Two key points need to be recorded here.  First, we seek an undertaking that there is a real staffing surplus in each of the areas where a surplus has been identified which is the stated quantum – if there is not, then the Institute risks consultation being challenged as a cosmetic exercise.  Second, we fundamentally disagree with the opening statement that the changes will “… ensure we are agile and sustainable in the future…”.  In fact, the proposal risks the educational and vocational sustainability of the Faculty, and also risks the wider purpose of MIT in serving its community in South Auckland.

We note that the CEO in the February 2009 Forum stated that change is behind us, that the right people, processes and structures are in place.  What has changed so significantly in the past 2 years within MIT that the entire structure is in need of an overhaul and the slashing of many more positions is necessary?  The capital investments that have been talked about were in the plans at that point, so they are not new.  We note that within some Faculties there were significant redundancies 12 months ago, some which resulted in new appointments being necessary shortly afterwards, as the cuts were too deep.   There is nothing in this or other proposals that give us the confidence that a more careful (or indeed any) analysis has been done on actual staffing needs in each subject area.

Timing

TEU was informed of the ‘rightsizing exercise’ across MIT some months ago, however the actual proposal has only been presented three weeks ago. This has meant the consultation process on the proposals is happening during the busy time of exam marking and final mark preparation. This has resulted in a large number of impacted staff being unable to actively participate in this consultation whilst at the same time discharge their professional obligations to their students. One of the results of this process is that it is highly unlikely that many academic staff will know their teaching allocations until the new year.

An already stressful situation has been exacerbated due to inadequate planning by MIT and its external consultants.

 Consultants

We note that the use of external consultants comes at considerable expense  to the Institute and yet simple things like the provisions in the collective agreement and considering when Faculties were due to go on leave were not taken account of as these proposals were rolled out.  This does point to a lack of communications at best.  It also shows the lack of understanding that staff of MIT are human beings.  Members deserve more respect.

Further, the earlier phase 1 of this review process dismantled what the previous consultants had put in place only 4 years ago which does raise doubts of the effectiveness of this exercise given that MIT has engaged the same firm of consultants.

Design

The document states in the Design Objectives that the objectives of the ‘Rightsizing’ include:

• Demonstrating a clear and integrated view of student and community issues. There is no evidence in the document that this is an objective, and we seek information as to how the proposal will meet this objective.  In particular, how have students and relevant community stakeholders been involved in or consulted in this proposal?  We note that a significant number of Hair and Beauty’s students are mature with young children.  The proposal can only potentially be accomplished by changing the class hours to run later in the day.  This will have a significant negative impact  on the  ability of these students to  attend the courses, and we are surprised that no thought has been given to this.
• Concentrating resources on the organisations core teaching and learning functions:  There is no evidence of this; in fact it is the opposite. The proposed cuts and reductions are substantially in the teaching areas in the faculty.
• Reducing costs to stakeholders and taxpayers, while aiming to improve services delivered. The proposal does not reduce costs to stakeholders and taxpayers, as the reduced budget is simply being shifted to another part of MIT’s purse, in pursuit of a higher surplus for reinvestment.
• Increasing organisational agility and flexibility. The proposal reduces staffing flexibility in all areas, which will reduce the agility and flexibility of delivery   

Information

The document refers at page 8 of the Tribal data as showing that “MIT is out of balance as an organisation”.  There is no credibility to this information which MIT is refusing to share with its staff who risk job loss and major changes to the way in which they work.  This is despite the Employment Relations Act stipulating that the duty of good faith “requires an employer who is proposing to make a decision that will, or is likely to, have an adverse effect on the continuation of employment of 1 or more of his or her employees to provide the employees affected – (i) access to information, relevant to the continuation of the employees’ employment, about the decision; and (ii) an opportunity to comment on the information to their employer before the decision is made. “[1]

The lack of substantive information has also been a significant concern.  TEU operates across the tertiary sector and does have some idea of what are norms and reasonable expectations put on members.  We also know that there are difficulties with the tribal data, and differences over what each institution counts in which category. 

Review drivers

There is significant scepticism about the real driver in this review process.  While the euphemism of reinvestment fund is used, it is clear it is not for a very significant resource of the institution, its people.    Members have consistently queried the Hayman  Park project and they sense they are either being fired, or asked to do even more so that Hayman Park can be resourced.  In the current capped EFTS environment, it does seem extraordinary that such an ambitious project is being undertaken at the expense of so many staff.

The reality for members is that they are aware of the significant reserves MIT has, and while they appreciate that much of these are for investing in facilities, it comes as a shock that they are being reduced to enable more reserves to be built up.  There is, as perhaps you are aware, a growing level of concern that Hayman Park may not turn into such a good option given the developments that AUT already have underway, and the opportunities via Auckland University that have been available in various parts of MIT but not continued. 

Analysis

It appears there has been no thought given to the fact that the savings that have been requested by you may not be achievable, and have the potential to create a less supportive and more hazardous environment for your students.  It feels like a ‘paint by numbers’ exercise.  It is without regard for the actual level of educational preparation of the students that come to MIT from South Auckland, nor for their specific needs in regard to this group of programmes. 

In addition, each unit / area appears to have been analysed assuming or perhaps hoping that all other areas will still function as they have.  This is a serious deficiency which will leave gaps, and is a result of trying to cut all areas at the same time.

The material near the bottom of page 10 of the proposal was also in the Business Faculty document.  We were told at the time that it was specific to the Business Faculty, apparently a clearly wrong assertion.  The members note that while some of these things are not new, the term “traffic light data” is a complete mystery to them.  The suggestion that moderation will lessen is simply not possible as it is their external agencies which determine the frequency of moderation.

Our comments are mainly focused on Hair and Beauty as that is where the majority of members are.  We note however, that the proposal to combine 4 functions into one Programme Leader role at 0.8 in hospitality is unrealistic and will create problems in this area in the future.

Workload

The proposal allocates the maximum TTH to members.  This means the TTH allocated and the associated attendant duties is a full workload.  This does not include any programme development, nor any preparation of teaching material beyond routine updating.  Therefore preparing for a new curriculum, or making changes to accommodate blended learning would required a reduction in TTH as would any other additional task. Trying to allocate staff to the maximum limits the Faculty’s ability to be responsive and up to date, and reduces opportunities for members to develop and learn new skills.

