• Kahui kaumatua
• Delegates
• Observers
• Staff

I would forgive you all for nodding off during the annual conference because it has been a very hectic year on campuses across New Zealand and we are all due a well-earned rest.

We deserve a well-earned rest because we have been very busy this year. We have taken industrial action including strikes at sites around New Zealand; we have held rallies, public meetings, and demonstrations to fight against major restructuring which has occurred at dozens of institutions and to fight against job losses; we have mounted on-line petitions and post card campaigns to challenge the decisions of senior managers and the government; we have engaged in working parties and on-going discussions with senior managers about the direction of our institutions; we have held stop work meetings over conditions, collective negotiations, restructuring plans, and even to express a vote of no confidence in the leadership of an institution; we’ve written endless responses to change proposals, held meetings to plan strategies and map out new approaches to the on-going attacks on the tertiary sector; we’ve held teleconferences and face-to-face meetings; written responses to proposed legislation and made presentations to the Tertiary Education Commission, Universities New Zealand and many other bodies.

It really has been a frenetic year for members and in particular to you our branch officials and activists. And while I forgive you all for being exhausted, what I am urging is for us to build on this tremendous level of work and amplify the voice of the TEU in the tertiary education sector, in the union movement, and in society.

Before going on I want to take this moment to thank you all for your work this year. To thank you all for your immense fortitude and strength. To thank you for the hospitality members have shown me as I have travelled around the country to hear from you the issues and concerns facing you. To thank you for sharing your knowledge and expertise.

I also want us all to pause for a moment and thank the staff of the TEU. I have on numerous occasions noted how crucial our paid staff are in terms of ensuring that we are a well-functioning and profession organisation. But I want to say it again. We are a strong union because of our members, but we are a stronger union because of the expertise and dedication of our staff.

Finally I want to thank our national secretary Sharn Riggs. I found stepping into the position of President of the Tertiary Education Union somewhat daunting. Sharn’s knowledge, hard work, and her friendship have meant more than Sharn knows.

But back to our story – our collective story and the paths that are before us.

It’s not just about our jobs, it’s about public education

For many from outside the sector it would seem that TEU members have been fighting lots of fires in order to defend our jobs and conditions of work. People are very quick to judge our actions as being those of privileged elite protecting their own interests. Yes, we have taken a range of actions to defend core conditions; to seek pay rises; and to defend our role in decision-making processes in tertiary institutions. This is only right and proper of a union.

But our actions stretch beyond defending our own jobs and pay. The actions we have taken as the Tertiary Education Union have been a response to fierce attacks on our public tertiary education system.

The attacks on public tertiary education are not new, they began in the early 1990s. What we have seen in the last few years however is a renewed attack on the publicness of tertiary education – both in New Zealand and internationally – which has been exacerbated by government and management actions which dismiss the expertise of staff in the sector and present staff as vested interests protecting our own skins.

The attack on public tertiary education and the professionals in the sector can be seen to take three forms:

1. public control of tertiary education institutions has been weakened;
2. public funding has been decreased; and,
3. genuine public participation has been threatened.

The first attack on the public tertiary education sector is that of public control. A government and country committed to public tertiary education should embrace staff, student, and community involvement in the governance of institutions. And yet, the current National-led government has removed staff and student representatives from polytechnic councils and made sure that ministerial appointees will always have a majority on these councils.

Added to this we have watched as students have been progressively cut out of the decision-making on campuses and denied their democratic voice in the institutions that they are learning in. The impact of VSM will not be felt until next year but looking across to Australia I would argue that the impact of denying student associations a place on campuses (which is what VSM does in reality) is detrimental to both current and future students and the communities they come from. And it is detrimental to decision-making which benefits from the input of students.

And our own union has been dismissed as being of little relevance to decision-making in the tertiary education sector. We have repeatedly sought meeting with the Minister of Tertiary Education, who we know regularly meets with the vice-chancellors of our universities, only to be told that the Minister sees no reason to speak with us.

An example of how staff are sidelined in decisions can be found in the response to the Canterbury earthquakes. When it became apparent that the performance based funding round was going to be disrupted by the on-going earthquakes in Canterbury. We asked to meet with the Tertiary Education Commission and we were told that the vice-chancellors were going to be consulted for their views on what changes, if any, should be made to the round. There was no initial intention to consult with the TEU – apparently staff had nothing to add to this debate. A misconception that was soon proved wrong.

