TEU - Tertiary Education Union » workload

Submission to MIT on the Proposed Restructure of Faculty of Consumer Services and the Schools of Hair and Beauty

TEU — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:50:32 +0000

TEU has raised at an institute-wide level our concern about the ‘imperative’ contained in this and other proposals – in this case, that the Faculty must reduce the staff budget to save $248,904.

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.

[1] See Wrigley Kelly v Massey for case law supporting the application of this requirement

Submission on MIT’s Proposed Staff Reductions in the Faculty of Engineering and Trades

TEU — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 23:46:58 +0000

TEU has raised at an institute-wide level our concern about the ‘imperative’ contained in this and other proposals – in this case, that the “Faculty must reduce the staff to save $1.2M.

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

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

Consultants

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

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

	Proposal	From School	From TTH
Electrical	2.1	0	0.26
Horticulture	2.2	2.2	0.55
Building and Construction	3.5	0.8	1.3
Mechanical and Trades	1.4	1.35	0.78
Automotive	1.9	add 2.04	add 1.3
Total	-11.1	-2.31	-1.59

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

Submission on the MIT Faculty of Business Staff Reduction Proposal

TEU — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 23:28:15 +0000

TEU has raised at an institute-wide level our concern about the ‘imperatives’ contained in this and other proposals – in this case, that the “Faculty must reduce the staff budget, and if there is any change to the staffing numbers from what is proposed, that others will then have to be allocated additional work above what has been already allocated.

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

Information

Review drivers

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.

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.
Averaging 640 and allocating more for some staff because other colleagues are doing things which are beyond attendant duties
Not counting course redevelopment as an additional activity as per clause 5.2.1
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.

We are happy to discuss any part of our submission

NorthTec can’t settle

TEU — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 21:52:55 +0000

Tertiary Update Vol 14 No 46

NorthTec is currently trying to cut working conditions and extend teaching hours for its staff, when most other polytechnics around the country have come to amicable settlements with their staff in the last two months.

NorthTec, one of only two remaining ex-MECA ITPs yet to settle with its TEU staff members, is seeking to remove all limits on timetabled teaching hours and maximum number of teaching days from staff working conditions, as well as reducing leave for new staff, so they can teach more.

NorthTec CEO Paul Binney told TEU negotiators that getting fewer staff doing more work wasn’t immediately underpinning his employment offer, but he added:

“Let’s not duck that topic. That has to be an objective going forward. We need to be more productive and efficient so need to do more for less.”

This has led to the situation where TEU members at NorthTec today begin a ballot for industrial action, at the same time that TEU members elsewhere around the country are holding ratification ballots.

“Given the settled environment elsewhere, we anticipate a concentrated effort at NorthTec next year”, said Organiser Chan Dixon, “although their employer’s unreasonable position is hardly the ‘ho ho ho’ that TEU members at NorthTec want as they head towards the summer break, especially after more than three years without an increase to their salary.”

Also in Tertiary Update this week:

Other news

Tertiary Education Union UCOL branch president Tina Smith voices her support for locked-out CMP workers at a protest near a McDonald’s outlet, in Palmerston North – Photo in the Manawatu Standard

Lincoln University has closed two buildings after a detailed engineering inspection. Vice-chancellor Roger Field said today the Hilgendorf Wing (including the TEU office) and the Student Union building would be shut until further notice – The Press

The University of Canterbury will rely on its implicit Government guarantee to meet payments to investors on its unrated 10-year bonds after the earthquakes scared off students – TVNZ

New Zealand has really done little more than keep up with inflation until the last three years when expenditure has started to increase, but even now we are probably still at 60 to 70 percent of what appears to be an international consensus on the appropriate level of public expenditure committed to research by other small advanced nations. There is evidence that private sector spending only starts to increase when a critical mass of activity flows from the public sector – Sir Peter Gluckman, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor.

Many workers with caring responsibilities want flexible working arrangements and/or part-time hours. But there is no evidence to suggest these workers want casual work. Research suggests they are forced to accept casual work or other types of insecure work because they are unable to access quality on-going part-time work – The University of South Australia and the Workplace Research Centre debunk five myths about insecure work.

Speech by TEU president to Lincoln AGM

TEU — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 01:39:41 +0000

Lincoln University TEU Branch AGM – 21 September 2011

It’s election year – Who cares?

Sandra Grey, President Tertiary Education Union

Commentators are lamenting the fact that with the world cup rugby on, that’s where all attention is diverted. This means no one cares about the election at the moment.

But there is deeper problem and that is the number of people who are not enrolled or don’t vote if they are enrolled.

71% of 18-24 year olds NOT enrolled
About 10% of whole population are not enrolled.
In terms of our membership, around 10 per cent of members details do not match information held by the electoral agencies – so may not be enrolled correctly or at all.
Also there are 650,000 enrolled voters who did not vote last election

This disengagement from politics threatened legitimacy of system and immediately impacts on outcome of elections. So how do we get people interested, enrolled, and voting?

The only way to make people care about politics and election is to make it real for them. People want to talk about how politics has impacted upon them, their families, their friends, and their communities. For our members and the students we teach this means talking about a range of political decisions that have impacted upon our daily lives inside universities. Firstly, we need to talk to our members about the cuts in real funding which we’ve seen under the John Key government. And the news from Treasury figures just gets worse if you look out to the next election in 2014.

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. Certainly we can see very clearly in Tertiary Education Commission figures that there has been rise in the student:staff ratio. This has real impacts on staff and students in our tertiary education sector.

But it’s just not in terms of financial investment that the National-led government has let down New Zealand’s universities, polytechnics, and waananga. There have been changes to the way decision-making is carried out that is detrimental to the tertiary sector. First of all the government changed the composition of the Councils of polytechnics, stripping out staff and student representation. Why does this matter? Because our professional expertise and knowledge should be acknowledged and incorporated into decision-making.