Size of HOS and Programme Leadership role within the School of Hair and Beauty:

We have the view that this role is bigger than the .5 allocated.  This is based on actual analysis from the HOS of what time it took to undertake the role and what time had been available for teaching duties.  We understand that she has responsibilities for the management of staff, resources, financial management, and health and safety.  She also has day to day responsibility for an administrator and one technician.  There is also an expectation that she represents the School and MIT at various forums and consults with industry and the community.  These items are not in the Programme Leader responsibilities that were in the Job Description for the proposed CHATs Programme Leader. We consider the role to be more accurately described as at least 0.7.  Currently it has been possible for other staff to contribute more teaching to cover this, but with the staffing reductions that have been proposed, this will no longer be possible.

Courses

We note there are 3 hairdressing (2 half year programmes with 3 classes each, and 1 full year programme) and 2 beauty courses (1 half year and 1 full year) being run.  In addition to this there are HITO apprentices who come in 1 day per week for 10 week and 19 week blocks.  It appears that this non-base work has not been factored into the original calculations of the staffing required.

We note that it is only possible to run one L4 Hairdressing programme as there is not enough staffing to run more.  Two classes ran in 2010 and also prior to this, but with the loss of a staff member at the end of last year, only one class has been possible.

Staff

We understand that the intention is to cut 1 staff member from the School of Hair and Beauty.  We note that the skill and qualification bases of the two areas are separate. It is therefore not possible to cut parts from both programme areas as this would result in partial severances.

Given the level of staffing in beauty with the FTE of 1.8 staff and 2 programmes, there is no scope to reduce by a whole person.  Further, these staff are doing their own stocktaking and internal ordering of products which does not appear to be taken account of in the workload allocations.

We assume therefore, that there is a management view that it is possible to cut 1 whole position from Hairdressing.  The current teaching staff level is 4.3, so this would mean 23% reduction.

Casual staff:

We note that there is no actual provision made for casual staff to relieve members if they are on leave or are sick.  We note in a reply to our query that this is provided for from the OPEX budget, a fact that was not known to the members.  This is also surprising to us, as this is not a staffing budget.  The proposal also reduces the OPEX budget, so we remain unconvinced that there is adequate provision to enable members to have access to the terms and conditions of the collective agreement.

Other work:

It appears that the work from HITO that is currently being done has either been forgotten about in the proposal, or the intention that MIT wants to exit this work.  The later would be a most odd choice if it was the case.  Including the work, which is close to 218 hours of teaching, would mean the proposal would then become a reduction of .7 of a staff member.

We also understand that there have been some difficulties with HITO in the past.  HITO has appointed a new liaison person and relations are improving, and there is real scope for an increase in work coming from them.

Taking into account these factors along with the actual work required of the HOS, at best the surplus as such could be 0.5 (not counting what is noted below).

On this basis, the proposal can not continue as it requires a partial severance

Work required in 2012:

We understand that there will be work required in 2012 on the new national Hairdressing qualifications as required by the Targeted Review of Qualifications by NZQA.  This will require the local programme documentation to be redeveloped in 2012, with course descriptors for each course within each programme as well as the delivery material to be written for each course to enable them to be ready for delivery in 2013.  There is also time required for involvement in the consultation with the national body, industry and the advisory group over the changes.  All of the above involves a significant amount of work required to prepare for all 3 programmes to be redeveloped.

We note that the staffing levels provide no scope for programme development, or any additional functions.  We regard this as short-sighted, particularly so when it is known that this work will be required shortly. 

We note that the Beauty subject area will be undergoing significant programme realignment in 2012 and that one of the current staff has been recently been elected on the national body that is responsible for coordinating and consulting nationally on this work.  There will be a time commitment needed in 2012. Again, we believe that this must be taken account of in this process, otherwise in a few months time the School will be short staffed. It is expected that in 2013 there will be a Targeted Review of Qualifications by NZQA of Beauty qualifications, this will then lead to rewriting of programmes as outlined above for Hairdressing.

In recognition of the significant programmes’ changes that will need to be implemented in 2012 – 2013 in both Hairdressing and Beauty, the HOS role will be virtually full time.  This is because she would be the person doing most of the work on the new programmes, and developing the programme documentation.  She would also be responsibly for implementing the necessary consultation and writing the course descriptors.

Summary

In summary we do not see any justifiable reason for the staffing reduction proposed.  

Running the programmes longer and later in the day puts at risk the viability of the hairdressing programmes as the student body that make up a significant proportion of the EFTS will have difficulty attending. Our analysis of the staffing needs shows there is no surplus, and certainly not a whole person surplus when allocations are made to the theoretical maximum.  This, in addition to the work that the school has flagged as coming up in 2012 and the analysis of the actual time required to do the work of the HOS, and the additional work in 2012 and 2013 means that there is no reduction possible.

We conclude that there is no surplus and this proposal to reduce staff in Hair and Beauty must be stopped.  This along with the fact that the HOS is going to be away from today on previously approved sick leave, and that there is currently an Acting Dean who has no knowledge of the subject area, means that any decisions made have a real potential to damage the school.  We believe that any decision aside from our above recommendation to stop the review should be put on hold until the new Dean has been appointed.

Submission on the Proposed restructure of CELT-2.doc Download this file

In summary we are very concerned that what is proposed will not deliver the increase that the Faculty management appear to assume it will, and it also tries to make specialists be in part generalists. These factors will make it quite difficult to attract and retain skilled staff to these positions. At the same time academic staff are being allocated to their maximum workloads, so there is simply not the scope without time release / reductions in TTH for development work to happen, which includes the continued inclusion of blended learning within courses. To compound the issues, the effect of the proposals is in the New Year there is a high risk of not have the necessary skills on board at MIT at all, as the current roles are proposed to be disestablished

Posted via email from TEU

a beginner’s guide to voluntary redundancy.doc Download this file

Faculty of Education and Social Sciences 121211.doc Download this file

Student Services Directorate submission 081211.doc Download this file

Faculty of Nursing and Health Science submission 061211.doc Download this file

selection criteria feedback.doc Download this file

Posted via email from TEU

Two key points need to be recorded here.  First, we seek an undertaking that there is a staffing surplus in each of the areas where a surplus has been identified – if there is not, then the Institute risks consultation being challenged as a cosmetic exercise.  Second, we fundamentally disagree with the opening statement that the changes “ will position the Faculty to meet the challenges moving forward 2012 – 2016”.  In fact, the proposal risks the educational and vocational sustainability of the Faculty.

