you need to take every other possible legal step before you can justify it.
Obviously having a regular opt out period for a student union that runs businesses iis really disruptive and would undermine the most popular activities of student unions--namely the building, pubs, and restaurant services--because you couldn't predict your budget and staff/resource the services adquately.
What counts is that student unions be responsive to their members. And students need to get involved and speak up about how the student union operates.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home