Voluntary student unionism: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 10:00, 15 January 2006 edit58.104.210.193 (talk) →The status quo ← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:32, 17 January 2006 edit undoPhanatical (talk \| contribs)226 editsm →Pro-VSU links Next edit →
Line 137:		Line 137:
	=== Pro-VSU links ===		=== Pro-VSU links ===
	*		*
			*

	]		]

Revision as of 07:32, 17 January 2006

File:VSU 1.JPG

An anti-VSU placard at a student rally in 2005

File:VSU 2.JPG

Student protestors march against VSU in 2005.

Voluntary student unionism (VSU) is a policy under which membership of – and payment of membership fees to – university student organisations is not compulsory. VSU is therefore at variance with established practice at most universities, where membership of student organisations is compulsory for almost all students.

Under legislation passed in 1999, VSU – or Voluntary Student Membership (VSM), as it is typically called in New Zealand – can be enacted at any New Zealand university by a referendum of students. VSU will come into force at all Australian universities as of 1 July 2006.

The status quo

Main article: Student unionism in Australia

Although universities and student unions each have their own rules, students generally become a member of their campus student organisation automatically upon enrolment. A fee for student services or amenities will be charged to students, typically once a semester or in a lump sum upon enrolment. This fee is typically collected by the university, which usually takes a portion in collection fees and passes the rest to campus student organisation(s), which then distribute the money according to their own rules.

In order to avoid membership students must specifically opt out. At most universities, a services fee must still be paid even after a student has opted out. This fee is often equal to the union membership fee, so the benefit of opting out is almost solely ideological.

Student organisations are primarily reliant on these levies to fund their activities, although some large organisations gain a degree of income from businesses such as refectories and eateries. Student organisations may also operate businesses such as legal, employment and health assistance programmes, child care, bookshops and other retailers, but these frequently rely upon subsidies from the student organisation and will not in all instances make a profit.

Student organisations across Australia take a multiplicity of different forms; some campuses may have multiple, separate organisations, and others may have a single, unified student union. The two central roles of student organisations, service provision and student representation, may be performed by separate organisations or the same unified structure. For example, the University of Adelaide has two separate organisations - the Adelaide University Union which provides services and the Students Association of the University of Adelaide which represents students. University of Wollongong also has this, where the union, named the UniCentre runs the services on campus and the SRC, named WUSA for Wollongong Undergraduate Student Association is very political.

Legislated changes

On 9th December, 2005 the Higher Education Support Amendment (Abolition of Compulsory Up-front Student Union Fees) Bill 2005 was passed in the Senate. From July 1 2006, the universities will not be able to compel union membership or fees.

Arguments and issues surrounding VSU

Arguments for and against VSU typically fall into three broad categories: civil rights impact; social impact; and economic impact.

The civil rights argument

It is argued that requiring compulsory membership of student organisations is contrary to the principle of freedom of association. Some go so far as to compare compulsory membership fees to extortion. The argument depends upon whether student organisations are seen as an inherent part of university experience or not. Those who argue that a student union is roughly equivalent to a workers' union note that compelling, or forbidding, union membership is illegal in Australian workplaces. Others note that student unions are not structured like trade unions and have different goals and methods.

Another argument is that leadership of student organisations tend to be particularly drawn from the Left, which they argue is reflective of an aggressive leftist culture in universities, but which is not representative of the whole student body. Opponents of VSU typically respond that the electoral processes are open to students of any political persuasion and that students have the right to vote for whichever candidates they feel represent them. Since historically Australia's student organisations have been dominated by left-wing student groups and/or groups affiliated with the Australian Labor Party, the introduction of VSU is likely to politically disadvantage these groups by removing the advantages of incumbency.

In a similar vein, opponents of VSU argue that it will silence students' voices by removing universal membership of a student organisation. The National Union of Students of Australia (NUS) is an umbrella organisation for most (though not all) student campus organisations; at present it organises national programs and days of action (for example) and undertakes activities such as parliamentary submissions and media relations. It is probable that the NUS's activities would be severely curtailed as VSU would reduce student union membership and would leave many student unions unable to pay full dues to the NUS. The fact that any given student union would also represent a significantly smaller part of their university's student body would make it much harder to gain media attention and the funds necessary to undertake nearly as many causes as present. VSU supporters counter that the NUS and member bodies use students' money for political ends, some of which are supported by a small portion of students.