But more recently the John Key government passed the Voluntary Student Membership Act which will effectively collapse student associations around NZ. And who will have to pick up the extra work generated because there is no longer a sound student-run volunteer base for dealing with a range of issues faced by students – staff. This will add a burden to already overworked staff.

So we need to make all staff and students to speak up for education. We also need to convince our families and friends to be passionate about public tertiary education. We need them to know the tertiary education sector is in crisis and this has implications for them and for. There is no doubt that poorly devised government policy is impacting upon our sector and this has resulted in concerted attacks on the tertiary education sector. As a result the conditions of work in the tertiary education sector, crucial conditions that make the sector function, are being attacked by employers in order to meet the government’s drive for greater productivity and economic efficiency.

What can help you to speak up for public tertiary education this election? We have a public tertiary education policy for the TEU which covers the broad philosophical ideals that can be used to defend public education. You can find lots of examples in Tertiary Update of attacks on our conditions of work and the job losses that have come about through underfunding which you can share with people. You can take time to point out that our conditions of work are the students’ conditions of learning. When the government fundamentally changes the staffing levels and conditions of staff, this impacts on the quality of learning that can occur. The only thing that holds New Zealand’s tertiary sector together at the moment is good will of staff who passionately defend quality education and go beyond the call of duty to deliver. And you can stress to all voter that the social and economic advancement means NZ should invest in good quality public education.

And what sorts of actions are needed in the lead up to the election. We need TEU members to take a little bit of time to increase awareness of the difficulties facing staff and students in the tertiary sector. This could mean simply putting up a poster (say the illustrations above) on a noticeboard in your institution, showing just what effect underfunding has. You could perhaps take the time to talk with colleagues about the impact of government policies. And most of all spend a little bit of time talking with friends and families about what it means for tertiary education to be under such strain – what it means for them. If you’re are feeling energetic, what about popping along to a candidate forum and political parties what they plan to do for education as a whole, and tertiary education in particular.

Just take some time between now and November 26 to speak up for tertiary education.

NTEU national conference speech

TEU — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 01:12:42 +0000

Sandra Grey, National President, NZTEU

Melbourne, 7 October 2011

New Zealand is in the middle of Rugby World Cup fever. In every city and town I visit, there are signs welcoming visiting teams and supporters; events to ensure they enjoy their time in New Zealand; and, of course plenty of All Blacks flags, shirts, and posters. Go the Blacks. Front pages have been adorned with stories about the injuries suffered by our rugby elite and what this means for us as a nation.

While the rugby has been fun to watch and the general ‘party’ that has been generated by the Rugby World Cup has been great to be part of, there is a problem with rugby fever – it is pushing from sight the extremely serious political issues facing the country and the difficulties in public education.

When glancing at the news, you would hardly know that New Zealand is eight weeks from a general election and a major referendum on our electoral system

When glancing at the news, you would hardly know that New Zealand is eight weeks from a general election and a major referendum on our electoral system. You would hardly know that New Zealand has just had a credit downgrade; that there is high unemployment (youth unemployment has skyrocketed to 27 percent in the last six months) and rising inequality; that our students’ associations have just been ‘condemned to obscurity’ by a voluntary student membership law; and that is just to mention a few of the key political issues facing New Zealand.

In the New Zealand tertiary education sector we are struggling to find spaces in which we can raise our concerns about the government’s on-going pressure on the tertiary sector and what this means for staff, students, and the communities they come from. And there are serious pressures facing the sector which come from the very direction being required of our institutions by the government.

The New Zealand government’s Tertiary Education Strategy contains within it a drive for ‘increased productivity’ and ‘increased accountability’ for public expenditure. The market-model approach underpinning the strategy has created a range of disputes in universities and polytechnics that threaten the very essence of public tertiary education – the very essence of universities and vocational training. In fact, I would argue that the current government’s approach to higher education and vocational training has pushed the tertiary education sector to capacity and it is now starting to crumble around us.

A round-up of the actions of members of the New Zealand Tertiary Education Union from the last few months signal that this is a sector under immense strain. Members at CPIT (the polytechnic in Christchurch which is supposed to be at the forefront of training workers for the rebuild of the city after all the earthquakes) held a full week of strike action to defend core conditions; members at the University of Auckland are currently carrying out industrial action to defend their core conditions (withholding information for our research assessment exercise PBRF); we have seen lightning strikes at WelTec; stop work meetings at the University of Canterbury, NMIT, and WelTec; public rallies and demonstrations at five polytechnics (Whitireia, NorthTec, Unitec, BoPP, Wintec), at the University of Auckland, and at Victoria University of Wellington. The demonstrations have not just involved staff but students as well.

Interestingly in almost all cases there are two issues at the heart of the disputes our members are engaged in and both of these are based in the deep desire held by university and polytechnic staff to defend accessible quality public tertiary education. The two issues are the defence of core conditions which enable quality research and teaching in the tertiary sector; and the interconnected issue is an attempt to defend (or reclaim) professional autonomy.

First, to the on-going attack on core conditions for research and teaching which is being played out in the New Zealand tertiary sector. At both our universities and polytechnics this has been an issue in 2011 and will continue to be an issue into 2012. I will use two examples to illustrate this issue:

The on-going industrial action at the University of Auckland
And the on-going industrial action at CPIT

At the University of Auckland, our members are seeking to defend a range of core conditions which currently sit in their collective agreement – including clauses on research and study leave, promotions criteria, and disciplinary guidelines. The vice chancellor is demanding academics agree to move these core conditions that are crucial to academics doing their job out of their collective agreement and into policy over which they would have no control.

The unionised academic staff are wise enough to know that it is not worth trading off these conditions for a 4 percent pay rise, and earlier this year even offered to take a nil pay increase if their conditions were left in the collective agreement. Why? Because the core conditions being defended by academic staff are not privileges or perks, they relate directly to ensuring quality education and research at the university.”