It also risks the wider purpose of MIT in serving its community.

We note that the CEO in the February 2009 Forum stated that change is behind us, that the right people, processes and structures are in place.  What has changed so significantly in the past 2 years within MIT that the entire structure is in need of an overhall and the slashing of many more positions is necessary.  The capital investments that have been talked about were in the plans at that point, so that is not new.  We note that within the Faculty there were signficant redundancies 12 months ago, some of which resulted in new appointments being necessary.

Timing

TEU was informed of the ‘rightsizing exercise’ across MIT some months ago, however the actual proposal has only been presented three weeks ago. This has meant the consultation process on the proposals is happening during the busy time of exam marking and final mark preparation. This has resulted in a large number of impacted staff being unable to actively participate in this consultation whilst at the same time discharge their professional obligations to their students. One of the results of this process is that it is highly unlikely that many academic staff will know what they are due to teach in the new year when they go on leave.

An already stressful situation has been exacerbated due to inadequate planning by MIT and its external consultants.

Consultants

We note that the use of external consultants comes at considerable expense  to the Institute and yet simple things like the provisions in the collective agreement and considering when Faculties were due to go on leave were not taken account of as these proposals were rolled out.  This does point to a lack of communications at best.  It also shows the lack of understanding that staff of MIT are human beings and deserve more respect.

Further the earlier phase 1 of this review process dismantled what the previous consultants had put in place only 4 years ago which does raise doubts of the effectiveness of this exercise given that MIT has engaged the same firm of consultants.

Information

The lack of substantive information has also been a significant concern.  Stating that something is a norm, or a benchmark and then not being prepared to show the evidence of this simply suggests that there is more to the data than is what is being said, as well as creating a situation where there is concern that you will simply say what you want rather than provide data with accuracy.  We believe it is actually in MIT’s best interest to provide the origins of the assertions of the ‘benchmarks’ used.  TEU operates across the tertiary sector and does have some idea of what are norms and reasonable expectations put on members.  We also know that there are difficulties with the tribal data, and differences over what each institution counts in which category.

The right sizing talk has always been underlined by reference to “useful comparative tools” of tribal benchmarking, but requests for that data have been refused.  The references to it imply that MIT sees itself as being, or should be, ‘performing’ in the top quartile of the sector, without us knowing why this is seen as appropriate.

Review drivers

There is significant scepticism about the real driver in this review process.  While the euphemism of reinvestment fund is used, it is clear it is not for a very significant resource of the institution, its people.    Members have consistently queried the Hayman  Park project and they sense they are either being fired, or asked to do even more so that Hayman Park can be resourced.  In the current capped EFTS environment, it does seem extraordinary that such an ambitious project is being undertaken at the expense of so many staff.

The reality for members is that they are aware of the significant reserves MIT has, and while they appreciate that much of these are for investing in facilities, it comes as a shock that they are being reduced to enable more reserves to be built up.  There is, as perhaps you are aware, a growing level of concern that Hayman Park may not turn out into such a good option given the developments that AUT already have underway, and the opportunities via Auckland University that have been available in various parts of MIT but not continued.

Analysis

It appears there has been no thought given that the savings that has been requested by you may not be achievable, and also has the potential to create a less supportive and more hazardous environment for your students.  It feels like a ‘paint by numbers’ exercise, without regard for the actual level of educational preparation of the students that come to MIT inSouth Auckland.

Overall structure

Whilst there can be pluses in having a centre of excellence, where the higher qualifications are focused, it removes the synergies that exist within disciplines.

It has the potential to add work to the administrative management of programmes such as Dip Eng as they will span across units.  It will mean that individuals will have to answer to more than one manager with respect to their teaching loads which appears to go contrary to the stated objectives of having an individual reporting to a single manager.

Matching Resources

We are concerned that the process is about cutting based on statistics and not looking at what can be done and what it would take to do in an educationally sound and safe way.  There is a need to match up resources with what can be offered.  Not doing this will risk what has currently worked.

Academic integrity

The data supplied on the question which asked if any analysis had been done regarding the impact on academic integrity of the programme suggests that these measures (completion rates) are not as high as expected within MIT.  It is unclear how what is proposed could improve these, and in our view is quite likely to make the situation worse.

We also envisaged that the analysis would have also included such things as timetabling, workshop availability and size, and the staff skill mix.  We believe that if it had, the scale of reductions proposed would not have been made.

TTH baseline

We know that the suggested number of TTH for the degree, or for the other programmes are higher than much of the sector.  We also note there is no recognition of the requirements of teaching on a degree is different from any other programme – it is more than just allocating research time, but differing workload out of the classroom.  How MIT is treating this is not in keeping with other Institutes.

TTH and attendant duties

If someone is allocated 668 TTH as you suggest on a degree programme, or 835 on certificate and diploma level then their work is made up of their TTH and attendant duties relating to that TTH.  That is a full workload.  Attendant duties are

• Lesson preparation
• Student evaluation and assessment
• Pastoral care and assistance to students
• Routine updating of course materials,
• Maintaining skill and professional currency
• Routine admin and participation in institutes processes
• Contribution to day to day maintenance of teaching areas

There is not that much time available for all the above activities.  If other tasks are required then TTH must be reduced.

It appears to be the view within MIT management that by reducing the student contact hours for each programme and stating they are blended delivery hours does not change the course but does reduces TTH and workload of staff.  We do not agree, and that blended delivery is still part of TTH.  We understand that the accreditation documents state the amount of student contact hours for each course.  Internal MIT documents state that the student contact hours in accreditation documents are divided up between student contact hours and blended delivery hours.  We also understand that quite a few programmes are accredited by external bodies, and that the specified content can not be changed and must be delivered in the ways specified in that accreditation document.  These must be taken account of in the analysis, as a simply statistical based reduction can not work.