Staff, student, and public input into the tertiary education sector is important for ensuring institutions perform in ways that benefit the community as a whole.

Private institutions run by corporate boards might as a side effect provide public goods, but they are not designed to do so. Public institutions, run, governed and organised by and for the community can purposely pursue the public good.

Staff, students and the community are guardians of New Zealand’s commitment to public education. We are not only defending the interests of those members who currently pay to belong to our organisations, we speak for the good of the students to come, the staff yet to be hired, and communities that will in the future benefit from robust, well-funding quality public tertiary education. We need to let the government know our voice and the voices of students and the community are crucial to good governance in the tertiary sector.

So the National-led government’s report card on public control of the tertiary education sector is fairly poor. What about their approach to another of the p’s – public funding?

We have seen a drop in the funding of the tertiary education sector in real terms. This reduction in funding, coupled with a drive for increased efficiency, has led to major restructuring across the sector and job losses.

By the 2014 election the gap between the cost of running the tertiary sector and the amount of government investment into the sector will be 1.1 billion dollars. What is the impact of this type of under-funding? Most staff see its effects on a daily basis – an increase in workloads, rising stress, overcrowded classes, job losses, and cuts to core services.

We can see the impact through figures that a rise in the student:staff ratio. This has real impacts for staff and students in our tertiary education sector. Put more students into a tutorial, the space where students get to ask critical questions of staff and each other, and you substantively diminish the quality of the conversations that can be had.

And think about what happens when you raise the numbers of students in workshops where polytechnic staff are teaching students to use arch-welders, circular saws, and lathes. Would any of us really want to control 20 students who are just 16 or 17 years old in that type of environment? The rising student to staff ratio not only affects our ability to provide quality education in some cases it can threaten staff and student safety.

On the government’s report card this year we do need to note that diminishing public funding threatens the quality of public tertiary education and must not continue.

And what of the final ‘p’ – public participation?

How can people participate in tertiary education if the fees keep rising (even with student loans available).

And what about ‘second chance learners’. The National government’s tertiary education strategy means tertiary institutions are asked to manage enrolments and take predominantly those learners in the 18-25 year age group.

Add to this, the government’s decision to get rid of the tertiary incentive allowance which provided learning opportunities for sole parents.

The National-led government states its vision is to provide opportunities to New Zealanders and this means encouraging people into study. Yet the foundation courses that helped many people into tertiary education are being closed down due to a lack of funding.

And what about investment promised for regional New Zealand? We want a tertiary education system that supports communities in every region of New Zealand. And yet the National government has cut more that $50 million out of our polytechnics. This has hit regional institutions hardest.

So again when it comes to ensuring adequate public funding for the Tertiary education sector, we are currently seeing a failure in terms of policy and application.

These 3Ps – public funding, public participation and public control – must be defended because education is a public good.

What we currently see is the state and tertiary education institutions acknowledging the economic benefits of tertiary education.

This economistic approach to public education narrows what is counted in the tertiary education sector and leads to an unhealthy focus on ‘productivity’.

The calls for ‘more productivity’ and increased ‘accountability’ ignore the fact that the staff who work within the tertiary education sector are driven and motivated individuals, who are always striving to achieve. Big sticks are not need to get better performance in a professional workforce and increasing the number of forms we all fill in does not mean better quality teaching, learning, and research, it just means more paperwork.

The demands for increased productivity ignore the fact that public education is not a ‘production line’ into which you can force more raw product and turnout more widgets.

Though even for the hard core econocrats who dislike notions of public good we could argue that the on-going drive for productivity ignores the gains already made in the sector, gains made at a cost I might add.

In the last three years staff: student ratios in New Zealand have risen from 1:17.9 in 2009 to 1:19.8 in 2011. The calls for more productivity ignore that there has been an increase in research outputs at institutions and that students’ completions of programmes of study have risen. It also ignores the fact that funding in the sector is not keeping up with costs. The government is getting more for less.

What’s more the drive for ‘increased productivity’ which centres of generating more – more degree students, more international publications, more classroom hours, more places for youth who can’t find employment – has unintended costs.

In the terms of what our employers and the government care about, this push has cost New Zealand institutions in terms of their international reputations. While international rankings of universities are flawed, in the QS world rankings five of the six surveyed New Zealand universities fell down the international rankings ladder – most likely because of the rising staff: student ratios among other things. And the Times Higher Education rankings show a similar downward slide for New Zealand institutions on the whole.