Before moving on I would like to take this moment to thank Graham and NTEU for your support in this dispute. As was noted yesterday during your deliberations universities and their vice-chancellors want to protect their public image, and having unions and academics from around the world criticising their actions helps our members to push their case.

Back to the Auckland academics from our union who are defending their core conditions. They know there is no such thing as a free lunch in the tertiary education sector. And this has been made clear by the vice-chancellor of Auckland who stated in a letter to staff who took the pay rise (non-union staff): ‘I need to make it clear that the University can afford a salary increase such as this [4 percent offer] for academic staff only if we can achieve the administrative efficiencies and realise the productivity gains that will follow from the changes to the employment agreements’ (Proposed Salary Increase Offer for 2011, 25 November 2010).

Our members at the University of Auckland have argued that universities are required to operate on evidence-based research and reasoned argument. The vice-chancellor argues that changing the collective agreement will create efficiencies and increase productivity. But he has produced no information to show how savings equivalent to 4 percent of academic salaries would be achieved from changes to research and study leave, discipline procedures, academic criteria for promotions and external employment policy.

Similar demands for changes to core conditions to ensure ‘productivity’ gains are seen at polytechnic sites across New Zealand. Here our members find they are being asked to ‘sell’ their ‘discretionary’ leave back to their employer, to increase their teaching hours, and increase the hours they are required to be ‘at work’ (physically available for duties), in order to increase productivity and justify pay rises.

Last week while at CPIT in Christchurch a number of members pointed out what attacks on their hours of work actually mean. Currently they are required to be at the institution for 34 hours a week; but the employer wants to change their collective agreement and require them to be available for contact for 40 hours a week. Bear in mind that this is not the totality of their jobs. The maths is simple over the working year at the polytechnics, which is 43 weeks that would mean 258 hours more work – over six weeks extra ‘work’ every year, six weeks extra that our members would have to make themselves available on the CPIT campus every year. What is being offered in return? Nothing.

For staff who have worked beyond the call of duty this year to make sure students received quality teaching and learning while the city was being besieged by earthquakes the calls for them to work harder and to be more flexible about when and how they teach is galling.

The calls for ‘more productivity’ are unjustified and unnecessary. These demands for rising 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

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.

All of this ‘increased productivity’ has come at a cost. In the terms of what our employers care about and the government, they have cost New Zealand institutions in terms of their reputations. While international rankings of universities are somewhat flawed, we recently noted that in the QS world rankings five of the six surveyed New Zealand universities fell down the international rankings ladder – probably due to the rising staff: student ratios among other things. And the Times Higher Education rankings released today show a similar downward slide for New Zealand institutions on the whole.

In terms of our members, the attacks on core conditions mean increased workloads, a rise in insecure work, a decline in overall morale on campuses (which has serious implications for a sector which runs on good will), and, rising bullying on campuses.

The attack on core conditions at heart is also an attack on professional autonomy at our institutions. This is clearly what is seen with regard the demands by the University of Auckland’s vice-chancellor who is insisting that academic staff be subject to ‘managerial will’ in regard important conditions for research and research-led teaching.

Another example of these attacks on professional autonomy is being noted by members at Victoria University Wellington and at the University of Canterbury.

At Victoria University of Wellington, a range of academic programmes have been closed or reorganised with no academic input and no real consideration of the research and teaching needs of the institution and the New Zealand community.

A ground breaking case for us will be the decision by the university to make three lecturers in political science redundant, while not changing the teachings of the programme they work within. The university is not giving financial arguments for the redundancies, which is how it has justified a range of programme closures and job cuts over the last year, in fact it has committed to putting more money into the programme. What Victoria University management has said is that they want some changes in the direction of the political science programme and so needs to make the three lecturers redundant in order to hire three more senior staff who can reposition the programmes teaching (though they are being hired to teach some of the courses of the now sacked ‘lecturers’).

This is the first time that we have seen senior management dictating the exact teaching to be carried out within a programme. It seems at Victoria University of Wellington, control over degree programmes has moved from being the prerogative of the academic professionals of the institutions, to the realm of the managerial professional. We as professionals who are interested in teaching and learning cannot handover control of our academic courses to ‘managers’. It is crucial that staff, alongside students, have a say in the courses that we teach at an institution, for it is us who know what is happening currently in our academic disciplines around the globe.

And NZTEU will need to look at using New Zealand’s Education Act which includes academic freedom clauses. I would question whether Victoria University is meeting the demands of the law that a university be a place “primarily concerned with more advanced learning, the principal aim being to develop intellectual independence”. It seems this institution is not respecting intellectual independence. Neither is it ensuring that they respect the legal obligation to ensure that they be “a repository of knowledge and expertise” that has a “role as critic and conscience of society”. This last role of universities as mandated in law in New Zealand includes the role that staff of universities have in being ‘critic and conscience’ on their own campuses!

I do want to mention one battle to defend ‘critic and conscience’ objectives of the Education Act which played out in a very vibrant and colourful way. As part of the ongoing industrial dispute at the University of Auckland staff and students wore yellow rosettes to the graduation. Attempts were made to take these rosettes of a law student, Vernon Tava, before he graduated and this made headline news. It was an embarrassment for the university to have the dispute and the actions to ban protest emblazoned across the front pages of local and national papers. Small acts can create extensive disruption.

But back to the issue of attacks on the voice of university staff and their professional autonomy.

Staff at another institution, University of Canterbury, also this week met and argued that their professional autonomy and their professional expertise is being swept aside as the institution undergoes massive change.