We do not believe the rewriting of courses to have less contact hours actually reduces academic staff workloads to enable time to then take more courses.  The rewriting must be factored into workloads, as this work is not an attendant duty.  Having 4 hours contact with a group of up to 18 students for a course will be effectively less than having 4 hours TTH and then some or all students needing further assistance out of class time because the content of the programme is being delivered in a compressed way.  Whilst it may not be counted as TTH, it is workload.  It remains the employer’s responsibility to ensure that the full workload is set at safe, reasonable and equitable levels under the collective agreement.  There is also employer responsibility under the Health and Safety in Employment Act.

Rewriting courses is additional, not part of attendant duties, nor is rewriting to include the provision of blended learning

As noted above, the decreasing of the contact hours per course does not automatically mean an individual is available to teach more courses.  They are responsible for providing the same content of the courses, and in fact if anything it increases the associated work as they are forced to address the shortfall by helping students out of class time more frequently

Duty Hours

It is not possible to subtract TTH from duty time in the belief that is the time available that can be directed to various tasks.  The assumptions made in your replies to Q27 are not correct.  Based on your proposal, an individual that has been allocated 668 on the degree has a full workload with that teaching and the attendant duties associated with that teaching.  Updating of the nature that is being required is not routine and is additional. Therefore some teaching must be removed to enable any work that is not attendant duties to be done.

There does appear to be confusion about what counts as duty hours and what can be attendant duties across the faculty.  Industry engagement, school experience, school liaison, programme development, interviewing, health and safety duties, purchases tasks and technology one, meetings, thesis review, conf review all need time allocation.  TEU will work with members to ensure that the provisions in the collective agreement are enforced in 2012.

Health and Safety

Any subject area that has practical components to the programme has additional health and safety concerns above those in other programmes.  The point of the programmes is to train individuals who have little or no knowledge on how to safely learn industrial processes and operate hazardous machinery.

The students on the youth guarantee scheme do appear to have a higher risks as members have found them worse at following instructions and a greater degree of supervision needed within workshops.

We understand that the design of workshops means that all equipment needed in any particular discipline is all within one large workshop.  Whilst this is useful as it more accurately reflects the situations that student would find out in the workplace, it does increase the risk of injury.  This is particularly so if there are multiple classes operating in the workshop space at the same time. Increasing the staff: student ratio will increase the risks to both students and staff.

Any workload allocation is about allocating a fair workload to an individual.  It is simply not a solution to say everyone else has to take on more.  It is you, as representative of the employer, who has to ensure that all employees that you manage have a safe work environment under OSH legislation as well as a safe, equitable and reasonable workload under the collective agreement.

Programme development

We were very surprised that any academic programme development work is not factored in at a Faculty level.  Developing new programmes is the lifeblood of any tertiary institutions, and not building that into your Faculty is a rather odd choice to say the least.  We believe that it should be.  Operating any programme development work from a central pool is impractical and will create competition between faculties that may well result in some areas not being able to develop and/or revitalise programmes in a timely way.

We also note that revision of programmes such as for blended learning or a lessening of contact hours will required time allocations as these are beyond attendant duties – that is, a reduction of allocated TTH  is required.

Research

This only applies for Electrical, and in the proposed new structure we assume it would be in the centre of excellence.    We note that where someone is allocated research time then their TTH is reduced and then their teaching, attendant duties relating to that teaching, and research is their full workload.

Professional Development

A number of members have said that the PD they have had recently has only been about blended delivery, not in their subject area.  We also note that in the proposal it is suggested that the only PD that will be approved is that which is in the strategic interest on the Faculty.  It would  appear unwise to not have staff keeping up to date in their subject areas.  We remind you that the provision in the collective agreement is that the approval of a plan put forward by an individual is not to be unreasonably withheld.

Academic support

Changes in CELT appear to reduce the expertise available to academic staff in the area of online learning.  The redevelopment of courses to use blended learning is quite an intensive thing and not one that can happen without the support of expertise in the design of blended learning.  The changes proposed in CELT do not appear to add any additional support and in fact it removes an individual who had expertise in the area.

Advertising

There does appear to be problems getting specific programmes advertised – with some being missed out of the big advertisements and others not having brochures done.  Whilst TEU does not agree with large amounts being spent on advertising, it is obvious that enrolments will not be good if the prospective students have no idea the programme is on offer.

Predicted income

Significant increases on non-base income are predicted with no indications of how it is going to be earned.  This is significant especially given the current projections not being met.

Increase in EFTS and non-base funding

The current EFTS budget is close to having been met, although the non-base target is only 58% of the target, a figure well short of the target.

The target for non-base income next year is less than this year, which does make sense given this years target was not achieved.  Then in 2016 it appears to have been set extraordinarily high, with it being $10M in 2016, with no apparent plan – certainly no plan that the members are aware of.  To achieve over a 400% increase will require resources, planning and expertise to achieve, as well as staffing to either deliver and/or develop materials.  The experience this year does suggest that targets need to be linked to what is achievable, not just wanting to increase revenue.  This is an unrealistic target with no resources being allocated.

An increase of EFTS from the target of 1370 in 2011 to 2050 in 2016, an increase over 4 years of 49% is not explainable, given the current capped EFTS environment.

In 2012 there is an increase proposed of 6% of EFTS to deliver whilst proposing to cut staff by 11%.  This is a significant change.

We do not believe that adequate account has been taken of the real staffing needs.  The assessment must be more than a simplistic ratio multiplied through.

Staffing numbers

We believe a total re-analysis is required in relation to the staffing numbers.  This is based on analysis of the data supplied and the answers to various questions, and from discussing with members about the practical “doability” of what is proposed.

The overall numbers that are stated as required in the proposal is 93.6 academic staff across the faculty, yet when asked how many staff there are, including permanent, fixed term and casual, we received a figure of 79.4.  This suggests a significant increase is needed!