In terms of our members, the attacks on core conditions means increased workloads, a rise in insecure work, and increased stress levels. For students it means overcrowded classrooms and lecturers who run short of time to do fully formative feedback and much more.

Underpinning much of the drive for greater accountability is the desire to ensure tax payer monies are well spent. We all want money spent efficiently, but some of the measures taken by tertiary institutions under the guise of prudent financial management have immensely high transaction costs.

At its most bizarre and banal, the drive for ‘economic efficiency’ in our sector has led to a department demanding that tutors bring back their used whiteboard markers before they can be issued with a new one.

And the drive for productivity and efficiency means sound educational arguments are trumped by ‘economic arguments’. In fact what we are seeing is a denial of any space for academic and educational arguments in tertiary institutions, where economic rationality reigns supreme.

One example of this was the closure of gender and women’s studies courses at Victoria University of Wellington because the programme wasn’t ‘financially viable’. Staff and students were told that the decision to stop teaching gender and women’s studies courses did not need to go to academic board for review because the decision was ‘financial’ not ‘academic’. It seems VUW’s senior management were able to deny to themselves that the impact of shutting down courses is ‘academic’.

What we are seeing is a denial of professional autonomy and collegial governance.

Increasing managerialism sees goals of the sector being set by ‘management’ experts and ignoring the advice of teachers and learners. We have seen performance measured introduced for teaching and research; and this results in narrow goals and narrow activities for teachers and learners. Staff warned this would happen but were ignored.

But it is not just the professional views of academics that get trampled in managerialism. Expert technicians, librarians, and administrative staff find themselves ‘directed’ to undertake changes which they know are to the detriment of teaching and learning.

The attack on the professional autonomy of staff is evident in the University of Auckland dispute where the vice-chancellor is insisting that academic staff be subject to ‘managerial will’ with regard important conditions for research and research-led teaching.

And in many of the polytechnics this year we have seen management determined to dictate how staff spend every day of the year, with demands to increase time-tabled teaching hours and to claw back all discretionary leave provisions and to control that leave.

The professionals who work in sector, the students who study at tertiary institutions, the communities who surround our institutions, are the best people to know what is for the good of the sector. Our professional autonomy and collegial governance must be reclaimed.

But given so much has been going on in our sector, and there has been such a concerted attack, where do we focus our attention?

Professional autonomy and adequate funding

Interestingly there are two issues at the heart of the disputes our members are engaged in. The two issues are the need to see increased funding in order to defend the core conditions which enable quality research and teaching in the tertiary sector; and the interconnected issue of defending (or reclaim) professional autonomy. So how do we do this?

We need a multi-pronged approach which sets out our vision for public tertiary education and demonstrates that the current focus of our employers and the state on managerial control and economic gain, are harmful for staff, students, and New Zealand.

We need to ensure we have evidence of why public investment and public control of tertiary education is crucial. This means showing just how much harm the current economic and managerial approach is now causing. While we can all feel the harm done when we walk onto out campuses (with evidence such as overcrowded teaching spaces; colleagues who have fled to Australia to get away from the immense pressures found in the sector; and corridors that are silent as people shuffle to the next ‘urgent meeting’) it is important we show the impact through good quality research.

In particular we need to show two things. That managerialism has major transaction costs in the tertiary education sector and as a result the public are not getting better bang for their buck, but in fact just more paperwork for their buck. Tertiary education staff – from those teaching to those who make sure grades are entered accurately; from the technician teaching skills to the counsellors who offer a refuge for stressed students; from the cleaners who ensure lecture theatres are habitable to the PhD supervisor who gets their students back on the rails – are committed to ensuring life-long learning for all. They are motivated and driven. They are highly educated and passionate. This means they will perform well, but only when given the room to perform.

What the most creative industries in the world are discovering is that rigid controls and tightly managed working days stifle innovation, creativity, and passion. And is these things that are essential for quality public tertiary education.

We also need to show why a modern and future focused tertiary education sector cannot be staffed by a casualised workforce.

Anecdotally we are aware of how much of the core work in the tertiary education sector is now carried out by workers on fixed-term or casual contracts. While these positions may be for some a good stepping stone in to their chosen profession, for most it leads to a revolving door of jobs with little prospect of advancement. So how big is the problem of casualisation in New Zealand?