As you will all be aware, the city of Christchurch has suffered a series of serious earthquakes over the last 13 months. This has meant a reduction in the numbers of students at the tertiary institutions in the city – in particular with regard to first year students. And in a market model this can only mean one thing, the institution must ‘downsize’ to cope with the drop in revenue. This is an untenable position and we are continually arguing with the government and the SMT of the institutions that they are looking too short term with regard this crisis. As was noted at a stop work meeting at the University of Canterbury on Monday – what is a short term civil defense emergency must not become a long term crisis for the university, its staff, its students, and the community.

What the staff at the university noted at a stopwork meeting on Monday on this issue was that

they have never been more consulted and less listened to

“they have never been more consulted and less listened to” than they are at this moment in time. Staff have called for management to actively involve them as part of the recovery of Christchurch, as an asset or investment, not a cost. They want their professional opinions and their expertise to be taken seriously, and have vowed to hold a public campaign (even though they are all exhausted from the efforts of the last year) to ensure that the university does take them seriously.

These attacks on core conditions and the professional voice in the tertiary education sector is being driven by the government’s market approach to education provision. Rising managerialism and an overarching distrust of the ‘public sector’ is creating a tense environment for our members. Once respected as autonomous professionals who would engage in collegial governance, both academic and general staff at universities and polytechnics around New Zealand have found themselves being told ‘they are lucky to have a job at all’ and ‘should feel privileged to teach’.

TEU members in New Zealand are clearly saying back – they are proud to teach and will defend quality public tertiary education with every means they have at their disposal. After all, as was said at Education International world congress this year “our conditions of teaching are our students’ conditions of learning”. We need the public and the government to acknowledge that quality teaching and learning in the tertiary sector is not something that is just ‘nice to have’, the cherry on top of the sundae that is compulsory education, it is crucial to the social, political, and economic wellbeing of New Zealand.

Last chance for moderate solution to student bill

TEU — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 21:42:37 +0000

Today is likely to be the third and last reading of the Act Party’s voluntary student membership bill and thus it is also Parliament’s last chance to come up with a more moderate proposal.

“If Act does not like compulsory students’ associations that is fine,” said TEU national president Sandra Grey. “And it is welcome to have that political battle with the associations themselves. However, this bill goes way beyond that. It threatens to undermine crucial student support and pastoral care, increase staff workloads, put financial pressure on tertiary institutions and undermine the culture and vibrancy of many campuses.”

“Staff, like most other people at tertiary institutions, don’t want this legislation,” said Dr Grey. “They know if students’ associations can no longer organise and fund their own support networks, advocacy and sporting and cultural events, then those things either will not happen, or staff will be asked to do them instead on already restricted budgets. The result will be lower quality student services, staff with higher workloads and universities and polytechnics with less money to spend on their core jobs of education and research.”

For more information:

Dr Sandra Grey, TEU national president, 021 844 176 or 04 801 5098
Stephen Day, TEU communications officer, 021 2900 734 or 04 801 4792

http://www.teu.ac.nz

A guide to branch committee positions

TEU — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 22:43:51 +0000

August 2011

Note:

For further information about these roles, please contact your branch president, branch organiser, or the TEU national office

Open publication – Free publishing – More branches

The TEU branch
Branch president
Branch secretary
Branch treasurer
Recruitment/Membership Officer
Te Uepū representative
Women’s representative (for a fuller description please refer to the specific guide for this role)
General staff representative (for a fuller description please refer to the specific guide for this role)
Branch administrator
Appendix 1: Relevant sections about branches from the union’s Rules
- C. Branches

The TEU branch

This document serves as a guide to branches to assist you in setting up your representative structure – we hope you find it useful. We would also love to hear from your branch if you have useful tips or ideas that could be shared with other TEU members.

A branch of the union is able to be formed where there are 25 or more members of the union at a single institution and employed by the same employer. Branches exist to further the objects of the union – on a practical level this means activities such as:

working with the branch organiser to support members;
recruiting new members;
participating in bargaining for new collective agreements;
running campaigns, social activities and branch meetings;
representing members at conference, and in some cases on national committees of the union.

The union’s Rules provide a basic outline of the requirements for running a branch, such as what branch positions must be provided for. However in general branches are free to organise themselves as they see fit, within these parameters.

Branch president

The branch president is a vital role in a well-organised branch. Individuals who take on this role will be given training and support to assist them in performing their duties.

Some branches choose to have co-presidents, to share the workload involved in ensuring the branch and its executive runs smoothly. Sharing the duties of branch president also provides collegial support, and the potential for a broader range of skills and knowledge being brought to the role.

Some institutions provide a leave allocation for branch presidents, recognising the value of the position to employment relations within the organisation. Check your collective agreement to find out about entitlements at your institution.

The branch president role may include some or all of these tasks:

Leads the branch executive. In consultation with the branch organiser, may provide low-level representation when members require this.
Seeks guidance and support from their branch organiser in attempting to resolve employment relationship problems at the lowest possible level.
In consultation with the branch organiser, makes representations to the employer on behalf of individuals and/or groups of employees.
In consultation with the branch organiser, ensures industrial harmony is supported by providing ready, quick and formal responses to concerns raised by the employer.
Is an obvious link to members at a local level, in particular for new members.
Acts as an immediate contact person for Human Resource staff when employment issues are raised.
Represents members on the negotiation team when renewing the collective agreement.
Assigns responsibilities to members of the branch executive.

Branch secretary

Records minutes of branch executive meetings and other meetings as required.
Deals with inward and outward correspondence.
Circulates minutes of meetings to branch members.
Maintains branch files and records (with the branch president and the membership officer in the TEU national office).

Branch treasurer

Maintains branch financial records and provides these to the union’s national office for auditing purposes.
Responsible for banking branch finances.
Updates branch executive regarding branch funds at executive meetings.
Liaises with the national office administration manager.

Recruitment/Membership Officer

Ensures there is a branch process in place for recruiting new staff including distributing recruitment material from the national office and where appropriate developing local recruitment information.
Liaises with the national office administrator (membership), particularly in regards to obtaining reports and information about membership figures for the branch.