We do dispute that “optimum capacity” is 835 hrs.  835 TTH can not be called a bench mark or norm in the sector, and it is certainly not “optimum capacity” as suggested.  Optimum suggests that it is the best level for the work being done, and given the various issues within this submission that appear to not have been considered, the 835 “optimum” is false.  We do not consider there is a crisis at all; rather the financial position has been created to try and produce greater surpluses from across the Institute.

Specific recommendations for each school

The figures provided have been confusing.  Three sets (automotive, construction and mechanical) have been prepared in a similar way which does not clearly indicate if the Programme Leadership functions have been taken account of.

It is not clear that there has been a consistent way of accounting for duties beyond that of “attendant duties” across the schools.  It has been difficult to match the total teaching hours required in 2012 which was listed in initially provided Faculty spreadsheet, and the spreadsheets from the Schools.

It has also become clear there are a significant number of fixed term positions as well as casuals. In our view, if indeed there does end up being surpluses, people who are casual and then on fixed term should be the first to go.

We also note that some fixed terms have tended to be occurring for more than 1 year which raises the questions of there genuineness. These must be addressed as well after the staff numbers have been properly assessed.

Beginning with the numbers provided in each school’s spreadsheets

By simply adding the numbers in the spreadsheets provided by the schools gave different outcomes from what is in the proposal document.  The first number is the required from the spreadsheets, the second from the Dean’s sheet and the third is the difference between the school spreadsheets and current staffing as per the Dean’s sheet

• Mechanical 22.75 rather than 22.7, so potential surplus of 1.35

• Building and Construction 24.61 rather than 21.9, so potential surplus of .80

• Automotive 18.64 rather than 14.7, so potential additional staff of 2.04

• Electrical 23.8 rather than 21.7, so no surplus

• Horticulture 12.65, so surplus of 2.2

It appears that the figures have been developed assuming a staff student ratio of 1:18.  I understand from a number of members that at the conclusion of the review where a number of people were redundant last year, there was a statement that the ratio would be set at 1:16.

There are significant health and safety risks in having these ratios in an environment where there are groups of essentially untrained personnel operating dangerous equipment.

Again a statistical approach to allocating staffing is not going to take account of the specific risks associated with each course.

Looking at more detail at each area

Mechanical and Trades

TTH appears to be 18637 from discussion with members

Courses appear to require 22.32 plus 1 to Unitec so 23.32 (instead of 22.7 on Deans sheet)

This suggests a surplus of 0.78

We note that there are 4 distinct disciplines with their own expertise within this school. Any reduction will cause problems for which ever area the reductions come from.

Building and Construction

The TTH in the material given appears to be 20545,

Courses appear to require 24.1 (instead of 21.9 on the Deans sheet).

Suggesting there is surplus of 1.3

We note there are quite distinct programmes in this area.  For example in plumbing there are 5 classes running, so to suggest there is a fraction overstaffing (whether if be .44 or .1) is a nonsense as there are 5 classes that require tutors.

We note that this level of surplus is only possible if the classes are at 1:18, which is unlikely based on the estimated EFTS’s in each programme.

Automotive

TTH appears 14980 TTH

Courses appear to require 17.94 (instead of 14.7 on the Deans sheet)

This suggests that there is no surplus and in fact that staff should be increased by 1.3

There are 4 distinct disciplines with their own expertise within this school

In addition there are also problems relating to trying to move to 1:18 as many of the workshops have been built to fit 14.  We understand there is portable equipment for use, but clearly there would have to be more purchased, as well as a health and safety assessment on the feasibility of it.

Electrical

TTH appears to be around 19655 – these are weighted to account for the research time

Courses appear to require 23.54 (instead of 21.7 on the Deans sheet)

This appears to include programme leader of .8, suggesting a surplus of .26, not 2.1

We note there are at least 2 fixed term people and a casual person who appears to be doing a full workload (the later situation is contrary to the collective agreement) we don’t see why they are fixed term or casual.  If all of these are removed from the calculations then electrical will be short staffed by 2.86

Further, with a number of programmes we consider it inappropriate to increase the staff student ratios as it is a health and safety risk.  Also a statistical savings can only have an impact if the student numbers are at 17 or 18 (and multiples). The estimated EFTS for next year do not show ‘clean’ splits of 18 students in each class, but will still require an individual to be teaching on it, so it is a nonsense to say that MIT only needs a fraction of a staff member to teach on a full year course, as a person will need to be there fully if there are 16 or 18 in the class.

We note that returning to the 1:16 ratio which members understood was decided on based on health and safety grounds, then there is no need to lose any staff, included the fixed term and casual, and will need to appoint 3.8 additional staff.

Horticulture

TTH appears to be 10570

The courses appear to require 12.65 staff, and include the PL (the Dean’s sheet gives 12.6).

However the various other duties have not been factored in.  It does appear that the spreadsheet adds TTH and other hours together to come up with 1394 hours duty.  This is wrong as it is not possible to add these hours together and get figures that mean anything.  A full workload is the 835 TTH and the attendant duties associated with that teaching.  If there are other items that need to be done (an example is flower purchases) then this requires time which is duty time.  To free up some duty time if someone is teaching 835, then some teaching has to be removed.  Therefore if the additional things are not tallied up, the true workload is not understood.  Adding the relevant blue and purple columns from the spreadsheet (as some of these would be part of attendant duties), I have calculated that this adds another 1.6 staff to the requirements to run the programmes, giving a total of 14.25, resulting in a surplus of .55

This area appears to rely on a large number of fixed term appointments.  The permanent staffing is 7.3 while there is an identified need for 12.65 staff.  The number of fixed terms needs to be reduced by making some permanent appointments.

For ease of reference these are summarised

Accounting for HOSs

We note that the 2011 data includes the HOS roles that are proposed to be disestablished, which means that if any of the current HOS are appointed to a Unit or Centre manager role that the above figures for all or some of 4 of the 5 schools will have overestimated the surplus.  We believe that it is unwise to proceed with any surpluses until the new Unit heads have been appointed, otherwise there will be unnecessary loss of staff and their skills and expertise.