In Australia NTEU research has found that around 60% of all academic staff on a headcount basis are employed on a casual (that is hourly rate) basis. We need to know if this is the case in New Zealand. And we need to articulate clearly why such practices are of no benefit to New Zealand, to students, to communities, to staff.

While we need to ensure we have all the facts, we also need to recognise that ‘good evidence’ and ‘rational debate’ will not advance our cause on their own. We must take action to ensure our message for greater public funding and restoration of professaional autonomy is amplified.

Be unified in our response: Attack on one is attack on all

We need to see the common nature of many of the battles being fought across a range of professions, in a range of different teaching and learning spaces, and in different parts of the country. An attack on one part of the public tertiary education sector is an attack on all parts.

We as a membership have recognised the need for greater connections and unity, while not glossing over the differences in the sector. We recognised this when we decided to create a union covering staff from across the tertiary education sector. And three years on we have recognised this is by seeking to refine our national decision-making structures to have a more unified structure at the national level.

Putting into place an industrial and professional committee – if this conference chooses to do so – which brings together active TEU members from polytechnics, universities, wananga and other tertiary providers will allow us to focus at the national level on the difficulties for the sector as a whole.

And bringing branch presidents together once a year will provide us a way to ensure that the ‘major battles’ we are working on really are important to branches and their members.

But it is not just enough to meet and debate high ideals. Wee need to action both inside and outside the existing structures. We must also make sure we use every decision-making lever possible on our campuses. As a Canterbury member noted we need to teach ‘decision-making 101’ to ensure that all staff in the tertiary sector are aware of how decisions are made in their institutions, and which levers can be pulled to make a difference.

And we must work within existing government structures. An example of the insider approach was our actions with regard PBRF in Canterbury region. We met regularly with TEC, to provide TEC with information from members. TEU involvement was crucial – in the end even the senior managers came around to some of the ideas of those on the front-line.

But working inside our institutions is not enough. We need to be public in our actions. We need to garner public support through actions large and small. We need to speak up for education so the public understands why public funding, public control, and public participation are the cornerstones of a quality public tertiary education system. The public must be on board with us if we are to have any chance of shifting the funding and governance paradigm currently in place. Politicians will not take public tertiary education seriously until voters demand it.

Moments in which we speak up for public education may at the time seem quite small, but they can generate huge public impact. Take for example Vernon Tava, a student and tutor at Auckland University, who wore a rosette to graduation that read ‘staff and students unite to defend our university’. Tava was not alone in wearing a rosette, a protest over the Vice Chancellors on-going demands to remove core conditions from the academic staff collective at Auckland, but he made headline news. Why? Because an act which was fulfilling the role of staff and students to act as critic and conscience of society, including their own institutions, was interpreted as being inappropriate and he was informed he could not graduate while wearing the rosette. Tava’s case shows that even the smallest acts of speaking up are crucial in any campaign.

And tonight we will all rally in Cuba mall with educationalists and members of the public to speak up for education in the hope of getting the education onto the agenda of politicians and public sector officials. One rally today will not be enough to bring major changes, but it is a springboard for a public campaign for us all to ‘speak up for education’.

Tonight’s action will only work if we garner the support of our friends and colleagues from across the education sector. In order to really make progress in our sector we need to ensure we have allies – most obviously, we must continue to build our connections to student groups and communities.

There is no doubt that some of the victories we have had in 2011 are the result of collective action with our allies. Look for example to the actions taken by staff and students in Timaru, Ashburton, and Dunedin to push back against the closure of programmes by Aoraki Polytechnic management. Working together staff, students, and the communities were able to save some of the jobs under threat and ensure on-going educational provision in this region.

To gain public support we must find ways to say how professional autonomy and collegial governance is central to the innovation and creativity need in a 21st century tertiary education sector.

We also need to clearly say that we are speaking up not just for us but for our students, our communities, and the country – for those currently learning and using our research findings, and for future generations.

Next year we will hold a series of public forums at campuses across New Zealand in which we will set out our vision of the tertiary sector in New Zealand. We will run these in collaboration with the senior management of our tertiary institutions, with student associations where they exist, and with community groups. We will set our vision of the tertiary education sector where there is adequate public funding, a respect for professional autonomy, and an end to strict managerial controls in favour of collaborative and collegial governance.