Te Uepū representative

Selected by Māori members of the branch
Branch contact person for te toi ahurangi and the pou tuarā.
May act as a spokesperson for Māori in the branch about issues of concern to them.
May be called on by Māori members of the branch to act as a support person when dealing with employment relationship problems. This will always be done in consultation with the branch organiser and the pou tuarā.
Keeps Māori members in the branch updated about current events/issues that may be of importance to them.
Represents Māori members at hui-ā-motu.

Women’s representative

(for a fuller description please refer to the specific guide for this role)

Selected by women members of the branch.
Branch contact person for the national women’s vice president.
Acts as spokeswoman for women in the branch on issues of concern to them.
May be called on by women members of the branch to act as a support person when dealing with employment relationship problems in consultation with the branch organiser.
Keeps women of the branch updated about current events/issues that may be of importance to them.

General staff representative

(for a fuller description please refer to the specific guide for this role)

Selected by general staff members of the branch.
Branch contact person for the general staff sector group and national office staff.
May act as a spokesperson for general staff in the branch about issues of concern to them.
Keeps general staff members in the branch updated about events and issues that may be of interest to them.

Branch administrator

Each branch executive has the delegated authority to employ a person for a certain number of hours a year (worked out on the basis of each branch’s membership) to help with the smooth running of the branch. This is a formal employment relationship and should be treated as such.

The branch administrator is there to assist in the smooth running of the branch, not to completely take over the tasks previously carried out by branch officials.

Before deciding to employ someone the branch executive needs to do some careful planning and give consideration to the following:

where is the person going to work:
is there office space?
what about equipment?
what are the real needs of the branch?
what is the difference between the role of the elected branch secretary and that of the person employed as a branch administrator?

Some tasks which could be done by the branch support person include:

word processing, photocopying,
pigeon holing, taking messages,
updating membership files, filing,
mailouts, updating branch noticeboards,
dealing with correspondence

The branch should also contact the administration manager in the national office to discuss the employment of a branch administrator, or if they have any concerns about this employment relationship.

Appendix 1: Relevant sections about branches from the union’s Rules

C. Branches

9. Branches

A branch of the union shall be formed where there are 25 or more members of the union at a single institution and employed by the same employer. Branches with fewer than 25 members and existing at 31 December 2008 shall continue in operation. The council shall have the power to establish branches in circumstances other than those set out above and to disestablish branches that are no longer operational.
The objects of each branch shall be the objects of the union set out in clause 3.
There shall be a President, Treasurer or Secretary-Treasurer, Women’s Committee, Te Kahurangi Māreikuraand Te Uepū representative in each branch and, in addition, there may be such other officers as the Branch may from time to time determine. The additional officers may, wherever possible, include an immediate past-president or presidents, a vice-president, a membership officer and sector representatives.
Where, by resolution of the outgoing branch committee, it is resolved to share the office of president between two co-presidents, the two co-presidents shall act together with all the powers and responsibilities of a branch president as provided for in the rules.
Branch presidents or their delegated nominees shall be able to speak publicly on behalf of the branch on local issues within the rules and policy of the union.
A branch treasurer or secretary-treasurer retiring from office shall complete the branch accounts for the current financial year and ensure that a statement of accounts is presented to the next general meeting of the branch. A branch treasurer vacating the office during the financial year shall present an interim statement of branch accounts to the branch committee.
The branch committee shall comprise the officers and such number of other members who should, as far as possible, represent the broad membership of the branch, all of whom shall be members of the branch and elected annually by the members of the branch at its annual general meeting and whose term of office shall commence at the start of the next academic year.
Council representatives and elected members of sector or national committees who are members of a branch shall be ex officio members of the committee of the branch to which they belong.
The branch immediate past-president or presidents shall be a member or members of the branch committee for one year only after vacating the presidency or co-presidency, but shall be eligible thereafter for election as a branch officer or as an ordinary member of the branch committee.
The branch committee shall have the power to co-opt such non-voting members as it sees fit, including staff representatives on the governing bodies of institutions employing members of the union.
In the event of a casual vacancy occurring among the members of the branch committee other than a women’s, Māori, or sector representative, such a vacancy shall be filled by the branch committee by co-option. In the event of a casual vacancy occurring in the case of a women’s, Māori, or sector representative, the relevant branch constituency shall appoint a replacement. A co-opted or appointed member shall retain the position until the next annual general meeting of the branch, provided always that only a financial member of the branch shall be eligible to fill any such casual vacancy.

10. Election of branch officers and position-holders

Before the branch annual general meeting, the branch committee shall call for nominations from the members of the branch for the various branch officers, general committee members, and annual conference delegates. Nominations must be seconded and must have the written consent of the nominee. In the case of the election of women’s, Māori, and sector representatives on the branch committee, only the constituency comprising those members of the branch represented by each of those position-holders shall be eligible to nominate and vote.
For each election the branch committee shall appoint a returning officer who shall be in charge of the ballot. Candidates for any office or position shall not be eligible to be returning officers but shall be permitted to nominate, on their behalf, scrutineers to attend the counting of any relevant ballot.
If the number of nominations does not exceed the required number to fill the relevant vacant offices or positions, the candidates shall be declared elected unopposed by the returning officer.
If the number of nominations exceeds the required number to fill any relevant vacant office or position, the returning officer shall make all the necessary arrangements for an election by secret ballot at the branch annual general meeting of all members attending and eligible to vote.
If no nominations have been received for any such office or position, nominations may be called for the vacant positions at the branch annual general meeting. Nominations must be seconded and must have the consent of the nominee. If the number of nominations exceeds the required number to fill any relevant vacant offices or positions, the returning officer shall make all the necessary arrangements for an election by secret postal ballot of all members eligible to vote, to close two weeks after the close of nominations.
If no nominations are received in respect of any such office or position at the branch annual general meeting, the incoming branch committee may call for nominations for the vacant position. Nominations must be seconded and must have the consent of the nominee. If the number of nominations exceeds the required number to fill any relevant vacant offices or positions, the returning officer shall make all the necessary arrangements for an election by secret postal ballot of all members eligible to vote, to close two weeks after the close of nominations.
Should the preceding balloting provisions be exhausted, and an office or position remain vacant, the branch committee may, by resolution, fill the vacancy by co-option.