Timetabling

No thought in relation to timetabling

There must be analysis of the feasibility of timetabling the proposed staffing with the courses offered and the physical resources required.  We believe that this analysis will show that physical infrastructure and health and safety requirements in relation to students will mean this is not possible

In summary, for the five current Schools we conclude that there may well be some inaccuracies in our calculations above, as well as those provided from the Schools and the Dean. There must be – with three different calculated surplus results for each school.

It would be very unwise to proceed with such variability of calculations on the surplus.  The least we expect is that there is analysis of each programme to ensure that all the data used to make staffing decisions are treated consistently and the collective agreement is interpreted correctly.  This can not be done on a statistical basis.

Severance

Severance processes are in place for when there is an identified surplus of staff.

At this stage we are not clear that there is actually surplus staff.  If in the event that there are fractions of positions identified as surplus in any of the subject areas identified, then the review process must stop, as compulsory partial severances are not possible.  We believe the assumptions behind this proposal are flawed, and if the proposals are not amended significantly, will result in too many staff leaving, and that the faculty will need to employ additional staff during 2012, and will exhaust the reduced casual budget before the end of 2012.

If the changes result in members being made compulsorily redundant and the Faculty needs to employ staff during 2012 to cover what these individuals would have done, we will be looking at our legal options.

We are happy to discuss any part of our submission

Two key points need to be recorded here. First, we seek an undertaking that there is a staffing surplus in each of the areas where a surplus has been identified – if there is not, then the Institute risks consultation being challenged as a cosmetic exercise. Second, we fundamentally disagree with the opening statement that the changes “ will create a strong base from which we will move forward”. In fact, the proposal, actually risks the educational and vocational sustainability of the Faculty.
It also risks the wider purpose of MIT in serving its community.
We note that the CEO in the February 2009 Forum stated that change is behind us, that the right people, processes and structures are in place. What has changed so significantly in the past 2 years within MIT that the entire structure is in need of an overhall and the slashing of many more positions is necessary? The capital investments that have been talked about were in the plans at that point, so that is not new.

Timing

TEU was informed of the ‘rightsizing exercise’ across MIT some months ago, however the actual proposals have only been presented over the past three weeks. This has meant the consultation process on the proposals is happening during the busy time of exam marking and final mark preparation. This has resulted in a large number of impacted staff being unable to actively participate in this consultation whilst at the same time discharge their professional obligations to their students. There is an intention to consult on the actual selection processes while staff are due to be on leave. One of the results of this expedited process is that it is highly unlikely that many academic staff will know what they are due to teach in the new year when they go on leave.

An already stressful situation has been exacerbated due to a inadequate planning by MIT and its external consultants.

Consultants

We note that the use of external consultants comes at considerable expense to the Institute and yet simple things like the provisions in the collective agreement and considering when Faculties were due to go on leave were not taken account of as these proposals were rolled out. This does point to a lack of communications at best. It also shows the lack of understanding that staff of MIT are human beings and deserve more respect.

Further the earlier phase 1 of this review process dismantled what the previous consultants had put in place only 4 years ago which does raise doubts of the effectiveness of this exercise given that MIT has engaged the same firm of consultants.

Information

The lack of substantive information has also been a significant concern. Stating that something is a norm, or a benchmark and then not being prepared to show the evidence of this simply suggests that there is more to the data than is what is being said, as well as creating a situation where there is concern that you will simply say what you want rather than provide data with accuracy. We believe it is actually in MIT’s best interest to provide the origins of the assertions of the ‘benchmarks’ used. TEU operates across the tertiary sector and does have some idea of what are norms and reasonable expectations put on members. We also know that there are difficulties with the tribal data about what each institution counts as what.

The right sizing talk has always been underlined by reference to “useful comparative tools” of tribal benchmarking, but requests for that data have been refused. The references to it imply that MIT sees itself as being, or should be, ‘performing’ in the top quartile of the sector, without us knowing why this is seen as appropriate.

Review drivers

There is significant scepticism about the real driver in this review process. While the euphemism of reinvestment fund is used, it is clear it is not for a very significant resource of the institution, its people. Members have consistently queried the Hayman Park project and they sense they are either being fired, or asked to do even more so that Hayman Park can be resourced. In the current capped EFTS environment, it does seem extraordinary that such an ambitious project is being undertaken at the expense of so many staff.

The reality for members is that they are aware of the significant reserves MIT has, and while they appreciate that much of these are for investing in facilities, it comes as a shock that they are being reduced to enable more reserves to be built up. There is, as perhaps you are aware, a growing level of concern that Hayman Park may not turn out into such a good option given the developments that AUT already have underway, and the opportunities via Auckland University that have been available in various parts of MIT but not continued.

Analysis

It appears there has been no thought given that the savings that has been requested by you may not be achievable, and also has the potential to create a less supportive environment for your students. It feels like a ‘paint by numbers’ exercise, without regard for the actual situation that MIT is located within South Auckland.

The data that was produced shows the outcomes have held up for one year does not take account of the fact that these particular students had the greater grounding in L5 at 4 hrs week teaching to support them into the higher levels of the programme. In addition it is still too early to come to any substantive conclusions that would justify the reduction is hours. Members are clear that students want more, not less face to face classes. Should this move result in the drop of retention and success figures, we believe that it would be unjust to try and hold academic staff accountable. We consider that you are putting unnecessary pressure of staff with this move.

Selective use of ‘sector norms’

Even if the desire to implement the sector ‘norms’ is followed through, there are at least 4 instances within the proposal where it is clear they wont be.

1. The allocation for research appears to have been dropped to 10% relief of TTH averaged across those on degree programme, not 20% as is suggested in the proposal. Dividing the quantum up further as you have outlined means that either the fractions of research time will fragment any research effort, or very few will have sufficient research time allocated to produce the wanted referred articles. This proposal will reduce what research can be accomplished.
2. Averaging 640 and allocating more for some staff because other colleagues are doing things which are beyond attendant duties
3. Not counting course redevelopment as an additional activity as per clause 5.2.1
4. Tourism remains well above the supposed norm TTH

Even if there was an acceptance that the norms stated were accurate, their selective use significantly reduces the credibility of the proposals. Despite asking, there appears to be no analysis on the impact of this change, other than to say it’s a benchmark, and that the current stats still meet MIT requirements.