We will use this space and others to explain why providing staff with room to perform their roles in creative and innovative ways, rather than applying one-size fits all model to teaching, learning, and research, will benefit all New Zealanders. After all our conditions of work are students conditions of learning. And students must learn if we are to grow as a nation, not just economically but in terms of our human and social development potential.

This series of public lectures will need to be accompanied by other actions – wearning rosettes, putting up posters, asking questions in departmental meetings, attending council meetings, speaking to the media, and much more. I look forward to working with you all this year to build up and amplify our voice, to promote our vision of a creative and innovative public tertiary education sector in which our voice and our expertise is respected.

We are a fighting union with immense capability. We need to build on this and campaign to ensure that our sector is freed from the prison being created by managerialism and market-models. We need to say clearly that the future of quality tertiary education lies in hearing the voices of the professionals who work within it and giving them room to meet their full potential.

Finally I do want to urge us to be creative in the way we amplify our message. We must find creative ways in which to say ‘quality public tertiary education comes through adequate funding and respecting the professional voices of staff’.

One such creative way is through song. I realise for some of our members one of the most controversial things of conference is the singing. So I want to talk briefly about why we should sing.

Songs of protest have been a part of major social movements for decades. Songs unify individuals in collective voice; they provide history lessons; and, connect movements to the broader society in which they operate.

Think of the anthem of the civil rights movement, ‘We Shall Overcome’. This song provided a collective voice for demonstrators; connected the civil rights movement to the anti-slavery movement as it used a melody from a spiritual sung by slaves; and, surrounded the movement with the respectability of the Christian religion as the song had been a hymn during the early part of the 20th century.

Added to all this, music has an intrinsic power to propagate a message. And the message of the union movement is clearly found in the songs of the movement. Union songs contain within them a prescription of the ills of the world (bad bosses) and the solutions – join a union and take action!

Song is a useful medium through which to pass on the messages of the union and other progressive movements, as songs are easily picked up and repeated by members, friends, and bystanders. As unionist Joe Hill noted: “The power of song will exalt the spirit of rebellion. A pamphlet, no matter how good, is never read but once, but a song is learned by heart and repeated over and over.”

This is why I think all TEU should join together in song. In singing, we honour the past, join together in one voice, and let all who are listening know what we want for the future.

And that is what we must do over the coming year – let everyone know that public tertiary education is critical for New Zealand and that we the staff are critical to quality public tertiary education.

So here is a song that expresses this sentiment for one part of our sector – a well known New Zealand anthem with new words …

If it weren’t for the Polytechs

TEU members have successfully negotiated a collective agreement at a third polytechnic that was part of the old ITP MECA. The Whitireia New Zealand Collective Agreement was ratified, at a stopwork meeting this week, with 98 percent of members voting in favour of the new agreement.

TEU national advocate Irena Brorens says the real benefit for members, apart from finally getting a pay rise after such a long time, is that they are back on a collective agreement after nearly a year of being on individual agreements.

“It has been a long and difficult dispute with Whitireia, in a tough political environment.  We’re glad it’s over and people will finally get some more money before the end of the year.

Union members and the polytechnic have agreed to a two year term with a pay rise of two percent  and a $1500 lump sum payment pro rata for the first year and two percent for the second. As at Unitec, duty hours will change to 37.5 hours a week and some discretionary leave will be converted to time that Whitireia can direct. (One week per year from next year and a second week from 2013 for some employees). Whitireia will compensate union members with an extra 2 percent pay for each week converted from discretionary leave, and Whitireia will not direct those weeks for classroom teaching duties.

“We believe that this is the best settlement we can achieve in the current circumstances and with the history of this long dispute,” said Ms Brorens.

Also in Tertiary Update this week:

1. 28 jobs go in ‘rightsizing’ exercise at MIT
2. Campaign softens cuts at Aoraki
3. Students oppose TEC cuts to pre-degree funding

Other news

Is there really no money available for tertiary education “in the foreseeable future”? The fourth in TEU’s series of election charts about what is going on in tertiary education – TEU

A long-running employment agreement dispute at Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology could soon be resolved with a staff vote on a revised offer. About 200 TEU members at CPIT have been protesting against moves to extend teaching hours and cut leave. When negotiations reached a stalemate last month, both parties entered mediation and CPIT presented a revised offer. TEU organiser Phil Dodds said CPIT’s new offer was a “win-win” for both sides. – Christchurch Press