11. Branch meetings

A branch annual general meeting of members shall be held no later than 30 September in each year to receive a report of the branch committee and a financial report, to elect branch officers and position-holders, and to conduct such other business as has been determined by the branch committee and advised to members at least fourteen days before the date of the meeting.
The branch committee may hold general meetings of the branch at such times as it shall determine and they shall be advised to members at least seven days before the date of the meeting together with notice of the business to be conducted. General meetings, in addition to the annual general meeting, shall be held at least twice in each calendar year.
In the case of urgency, the branch committee may call a special general meeting at such notice as the circumstances may require with notice of the business to be conducted.
Not less than ten members of a branch may request in writing that the branch committee call a general or special general meeting. The meeting shall be called not later than three days after the request is received by the branch committee and advised to members with notice of the business to be conducted at least seven days before the date of the meeting.
The minutes of branch annual general, general, and special general meetings shall be made available to members and forwarded to the national office of the union not later than 28 days after the date of the meeting.
The branch committee shall meet regularly throughout the year to manage the business of the branch between general meetings subject to the rules of the union.
The branch committee shall prepare an annual report to the branch annual general meeting and to the annual conference of the union setting out the composition of the branch committee, the number of general and committee meetings held during the year, any other activities of the branch, membership and recruitment, and major issues confronting the branch.
The branch president shall take the chair at all meetings of the branch except that, in the absence of the president, a vice-president shall take the chair and except that, in the absence of a vice-president, a member present and elected by the meeting shall take the chair.
The quorum for a general meeting of a branch shall be 10 percent of the branch membership or 20 members, whichever is the less, except that, in the absence of a quorum, resolutions carried at the meeting shall be submitted to the next general meeting of the branch for ratification. The quorum for a meeting of the branch committee shall be 50 percent plus one of the voting members of the branch committee.
Each member present at a general meeting of the branch shall be entitled to one vote and voting shall normally be by show of hands, except that, upon the request of 10 percent of the members present, voting shall be by secret ballot. Decisions of a general meeting of a branch shall be by simple majority of voting members present, except that any member shall be entitled to nominate a proxy to vote on that member’s behalf, provided that the member notify the chair of such nomination not later than the beginning of the meeting at which the proxy is to act and provided that no member shall be entitled to act as proxy for more than one other member at any meeting. In the event of equality of votes, the chair of the meeting shall have a casting as well as a deliberative vote.
Decisions of the branch committee shall be by simple majority of voting members present and, in the event of equality of votes, the chair of the meeting shall have a casting as well as a deliberative vote.

Celebrating General Staff

Tracey Morgan — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 01:04:42 +0000

This edition of the branch newsletter is focussed on celebrating the contributions our general/allied staff make to the life and community of the university.

We have profiled some of our members to display the diversity, excellence and support to all of us who are part of the university community.

PROFILES OF GENERAL STAFF MEMBERS AT WAIKATO

Annie Barker has worked at the University of Waikato as a Technician in the Chemistry department for approximately 18 years. She has been actively involved with union activities since first joining NZ Technicians Union as Secretary of our local branch, then involved with AUS after the amalgamation of the librarians and technicians with other staff on campus. Since the amalgamation with AUS, Annie has served AUS members in various capacities as Branch President, Technicians Rep, Bargaining committee member, Ordinary committee member, Member Representative, and Contact person for her department and school. She is currently a University Sector Rep. on the National General Staff Sector Group in TEU. Annie is committed to improving the working lives of all staff on campus but in particular to improving and enhancing the conditions of general staff. Work load and career opportunity/progression are two issues which she would like TEU to focus on this year, but there are of course many other issues that can be worked on together and Annie would like to stress the importance of your contribution to achieving improvement for yourself and others. General Staff really are the Heart of the University.

Pip Bruce Ferguson has worked at the University of Waikato as a Teaching Developer in the Teaching Development Unit for approximately three years. Pip joined the university after many years of work at Wintec, AUT and Te Wānanga o Aotearoa as well as independent research consultancy. She originally worked as a primary teacher and has been an active member of NZEI, ASTE and now TEU across her working life.

Rod Arnold is the Residential Manager for College Hall and has been a member of both AUS and TEU. Prior to this he worked in the polytechnic sector for 13 years as a general staff member in the student recruitment/ career counselling area and was on the National Executive of the polytechnic general staff union TIASA for six years, spending 18 months as their union organiser/advocate in Wellington prior to returning with his family to his homeland in the Waikato/BOP regions. He had a rest from Branch committee involvement while he got to grips with the demands and workload of pastoral care to 327 students, plus the challenge of completing a law degree part-time. Currently Rod is a Branch Committee Member and has been a union member since commencing public service in 1985.

University of Waikato EXCELLENCE Award Winners

As the theme of this newsletter is recognition of our general/allied staff members and the contributions they make to the life of the university, we thought it appropriate to again recognise those who won an Excellence Award in the 2010 round. Below are the details of those winners who were presented with their awards by the Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Roy Crawford at an Awards ceremony in December 2010:

Administrative Excellence Awards (carries a monetary prize, four winners in this category)

An Administrative Excellence Award was received by Allison Henry, from the Library. Allison was previously the Team Leader of the Shelving Unit within the Library, but was seconded to the role of Project Co-ordinator to oversee the logistics and liaison associated with the physical changes needed to refurbish the Library building as it evolved into the new Student Centre. She was nominated for this award by the Head of Facilities Management because her efforts made the role of FMD in such a complex project considerably easier through her cheerfulness, high degree of organisational skill, honesty and professionalism. Her efforts have resulted in reduced time allowed for the decanting of various services within the Library and greatly aided the construction programme.