The term ‘rightsizing’ is not fooling anyone, and will result in underestimating the staffing requirement to offer sustainable and dynamic industry recognised qualifications on an ongoing basis.

TTH baseline

We know that the suggested number of TTH for degrees is not that high across the sector, and the reduction in research allocations as a whole is not the norm either. It would appear your proposal goes below even the ‘sector norm’ for research.

We note that all aspects of the accreditation requirements from NZICA must be taken account of, not just in allocating research time; it also includes the level of staffing. This means it must be considered now prior to determining overall staff levels, not later.

Workload policy

Thank you for the detail around the workload allocation policies. Unless the various elements that you recognise as impacting on an individual workload is recognised (and it can be as related to the individual courses, which are then subsequently allocated to staff after this process has finished) then the calculations on the number of staff needed will be wrong and be underestimated. If particular courses are known to be larger, have a higher marking need, and/or have greater need for support of students etc, these must be factored in to work out the staffing required. We don’t understand why this policy is being ignored in this process, particularly as it’s a useful health and safety tool designed to protect both management and academic staff as in recognising what the various factors are that impact on the actual size of the tasks being asked of staff. The implementation of the policy must be transparent and fair.

The move to averages is not appropriate. Any workload allocation is about allocating a fair workload to an individual. It is simply not a solution to say everyone else has to take on more. It is you, as representative of the employer, who has to ensure that all employees that you manage have a safe work environment under OSH legislation as well as a safe, equitable and reasonable workload under the collective agreement.

We understand that the MIT SAEER review of the Faculty degrees last year stated there was a need for the Faculty to review workload and to provide some guidelines for staff – with clear expectation that workload would be reduced. While it recommends a reduction in contact hours for second and third year papers, it did not for first year. We note that the response to our question on this issue remain substantively unanswered The current proposals increases workload and are contrary to the recommendation.

The academic staffing in Tourism needs to be increased by the amount identified as needed. It is not about averaging, its about increasing to the staffing level you identified by your own calculations as needed.

TTH and attendant duties. If someone is allocated 640 TTH as you suggest on a degree programme, then their work is made up of their TTH and attendant duties relating to that TTH. That is a full workload. Attendant duties are

• Lesson preparation
• Student evaluation and assessment
• Pastoral care and assistance to students
• Routine updating of course materials,
• Maintaining skill and professional currency
• Routine admin and participation in institutes processes
• Contribution to day to day maintenance of teaching areas

Increasing the contact hours does not automatically mean an individual should be able to teach more courses. They are responsible for providing the same content of the courses, and in fact if anything it increases the associated work as they are forced to address the shortfall by helping students in out of class time more frequently

Rewriting courses is additional, not part of attendant duties. This includes rewriting to reduce the contact hours. This must be allowed for. Further I understand that CIT courses were always 15 credits, so having to fit the same content into reducing contact time is a significant workload. Further, content cannot be reduced because the degree programmes were approved and accredited on this level of content.

We note and agree with your comment on workload allocation and the support needed by students is a factor in workload allocation. It is then negated by your response to Q31, which suggests that it would be attendant duty. Additional pastoral care is not an attendant duty. Further, any additional pastoral care required as a result of the reduction in contact hours per course is not an attendant duty.

Duty Hours

It is not possible to subtract TTH from duty time in the belief that is the time available that can be directed to various tasks. The assumptions made in your replies to Q27 are not correct. Based on your proposal, an individual that has been allocated 640 on the degree has a full workload with that teaching and the attendant duties associated with that teaching. Updating of the nature that is being required is not routine and is additional. Therefore some teaching must be removed to enable any work that is not attendant duties to be done.

Base Activities and programme development

After having clarification that ongoing work is funded via base funding, we are very surprised that any academic programme development work is not considered a base activity. Developing new programmes is the lifeblood of any tertiary institutions, and not building that into your Faculty is a rather odd choice to say the least. We believe that it should be. Operating any programme development work from a central pool is impractical and will create competition between faculties that may well result in some areas not being able to develop and/or revitalise programmes in a timely way

Role of Principal Lecturer

This shift also appears to alter the roles of Principal Lecturers and does not use the skills and knowledge that these people have in a cost effective way. It also appears to alter their job descriptions which are likely to result in individuals stating that there has been significant change in their role.

Research

The change to the MIT research policy should not be changed to match the reduction in commitment from the Business Faculty.

The size of research allocations suggested in the spreadsheets do not make sense. It appears that Marketing will get more than they did last year, while all others have reduced in varying amounts, some down to having only 15% of the allocation they had in 2011. This will have a very serious impact on the research capability within the Faculty.

We note that where someone is allocated research then their TTH is reduced by that amount and then their teaching, attendant duties relating to that teaching, and research is their full workload.

Southern Cross

If the commitment is ongoing, then by your replies to other questions, this should be included in these calculations as an ongoing activity. We understand that some current staff have consistency contributed to these courses, therefore the calculation for the needed staff in your other programmes will be wrong at the start. This must be corrected.

NZQA work

We note that you want to collect fees for this work and apply clause 8.21 in the collective agreement. You need to also note clause 5.2.2 applies, reducing the available TTH be 4.5 for each day. This must be taken into account in determining the staffing levels required.

Support mechanisms

In terms of the Operations Manager role, academic staff have not seen a reduction in admin work this year, so to suggest that not proceeding with this position on a permanent basis would increase academic staff workload is not the experience of members. It appears to be a luxury when most others things are being cut.

The changes to the faculty processes are presented in a way that suggests these will reduce workload. This has not been the experience of academic staff to date, with many finding the process awkward and time consuming.

Changes in CELT appear to reduce the expertise available to academic staff in the area on on-line learning. There are 3 new roles which are administrative covering the areas you noted in your reply, the fourth is the position in Te Amorangi which is moving. To date the job descriptions have not been available. These are however, to cover all the Faculties, not just Business.

Severance

Severances processes are in place in situation for when there is an identified surplus of staff. Your proposals show clearly that there are 4 areas in your faculty where there is no surplus, and in fact in two there is a need to recruit further staff. In these areas the surplus staffing provisions do not apply. As pointed out in our earlier questions, accepting severances in areas that do not have a surplus (identified to date as CIT, Marketing, Bus Admin and Tourism), is not acceptable, and we consider this a compliance issue with the collective agreement as the employer has an obligation to minimise the loss of employment.

There is also an issue about what happens if after the voluntary severance process, there are fractions less than 1 remaining in any of the subject areas identified as having a surplus then the review process must stop as compulsory partial severances are not possible, and will be challenged.

We believe the assumptions behind this proposal are flawed, and if the proposals are not amended significantly, will result in too many staff leaving, and that the faculty will exhaust the reduced casual budget before the end of 2012.

If the changes result in members being made compulsorily redundant and the Faculty needs to employ staff during 2012 to cover what these individuals would have done, we will be looking at our legal options.

We are happy to discuss any part of our submission

There is a sombre mood among TEU members. At one meeting where the dean of the Faculty of Engineering and Trades announced his proposal to cut 17 positions, a Price Waterhouse Coopers representative, who is ‘assisting’ in the restructuring, greeted the dean with an expressive thumbs-up as members were leaving the meeting, adding insult to injury.

As well as the 17 job losses in Engineering and Trades (after already losing seven last year), there are six proposed job losses in the Faculty of Business (after already losing 12 at the end of 2010), and five in Nursing and Health Studies. Several faculties are still waiting for their announcements. TEU is not aware of what these announcements will entail other than beingbeen advised that Human Resources is one of the few areas flagged for increased staffing.

TEU is conducting a survey about the reviews, the responses to which are clearly demonstrating members’ anger and frustration with both the process and content of the “rightsizing” project.

“It is chaos at MIT at the moment,” said Chan Dixon, TEU organiser, “and unfortunately members do not have a high degree of faith that the three-week consultation period will bring any positive changes.”

Two key frustrations are that the reviews are based on a reduced budget in each Faculty, which is not open for consultation, and that one of the key factors ‘informing’ the proposals is the ITP sector Tribal Data, which TEU members are not being provided on the grounds of confidentiality. TEU members are meeting with the chief executive on Friday to discuss these issues.

Mrs Tolley also announced this week that Christchurch is to have a new Trades Academy, and that student places are to more than treble at the existing National Trade Academy in Christchurch, which incorporates CPIT.

The number of fees-free places for 16 and 17 year olds will increase to 2000 in 21 Trades Academies from next year.

“Schools are partnering with tertiary providers, employers and industry training organisations to give 16 and 17 year olds a more flexible way of learning, and the vocational skills which will give them more career choices,” Mrs Tolley said.

The ten new Trades Academies which will open during 2012 will involve support from UCOL in in Palmerston North and Manawatu, Horowhenua, Whanganui and the Wairarapa , NMIT in Nelson, Unitec and AUT in West Auckland, MIT in Manurewa, Otago Polytechnic in Central Otago, EIT in the Hawkes Bay, WITT in Taranaki, Te Tai Poutini on the West Coast, Wintec in Taumaranui, and the Open Polytechnic across the country.

“Local economies will also benefit from these new Trades Academies, as businesses will now have more young people with better skills ready to enter the workplace,” said Mrs Tolley.

“By 2014, 12,500 places will be available for 16 and 17 year olds in Trades Academies, Service Academies and the wider Youth Guarantee.”

Ironically, in the last year, a number of polytechnics around New Zealand have made electrical engineering tutors redundant including NorthTec, MIT, Weltec and SIT.

“We can’t quantify the inevitable spike in demand for cablers and cable-jointers until start hiring and training,” ETITO corporate relations manager Michael Frampton told the New Zealand Herald, “but certainly anecdotal feedback from training providers indicates that the industry is very much relying on its ability to train people quickly when the demand presents.”

However, Communications Minister Steven Joyce said there was no immediate skill shortage and funding for more training could be made available by the Tertiary Education Commission if required.

The ultra-fast broadband scheme and rural broadband initiative are to be rolled out over the next eight years and will need to be built and upgraded by engineers with a specialised knowledge of fibre optic cables.

EPMU national secretary Andrew Little is concerned that without an adequate supply of trained workers Telecom through its maintenance arm Chorus will recruit cheap, foreign labour to build its planned fibre optic networks. Chorus has won the first contracts to build the networks.

“This kind of project is a great opportunity to create jobs for New Zealand workers and invest in our local skills base”, said Mr Little. “Any sensible government would want to make sure that this expertise stays in New Zealand.”

Telecom’s lines arm, Chorus, will build most of the network but refused to tell the New Zealand Herald if it had enough skilled workers to roll out the fibre cables.

Thanks to Dan Chace @ Flickr for the photo http://www.flickr.com/photos/zebraman/430328206/in/photostream/

The minister of tertiary education Steven Joyce announced yesterday that there would be an increased focus on trades at polytechnics to cope with higher levels of demand during the rebuild of quake-stricken Christchurch.

The minister told NZPA the boost would involve re-prioritising courses toward the trades and an increase in funding. Dr Grey says the first thing Mr Joyce needs to do is prevent polytechnics around the country making trades tutors redundant. At the moment NorthTec is reviewing its electrical engineering and carpentry course with a view to getting rid of a number of tutors.

Similarly Manukau Institute of Technology recently got rid of a number of skilled tutors from its mechanical and electrical engineering courses and Wintec has made trades staff redundant late last year too.

“The main problem for these polytechnics and others is that they are not getting the block courses of students from the industry training organisations that they used to get in the past. The reason they are not getting those students because this same government cut funding to industry training.”

“Rebuilding Christchurch, investing in education and giving people the chance to become skilled trades apprentices cannot happen while funding cuts force polytechnics to reduce their teaching capacity. The minister needs to stop the redundancies by putting new money into trades and into industry training, not moving around old money,” said Dr Grey.

Thanks to Sharon Davis @ Flickr for the photo http://www.flickr.com/photos/sharondavis/5467973520/in/photostream/