New Zealand’s top science and technology honour has been won by a woman for the first time. Christine Winterbourn from Otago University has been awarded the Rutherford Medal by the Royal Society for discoveries in free radical biology – Radio NZ

The UK Conservative-led government is introducing primary legislation that paves the way for full-scale privatisation of the higher education sector despite a lack of public support. There is a need for a multi-level campaign to stop this as it will destabilise and tarnish the entire sector – University World News

The New Zealand lamb processor, CMP, a subsidiary of ANZCO Foods, has brutally locked out 111 workers at its plant in Marton, New Zealand, in order to force them and their union, the New Zealand Meatworkers Union, to sign off on pay cuts and unacceptable changes to terms and conditions. Send a message to ANZCO Foods demanding an end to the lockout and a return to the bargaining table – IUF

“The singing sirens of Lorelei have distracted ITPs from time to time. Those sirens have come in the guise of degree teaching and research and just like those women of the Rhine, have lured the providers onto the rocks. The search for parity of esteem is not simply a desire to be the same, and where technical and career providers have attempted to pursue a sameness with universities, the result has been rather threatening to the mission of the very provision of the kinds of education and training that mark the ITP providers as being different from the university.” – Stuart Middleton

“If you hear [in the discussion of the Transpacific Partnership trade agreement] echoes of light-handed regulation that brought us leaky buildings, Pike River, finance company collapses and weak liability for oil disasters like the Rena, and new subsidies and labour laws for Warner Bros to keep the Hobbit in New Zealand, you are spot on.” – Dr Jane Kelsey in the New Zealand Herald

TEU members at Unitec finally have a collective agreement again, after nearly a year on individual employment agreements. Members at Unitec voted to ratify their new collective last Friday.

“This is now the second collective agreement that TEU has settled coming out of the old ITP MECA that dissolved in December last year,” said national industrial officer Irena Brorens. “The settlement includes a salary increase and also makes some changes to leave and duty hours.”

“The settlement means members are finally covered again by a collective agreement and are getting a salary increase which, apart from a one off payment of $750, they have not had since 2009.”

The salary increase is 2 percent for November 2011 and 2 percent for November 2012, plus a 2 percent lump sum payment (in lieu of back pay as the collective agreement ended in December 2010).

The changes to discretionary leave will be compensated for with 2 percent on the annual salary for each week that is converted to professional development institutional leave. This change will be phased in during 2012 and 2013. All new staff will have their salaries increased by 8 percent to reflect the changes.

“This is a good outcome for current members and also for recruiting of new employees,” said Ms Brorens, “because we will finally have transparency about what the salaries are for new staff and there will be a collective agreement for them to join.”

Also in Tertiary Update this week:

1. General staff negotiations meander along at Auckland University
2. Conference speaks up for public education
3. Draper re-elected as vice-president
4. Corruption scandal rocks University of Queensland
5. Gareth Morgan challenges UnionAID

Other news

“For students at universities and polytechnics, we’re encouraging them to cast an advance vote if they’re not sure they can make it to a polling booth on the day. Many of them are still on campus at the moment but might be moving back home or going on holiday.” Advance polling booths have been set up at Otago, Auckland and Massey Universities to encourage students to vote before their exams end and they leave for the summer, Mr Do said – Dominion Post

Student demand for financial assistance and food bank services has soared in Dunedin, with welfare schemes run by student associations at the university and polytechnic being pushed past their financial limits – Otago Daily Times

Many British lecturers who are ‘working to contract’ over a pensions dispute are finding that they suddenly have time for themselves, their families and their colleagues. 40,000 members of the University and College Union (UCU) in 67 universities, has been “working to contract” since 10 October in a dispute over changes to the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) pensions – The Guardian

Otago Polytechnic is setting up a new campus in Auckland’s Queen St next year to target the international student market. A report to Otago Polytechnic council members highlighted how 80 percent of New Zealand’s international students were attracted to Auckland - Otago Daily Times

The polytechnic is also offering a two percent pay rise and a one off bonus for a one-year agreement. That will mean the two parties will be negotiating again in February 2012. NMIT’s suggested one-year term is based upon their perceived uncertainty of government funding.  The TEU belives a settlement can be reached that is acceptable to both parties.