Trudy Harris, who is the Teaching Developer (Evaluation and Quality) within the Teaching Development Unit, was also a recipient of the Administrative Excellence Award in 2010. Trudy’s personal and professional initiative and contribution in relation to teaching quality have been extensive. Her work has contributed to the improvement of teaching evaluation and quality for individuals, Faculties, and the university as a whole. She has worked tirelessly to develop a system of paper and teaching appraisals which are both credible for the institution and palatable to staff, and her professionalism, her institutional vision and her research capability have all contributed to a highly valued and useful system.

Health and Safety Award (recognises significant contributions to health and safety across the university and the recipient receives $5,000 and a trophy created by Donn Ratana)

This award was made to Jane Goodbehere for the huge expansion in her role as Health and Safety Representative for the Library during the refurbishment She carries this role in addition to her normal role as a Library Assistant in the New Zealand Collection. She has had to be constantly vigilant about existing hazards and had to identify new hazards which have emerged on an almost daily basis as a result of Library staff working within a constantly changing building site. Her attention to detail has ensured that there have been no accidents associated with the building project and that potential hazards have been dealt with quickly and effectively.

Owen and Mandy from the Union Plus team joined us this year at our General Staff Day function at the Hamilton campus, and provided a gift basket for a prize draw for all enquiries received on the day. It was great to have them there, and we will have them back on campus for a seminar (or two) this year.

Firstly, congratulations to Takashi Aota, the gift basket winner – well done to you, enjoy!

Thank you for having us along to support the fantastic initiatives that the TEU has underway {General Staff Day].

As your financial services partners we strive to give Union Members honest, class leading advice and their specialists will be making contact with those interested members over the next week.

Warm regards,

Owen Grauman
Financial Services Manager, Group Plus

OTHER NEWS …

Pay Increases

Just a reminder to everyone, that although we are not bargaining the CEAs’ this year there is a negotiated pay increase of 2% which took effect from 1 August 2011. You should have noticed the change in your pays over the last few weeks depending on which pay cycle you are in.

Branch Annual General Meeting

The branch AGM will be held on Wednesday, 21^st September 2011 in S.G.03 at 1pm. If you are interested in being involved as a local branch activist/committee member please see the separate AGM newsletter for more details.

University Reviews Update

FASS – virtually completed or so we thought! Through their resolution, action and solidarity the faculty members have managed to withstand proposals to significantly cut academic numbers. Following various iterations of the change proposal the union action has saved a number of jobs, and significantly only one 0.5 FTE academic position was forcibly made redundant (the union has challenged this and is currently awaiting mediation).

A new review proposal was advised to affected staff in the Languages late last week. Consultation with that group of staff will now start, and the union is meeting with, and working with members to prepare submissions to respond to the proposal.

WMS – It was proposed that 9 Senior Tutor/Tutor positions were to be disestablished within the School. The review has now been completed, and, although the positions themselves were all disestablished, no one was made redundant as all the affected members were redeployed into other academic and general staff positions.

Unfortunately though, as many of you will be aware, one of our members passed away during the review process. James McIntosh was a valued and respected member of the WMS Marketing department who has had significant involvement in their 499 supervision of students over the years. He is sadly missed by his colleagues and students alike.

Obituaries

As many of you may be aware Rangiiria Hedley passed away earlier in the year. Sadly more recently, Natana Takurua has also passed away. Both were staff members in the School of Māori and Pacific Development. They will always remain treasured friends and colleagues of both staff and students in the School.

Rangiiria (Ngāti Tūwharetoa) started at the university in 2003, and her primary teaching area was that of taonga puoro, traditional Māori instruments.

Natana (Ngati Porou, Tokomaru Bay) started at the university, first as a student in the inaugural Te Tohu Paetahi class (1991) and then later as an academic staff member in Reo, Natana taught primarily in the Te Tohu Paetahi programme. Natana opted to take voluntary redundancy late last year in the review of SMPD which saw three academic positions disestablished.

They are both sorely missed by their colleagues, students and the wider community for their contributions over the years.

Leave Issues

As noted in the previous newsletter, we have done some work with members, payroll and HR around some issues that have come up for members with understanding annual leave calculations. For most staff members, their leave balances and entitlements should be relatively simple to understand, but for those who don’t work a ‘standard’ 37.5 (or 40 in some areas of FMD) hour week the calculations around your leave entitlements may be different. This fact has created some confusion over understanding how much leave members may have, as well as how that leave was calculated. If anyone has any questions about how much or how leave is calculated, please call payroll, as the staff are happy to help explain it to you. Alternatively you can call the union office and we can assist also.

Community News

Due to the Christchurch earthquake the proposed day of action regarding the Fairness at Work issues [around the employment legislation changes] which was to be held on the 1^st of April was postponed, and we will notify you when it is rescheduled.

Similarly this year’s census has been also cancelled – the Statistics Dept.’s main processing centre was in Christchurch and it was wisely decided that it would not be helpful to attempt to ask Christchurch residents to complete a census when faced with such devastation and loss, and the obvious challenges that the Statistics Department staff would face due to the practicalities of running the census. It is still unclear when the national census will be held.

SPEAK UP FOR EDUCATION – Public Meeting – Thursday, 1^st September

A joint meeting organised by the education unions – TEU, NZEI and PPTA – to discuss investment in education in NZ, and our aim that every student reaches their full potential. Come along and listen to MP’s and party candidates and have your say about how to make NZ’s great education system the best in the world!