The social argument

A common thread in the argument against VSU is the notion of a campus culture, or the university experience. University has traditionally been a time of broadening horizons, intense socialising, and political activism. VSU opponents argue that these are under threat by making it more difficult for students to have high quality sports grounds, lively music and social venues, and the resources necessary to mount protests and political campaigns. VSU proponents argue that the lack of competitive pressure created by VSU undermines the creation of those things, leading to moribund campuses. Opponents counter that, free to choose the most cost-effective target for their money, students will avoid on-campus facilities in favour of cheaper ones elsewhere, making failing campus venues and associations a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Following the realignment of priorities which VSU is likely to entail, it is believed by some that political activities, particularly off-campus activities, will be severely or even completely curtailed. As well as the civil rights arguments presented above, VSU proponents argue that few students participate in such political action, meaning that only ideologues will suffer as they will not be able to use others' money for their own causes. VSU opponents argue that the range of students involved in any one particular political focus may be small, but the number of students involved in some combination of activities - political or otherwise - is high, and would be lower under VSU.

The economic argument

The levying of fees is criticised on the grounds that it is financially onerous, particularly to students who may already be struggling with the associated costs of university study. Student unions have fought ferociously against rises in fees (deferred for most students), arguing that they prevent people from attending university; however, their own union dues are payable immediately and are (except in extreme cases) not subject to deferment and are not income-dependent, as most fees are.

With the growth of the principle of user-pays, some have argued that student unions distort efficient behaviour and lead to sub-optimal decision-making. When a union compulsorily takes money from students and uses it (for example) to subsidise beer, students who would otherwise not have bought beer may now do so. But had they not paid the union dues they would have decided against beer and instead bought something else. This implies that beer does not provide as much utility (or gain) as alternative purchases, so compulsory unionism compels people into decisions they otherwise would rather not take.

Opponents of VSU note that not all economic benefits are maximised individually (i.e., there are beneficial externalities). In the beer example, an argument might be that people get utility from bars crowded with fun-seeking university students - an environment that would not exist in the absence of subsidy. Proponents respond that students who don't drink or who live too far to gain from the crowded bar are still paying for the subsidised beer. (Arguments of this type are particularly common as regards subsidisation of gym membership and alcoholic drinks.)

Furthermore, opponents of VSU liken fees to council rates or taxes - an unpleasant but necessary payment for those services which by necessity must be communally provided. VSU proponents respond that student unions are fundamentally not governments and should not have the right to compel money from people under threat of exclusion from enrolment; they also argue that most union services - food, childcare, second-hand bookshops, etc. - already operate in the private sector, sometimes at cheaper prices than the subsidised equivalents. Opponents note that facilities such as playing fields and emergency student loans would have to be taken up by universities since they would almost certainly not be available through the private sector.

Also, it is argued that compulsory funding of campus services prohibits or removes the incentive to provide more desirable or more useful services. VSU proponents argue that the brief experience of VSU in Western Australia demonstrates that student organisations will realign their priorities and emphasise commercial activities and student welfare and advocacy when they no longer receive a compulsory fee - in other words, seek to provide value to students. It is argued that compulsory services funding encourages inefficient service provision and reduces competition, ultimately disadvantaging student consumers. The services provided by student organisations may be peripheral or inapplicable to the majority of students. Critics assert that student organisation funds may be allocated to areas - such as environment collectives - that are not relevant to students and do not require compulsory funding.

Positions on VSU

Various groups have positions, official and otherwise, on VSU.

Student unions

Most (though not all) student unions oppose VSU. Student unions have expressed concern about their ability to provide social, academic, and political services under VSU. Many also have long-term financial commitments that may be difficult to meet without guaranteed revenue streams. VSU proponents note that student unions will not be able to use students' money without providing something of value, ending what some see as a gravy train or junket.

Those unions opposing VSU have taken action such as national days of action (including protests), poster campaigns, media releases, and even mock funerals of student services.

Universities

Australian universities, as represented by the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee (AVCC), generally have been in support of universal membership and compulsory fees for student organisations for three broad reasons. Firstly, they prefer to leave service provision in the hands of students; secondly, the activities associated with campus organisations are an attractive feature to students; and thirdly, they view student political bodies as valid representative bodies.

VSU could potentially require universities to provide many of the services currently associated with student organisations. Universities prefer to leave service provision to student organisations, so that they are saved the financial and other burdens associated with the role.

Concern has been raised that student support services, an attracting feature for international students, upon whom universities rely heavily for financial support, will be diminished under VSU. The Howard Government has stated that the Education Services for Overseas Students Act will still allow compulsory fees to be charged to international students to pay for student amenities and services.

The AVCC views student organisations as having a legitimate representation role, even though much of student advocacy is directly against university administrations. University administrators prefer to have an external body that students can bring grievances to, rather than having to deal directly with every disgruntled student, or with a variety of different student lobby groups.

Liberal Party organisations and members

The most vocal proponent of VSU in Australia has been the Australian Liberal Students Federation (the ALSF), and the Liberal Clubs in various universities across Australia which form its membership. Also supportive have been former Liberal Students Tony Abbott, Sophie Panopoulos, Peter Costello and John Howard, as well as former Federal Minister for Education, David Kemp.

The National Union of Students (NUS) claims that the ALSF, in advocating VSU, is only attempting to silence NUS criticism of the Howard Government's policy towards students. Being fully aware that student organisations are mainly reliant on compulsory fees to operate, the ALSF, according to this view, is knowingly seeking the destruction of student organisations. The Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions alleges that the implementation of VSU by the Howard Government represents an ideological hostility towards collective organisations.

Other groups' positions

Members of the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) have expressed dissatisfaction with the potential effect of VSU on sporting programs. University sporting programs are subsidised by compulsory levies and these programs are a large training component for Australian athletics and Olympic games training.

The push for VSU has been strongly resisted by the Australian National Union of Students and trade unions. NUS views the argument that not all students benefit from student membership as fallacious, claiming that there is an indirect benefit for students generally. It describes pro-VSU positions as being analogous to voluntary taxation; particularly given that, if membership was voluntary, there would be opportunities for students to enjoy student organisation services without having to pay for them. The argument runs that student services would still be demanded under VSU, and the charges for them would still have to be levied by universities; but students would lose oversight of the allocation and direction of those funds. In recognition of this, the Howard Government's proposed legislation includes provisions that fine universities for not refunding student services charges.

The National Tertiary Education Union and other trade unions in the tertiary sector oppose VSU on the basis that it would lead to job losses for those employed by student organisations. In particular, regional university student organisations may be an important source of employment for the local community.

History of VSU

Compulsory student organisation membership was initially accepted as uncontentious by all political persuasions. By the 1970s, the overtly political nature of the Australian Union of Students, which ran a number of left-wing campaigns (for example in support of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation), led a significant minority within that organisation to call for voluntary student organisation membership.

VSU advocates initially attempted to bring it about by running campus referendum campaigns calling for voluntary membership. Such campaigns, however, were consistently defeated. Nevertheless, a campaign was successfully run to have many student organisations disaffiliate themselves from AUS, causing its eventual collapse.

NUS was formed as the successor of the AUS in the late 1980s. The ALSF then changed to focusing on lobbying state and federal Liberal Party governments to abolish compulsory membership. A case concerning James Cook University was brought to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, claiming that compulsory union membership was anti-competitive. The Commission eventually rejected the case on the basis that student organisations had a positive social impact. In Western Australia, VSU was partially enacted by the state Liberal Party government, only to be rescinded when the ALP regained power.

Following its election in 1996, the Howard Government signalled its intention to introduce VSU. It tried to pass legislation to this effect several times in the late 1990's. Student organisations responded with strong campaigns in opposition to VSU throughout that time. The legislation was persistently rejected in the Australian Senate, where the Labor Party, the Australian Democrats and the Greens have voted against it. Following its 2001 election win, aware that attempts to introduce VSU would not pass the Senate, the Government moved away from the VSU agenda. Advocates of VSU received a boost, however, when the Howard government gained control of the Senate at the 2004 Federal election. Nationwide implementation of VSU had been listed among the government's legislative agenda to be placed before the Senate.

On the 16th of March, 2005, Brendan Nelson introduced the Higher Education Support Amendment (Abolition of Compulsory Up-front Student Union Fees) Bill 2005 before the Parliament. Initially expected to be passed due to the government's majority in the Senate from July, it was opposed in its original form by maverick senator Barnaby Joyce, who threatened to cross the floor if sporting facilities and collegial spirit were not protected. Despite such opposition, Education Minister Nelson insisted that the legislation would pass unamended and come into force as of January 1, 2006. By October 2005, however, it became apparent that it would not be possible to implement VSU in time for the new academic year.

On December 9 2005, the legislation was reintroduced. Due to the decision of Joyce to cross the floor and vote against the legislation, Howard was forced to obtain the vote of Family First Senator Steve Fielding, who had maintained for several months that he was opposed to the bill in its current form. However, after being courted by Howard, Fielding did an abrupt about-face and voted for the legislation, calling compulsory student unionism "crazy" and allowing the bill to pass; though both Fielding and Brendan Nelson insisted no behind-the-scenes deal had secured his vote. The legislation is essentially identical to the government's original proposal, except that the start date is now July 1 2006. The legislation will be presented to the House of Representatives when the Parliament resumes in February 2006 after the Christmas break; the Government's overwhelming majority in the House effectively guarantees passage. Fielding's office was vandalised the following weekend, with Fielding saying it was the work of opponents of VSU.

Terminology

There are several terms being used to describe both the status quo and the incoming system, each with its own frequency, accuracy, impartiality, and favourability.

The status quo

Compulsory/universal student unionism
Compulsory/universal student representation
Student organisation

Incoming system

Voluntary student unionism
Anti-student organisation legislation (ASOL)
Voluntary student representation
Voluntary Student Membership (VSM - in New Zealand)
Optional Membership of Student Organisations (OMSO)

Misplaced Pages