After TEU members at Weltec took a lightning strike across Weltec’s three campuses (Petone, Wellington and Auckland) earlier this week the union’s bargaining team was able to meet with the polytechnic’s chief executive. Because of those discussions, TEU members have suspended the threat of further strikes or other industrial action now for the rest of the week, and are hopeful that they will be back negotiating formally soon.

Before the strike on Monday Weltec employers wanted to increase staff weekly duty hours, remove all discretionary leave from new staff and tell existing staff how they can use their discretionary leave as well as claim the flexibility to require staff to work any hours between 7.00 am and 9.30 pm Monday to Sunday.

TEU organiser Phil Dyhrberg said the existing employment conditions are working well for Weltec and he is hopeful now that the two sides can reach a positive agreement.

“Last year Weltec had a surplus of $3.6 million. It got more revenue both from government and from other sources. It grew its asset base by $5 million. So there seems little financial reason for staff working longer working hours, the possibility of working late into the evening on Sundays, or less say for staff over how they use their leave.”

Also in Tertiary Update this week:

1. SIT academics retain core working conditions
2. Canterbury’s international student numbers slump
3. More investment needed in Canterbury University
4. Ten new trades academies

Other news

TEU’s boycott of Courses and Careers Day at the University of Auckland was averted in last minute negotiations after the university’s vice-chancellor agreed not to oppose an application by the union for facilitation by the Employment Relations Authority. Up until that point, the vice-chancellor had been opposed to facilitation, thereby slowing the negotiation process down.

New Zealand secondary schools are quietly being redesigned in a way that could make them dramatically more relevant to young people who are not heading towards university – New Zealand Herald

Yes, the public has a right to information about how public institutions are performing, but that information shouldn’t be stripped of meaning and context just so people can absorb it quickly and easily. That is unfair on the universities being ranked, and it is unfair on people who want a fuller understanding of how they are performing – Manawatu Standard

A further 50,000 people who live overseas and owe money on their student loans are going to be targeted by the Government. Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce says a target programme aimed at 1000 debt holders in Australia and has netted more $4.7 million in debt repayments. The programme will be extended to cover not only people in Australia, but also Britain – Radio NZ

—

TEU Tertiary Update is published weekly on Thursdays and distributed freely to members of the Tertiary Education Union and others. You can subscribe to Tertiary Update by email or feed reader. Back issues are available on the TEU website. Direct inquiries should be made to Stephen Day.

The polytechnic wants to increase staff weekly duty hours, remove all discretionary leave from new staff and tell existing staff how they can use their discretionary leave as well as claim the flexibility to require staff to work any hours between 7.00 am and 9.30 pm Monday to Sunday.

“Weltec is doing well very with its current staff and current employment conditions,” said Phil Dyhrberg, TEU organiser. “Last year Weltec had a surplus of 3.6 million. It got more revenue both from government and from other sources. It grew its asset base by $5 million. But when it comes to staff it wants longer working hours, the possibility of working late into the evening on Sundays, and less say for staff over how they use their leave.”

“All this means more workload for staff who are already working efficiently and doing a good job,” Said Mr Dyhrberg.

For more information:

Phil Dyhrberg, TEU organiser, 027 430 0564

Stephen Day, TEU communications officer, 021 2900 734 or 04 801 4792

http://www.teu.ac.nz

The University of Canterbury has reached the midpoint of its three-year collective agreement and is negotiating to make variations to that collective agreement on issues not involving pay or money. The university has agreed to TEU claims to extend coverage to a larger group of general staff. It seems likely that the CPI adjusted pay rise for TEU members at the university will be five percent. (TEU members agreed that their pay rise for the second and third years of their three-year collective agreement would be based on CPI.)

TEU members at CPIT are disappointed by claims from their employer to ‘buy’ their discretionary leave and their workload limit on duty weeks off them with an offer of 4 percent and 2 percent over two years. Negotiations are continuing there.

TEU members at Weltec are also facing claims to remove their discretionary leave. Their employer wants to phase out discretionary leave by 2014, remove it entirely from all new staff employed before 2014 and, remove quarterly timetabled teaching hour limits and some entitlements to professional development. In return, Weltec is offering its TEU members 1.5 and 1.5 percent for two years. Staff are discussing, among other things, whether to take industrial action in response to the employer’s offer.

Academics at the University of Auckland have all been moved onto individual agreements on 30 June after their collective agreement expired over a year ago. Those 954 members will now be meeting on Wednesday 27 July to consider their employer’s latest offer and the TEU’s counter offer, and to decide whether to send the employer’s offer to ratification. In the meantime, industrial action and picketing continues at the university.

Negotiations are also underway or about to start at NMIT and Te Wānanga o Aotearoa and Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi, Massey University and Auckland University of Technology. TEU has initiated for its first ever allied (general) staff collective agreement at AUT.

It is also seeking the ability to require its employees to work on more than two evenings per week. It wants ‘more liberal’ discretionary leave provisions whereby discretionary leave is sold by agreement, with a view ‘to reducing that leave over time’

While it is retaining the current 34 hours duty per week it wants to introduce a 75 hours minimum ‘working hours’ per fortnight clause.

It wants to add to the existing workload principles of ‘safe, equitable and reasonable’ the adjectives ‘effective’ and highly productive’.

It has offered pay increases of 1.5 percent and 1.5 percent over a 22 month term but that offer is within the context of making progress on its claims to change conditions.

TEU members held a stop work meeting last Tāite with an overwhelming majority supporting a campaign of industrial action. That campaign begins on Mane with the withdrawal of goodwill, and will escalate. The withdrawal of goodwill means that members will be strictly working to the parameters of their collective agreement.

Local TEU organiser Chan Dixon says this is the third set of negotiations out of four where TEU members at MIT have had to embark on industrial action.

“MIT has signalled its intention to make changes in the key areas of hours of mahi, workload, and discretionary leave, all of which are fundamental. MIT wants to impose change rather than have relationships guided by consent and goodwill. These people need support in every way TEU can – they had take industrial action during last year’s negotiations as well,” said Ms Dixon.

TEU has set up a webpage where people can send message of support to TEU members at MIT

Thanks to Codgdogblog @ Flickr for the photo

The agreement, which will run until 30 November, agrees to set up a working party to discuss unresolved issues, to be convened by the Partnership Resource Centre, the Department of Labour.  TEU members in the affected polytechnics, as at 4 June, also will receive a one-off lump sum payment of 0.

TEU national president Dr Tom Ryan says the negotiations have been a long and difficult process, as members battled concerted employer and government attacks on basic employment conditions.

“Because of TEU members’ willingness to stand up for their rights, including through unprecedented levels of industrial action, the collective agreement now upholds core work conditions. This is a major achievement for the whole ITP sector,” said Dr Ryan.

After a year of dispute, in May the TEU and the six polytechnics – NorthTec, Unitec, Wintec, Bay of Plenty Polytechnic, WITT, and Whitireia – went to facilitation. The facilitator effectively recommended the TEU’s position, which was that there be no changes to existing conditions and that a working party be established to discuss the employers’ claims around discretionary leave and total teaching days.

TEU national industrial officer Irena Brorens says the settlement is important because the ITP MECA employers did not succeed in reducing core conditions of employment. This was the main issue behind the fractious negotiations and strikes last year.

“TEU members also now have a renewed collective agreement. Before this ratification vote, all TEU members covered by the MECA had been forced on to individual agreements, which was a precarious place for them to be.”

While Ms Brorens says it is good to have these negotiations resolved, she believes a 0 pro-rated lump sum payment is inadequate compensation for members who have now not seen a pay rise since 2008. She is also concerned that the offer does not resolve the unfairness of non-union members at BoPP and Unitec having received pay increases last year when union members did not.

Three months ago TEU members entered the employment negotiations with a very limited set of their own claims, seeking a two year term and an increase in pay and allowances of 3 percent per annum. By comparison, MIT is seeking significant changes to the existing collective agreement clauses on workloads and hours of work.

MIT wants to increase the number of working hours to a minimum of 75 per fortnight. The employer also wants to make changes to discretionary leave so as to reduce it over time, and to remove quarterly timetabled teaching hour protections and annual teaching day protections.

TEU members are scheduled to hold a stop work meeting next Thursday to discuss their response to these proposals from their employer. They also will be voting on whether to initiate an industrial campaign, if they deem it to be necessary.

TEU branch president Lesley Francey said that members were not happy with the offer as it stood.

“Members feel angry and disappointed that their employer is trying to screw yet more out of them, especially when there are so many new initiatives at MIT already on the go,” said Ms Francey. “Why are they not trying to take staff with them to overcome problems we can all agree on, rather than pick an unnecessary fight with us?”

Thanks to Codgdogblog @ Flickr for the photo