The evening starts at 7.30pm with Lindsay Cumberpatch as the MC. Each sector in education (Early Childhood, Primary, Secondary and Tertiary) will have a representative present to speak to the key issues for that sector. Tom Ryan (Immediate Past President of TEU) is the Tertiary rep. To date, the Greens, Labour, Māori, National and NZ First parties have agreed to send representatives/MP’s along to participate.

This is an opportunity for us in the education sector to freely discuss the issues with other interested parties and to make clear our views to MP’s both current and future about what we think are the important issues for education.

If you want more details please contact the union office.

Auckland University Academic CEA UPDATE

Auckland academics have still not been able to settle their CEA and negotiations are still fraught for them. There are two key sticking points:

University management want to remove core terms and conditions around research and study leave, promotion processes and outside activities from the CEA and place them into policy;
The use of Professional Teaching Fellows (PTF’s) by the university in place of permanent staff, typically Tutors/Senior Tutors remains problematic.

Academic members have been offered a 4% pay offer by the university but they are prepared to forego this as they feel so strongly about the conditions they wish to keep in their CEA. They are committed to quality education and research for the benefit of students and the university and they believe these are significantly at risk if they accept the university’s offer in its current form.

They created a webpage www.saveourconditions.org where you can go for the latest news and post messages of support, or make a comment.

26 August – We can report a major breakthrough in the roller-coaster ride of this dispute over the Auckland University Academic Collective.

As a result of urgent negotiations between the TEU and the Employer (the Vice-Chancellor) to avert the boycott of Courses and Careers Day and to resolve the current impasse, the following agreement was reached:

The V-C agrees not to oppose proceeding to facilitated negotiation and if the Employment Relations Authority does direct the parties to so proceed, both parties will cooperate to secure a prompt fixture.
The TEU has agreed not in engage in any boycotts of university events (e.g. Course & Careers days, graduation), non-compliance of PBRF requirements, or other forms of industrial action until the process of facilitated negotiation is completed.

The Negotiation team at Auckland believes that the VC has made significant concessions with the agreement over the facilitation, and that it is a major step towards resolution of the dispute.

Who can join TEU?

From time to time the organisers and senior representatives hear the rumour that heads of departments/schools and other staff who perform line management roles cannot join the union.

This is incorrect. The only staff member of the university who cannot join the TEU is the Vice-Chancellor (the employer). Senior managers, middle managers, staff on individual employment agreements, staff on fixed-term agreements, casual staff, part-time staff, academic year-only staff, post-docs, postgrads and undergraduates who work at the university can all join.

So if you know of any colleagues who would like to join but think they are ineligible, then you can advise them of the truth: that they can sign up at http://teu.ac.nz/join or with a printed membership form which can be sent to them via the internal mail (email teu@waikato.ac.nz to request a form). There are significant discounts for low-income members and your colleagues can use http://teu.ac.nz/join/subscriptions to calculate what their fees might be.

Something a little bit lighter to brighten your day - Consultation as some see it …

NATIONAL TEU NEWS:

Nominations are being called for TEU Life membership and Meritorious Service Awards: under rule 7.2 of the Union Rules, branches (amongst other TEU groups) may nominate suitable persons for life membership or meritorious service awards. If you believe you know someone who may be an appropriate nominee for either of these awards can you please contact either Prof. Dov Bing (dovbing@waikato.ac.nz ) or the union office (teu@waikato.ac.nz ) with your nomination by the 19^th September. All nominations must be accompanied by a statement outlining the reasons for making the nomination, and a history of the nominee’s contributions.

National Office Holders and Sector Group Nominations are now open also. Up for election this year are the following positions:-
1. Waikato rep to the University Sector Group (currently Prof. Nan Seuffert);
2. University Rep to the General Staff Committee (currently one of the three university sector reps is Annie Barker, Chemistry);
3. University General Staff Rep to the Womens’ Committee (currently one of the three university sector general staff reps is Pip Bruce-Ferguson, TDU);
4. Womens’ Vice President (currently Alex Sims, Auckland);
5. University General Staff Vice President (currently Helen Kissell, Canterbury).

Lightning strike at Weltec

TEU — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 01:26:19 +0000

TEU members at Weltec walked straight out from their jobs this afternoon after voting to go on strike over pressure from their employer to increase their working hours.

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

TEU - Tertiary Education Union » workload

Submission to MIT on the Proposed Restructure of Faculty of Consumer Services and the Schools of Hair and Beauty

Timing

Consultants

Design

Information

Review drivers

Analysis

Workload

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

Courses

Staff

Casual staff:

Other work:

Work required in 2012:

Summary

Submission on MIT’s Proposed Staff Reductions in the Faculty of Engineering and Trades

Timing

Consultants

Information

Review drivers

Analysis

Overall structure

Matching Resources

Academic integrity

TTH baseline

TTH and attendant duties

Duty Hours

Health and Safety

Programme development

Research

Professional Development

Academic support

Advertising

Predicted income

Increase in EFTS and non-base funding

Staffing numbers

Specific recommendations for each school

Beginning with the numbers provided in each school’s spreadsheets

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

Looking at more detail at each area

Mechanical and Trades

Building and Construction

Automotive

Electrical

Horticulture

Accounting for HOSs

Timetabling

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.

Severance

Submission on the MIT Faculty of Business Staff Reduction Proposal

Timing

Consultants

Information

Review drivers

Analysis

Selective use of ‘sector norms’

TTH baseline

Workload policy

Duty Hours

Base Activities and programme development

Role of Principal Lecturer

Research

Southern Cross

NZQA work

Support mechanisms

Severance

NorthTec can’t settle

Tertiary Update Vol 14 No 46

Also in Tertiary Update this week:

Other news

Speech by TEU president to Lincoln AGM

It’s election year – Who cares?

NTEU national conference speech

Last chance for moderate solution to student bill

For more information: