conVSUsed (2 Viewers)

[Rorix]

so it's an on campus political group promoting the dismantling of support for other on campus groups
it was established as an extra-curricular university club and wants a university featuring severely diminished extra-curricular activity

you young conservatives are all comedy

It's more a collection of people with like minded ideals who happen to be scamming some money off the union because it's free, as opposed to extra-curricular clubs which actually participate in some sort of activity or regular discourse organised and subsudised through university fees.

Besides, the issue is obviously the choice to join a union, not whether or not unis should have extra-curricular clubs.

 

[walrusbear]

It's more a collection of people with like minded ideals who happen to be scamming some money off the union because it's free, as opposed to extra-curricular clubs which actually participate in some sort of activity or regular discourse organised and subsudised through university fees.

Besides, the issue is obviously the choice to join a union, not whether or not unis should have extra-curricular clubs.

not really
by extension we can assume the liberal party doesn't want any extra-curricular activity at university since they stubbornly refuse to engage in any realistic policy of reform
can we stop pretending that this isn't just petty ideological bullshit?

 

[frog12986]

The fact remains that if the unions were so adamant that the majority of students receive tangible benefits from the provided services and facilities, then they would 'wholeheartedly' believe that this majority will continue to pay membership fees regardless. If students recognise the benefits then they will continue to pay for their provision..

I agree with what Not That Bright said in the other post on the issue, that being, if the unions were more organised and developed a coherent argument on the issue then there would be somewhat more credence to what they are trying to promote. They are fighting an unwinnable fight and have absolutely no backbone in what they are trying to say in the first place...

 

[withoutaface]

not really
by extension we can assume the liberal party doesn't want any extra-curricular activity at university since they stubbornly refuse to engage in any realistic policy of reform
can we stop pretending that this isn't just petty ideological bullshit?

'Realistic' policies of reform have been tried and failed in other states.

 

[walrusbear]

The fact remains that if the unions were so adamant that the majority of students receive tangible benefits from the provided services and facilities, then they would 'wholeheartedly' believe that this majority will continue to pay membership fees regardless. If students recognise the benefits then they will continue to pay for their provision..

I agree with what Not That Bright said in the other post on the issue, that being, if the unions were more organised and developed a coherent argument on the issue then there would be somewhat more credence to what they are trying to promote. They are fighting an unwinnable fight and have absolutely no backbone in what they are trying to say in the first place...

how should they have run their defence campaign differently?
they should probably have highlighted the fact that universal student advocacy would be lost - but seems like most people aren't concerned by things they should be.
i think the biggest problem is that what they're fighting for can't be recognised as worthwhile by many because they lack the perception to find value in things outside of $. most of the VSU support on this board is evidence of that.

again and again i just see people criticising the way the union is run - which is very true and has faced no opposition. i don't think anyone would dispute the fact that many of the fees are unfairly high and the money is poorly distributed.
fact is though, VSU isn't an answer to this in ANY way.
every argument in favour of VSU is a criticism of the union - which is telling. the policy sucks from every angle. it's essentially like curing a headache with a shotgun. no one here can explain any of the productive or reformative elements to the liberal party plan because it doesn't exist.
making union fees voluntary does absolutely nothing to solve problems within the union. in fact, the policy is so cynical it only heightens the problems by encouraging the union to employ an extensive defensive campaign with more money spent unnecessarily.
you know an education policy is bullshit when it is opposed on administrative levels everywhere, including the likes Gavin Brown, and the government stubbornly refuses productive dialogue with ANYONE.
it's another cynical, petty ideological policy that only further cements an unending contempt many of us have for the present government.

 

[walrusbear]

'Realistic' policies of reform have been tried and failed in other states.

so a shit one is a better alternative?

 

[withoutaface]

so a shit one is a better alternative?

How is making the organisations accountable a "shit" alternative? Crisis brings out the best in people, and the only way the unions will fix themselves is if they are forced to.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

How exactly... would you fix the unions walrusbear? What measures would you take, you are the government and you can see that the majority of unions currently are unfair - what do you do?

 

[walrusbear]

How exactly... would you fix the unions walrusbear? What measures would you take, you are the government and you can see that the majority of unions currently are unfair - what do you do?

i don't have any easy answers
all i can see is that VSU only has negative impacts

dialogue might be a good start!
policies that regulate union behaviour might work better than diminishing funding altogether
all that does is diminish the value of our universities and remove student advocacy

 

[walrusbear]

How is making the organisations accountable a "shit" alternative? Crisis brings out the best in people, and the only way the unions will fix themselves is if they are forced to.

that's a dubious claim
the only reason someone could really have any faith in that reasoning is a deep-seated contempt for unions as a whole

how will removing near all of union funding make them more accountable?

 

[withoutaface]

i don't have any easy answers
all i can see is that VSU only has negative impacts

dialogue might be a good start!
policies that regulate union behaviour might work better than diminishing funding altogether
all that does is diminish the value of our universities and remove student advocacy

Policies that regulate Union behaviour were tried in Victoria. The Unions used underhanded methods to funnel the money that was supposed to be for amenities and only amenities into political campaigns.

 

[withoutaface]

that's a dubious claim
the only reason someone could really have any faith in that reasoning is a deep-seated contempt for unions as a whole

how will removing near all of union funding make them more accountable?

60% is "near all" now?

 

[walrusbear]

60% is "near all" now?

where does 60 come from??

 

[withoutaface]

where does 60 come from??

Figures for the large Western Australian unis show the unions there maintained 30-40% of funding.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

dialogue might be a good start!
policies that regulate union behaviour might work better than diminishing funding altogether
all that does is diminish the value of our universities and remove student advocacy

In other states they have tried say, "choose what you wish to contribute too", and it didn't exactly work because it was rather easy for the unions to simply take all the money from people who said they want to contribute to politics (and put that into politics) then take a % of the person who wanted to only contribute to sport, and give that to the politics person also.

I'm not sure what sort of policies could be implimented to make unions better, that the unions wouldn't find.

how will removing near all of union funding make them more accountable?

Well when you have to prove your worthyness in order to survive, as opposed to simply being able to do anything and survive ... you become accountable (as opposed to not accountable).

 

[walrusbear]

Policies that regulate Union behaviour were tried in Victoria. The Unions used underhanded methods to funnel the money that was supposed to be for amenities and only amenities into political campaigns.

that's a shame
btw do you expect me to come up with a foolproof plan?
i don't think you'll make any organisation corruption free
this whole argument is made on the perception of unions as notably corrupt bodies. arguably they're no worse than government or uni admin but i guess since they're under particular fire here

 

[Rorix]

petty ideological bullshit?

Is there anything in politics which isnt?


EDIT: Re: 40%, the unions which have buildings also have income from rent etc. in addition to voluntary student contributions, i think at USYD rent is about 10M a year (not including upkeep on these buildings)

 

[Xayma]

Figures for the large Western Australian unis show the unions there maintained 30-40% of funding.

It was 15% of student funding, the fees were pretty much halved.

Of course the unions couldnt discriminate between members and non-members meening that the effects were exaggerated creating a 'why should I pay when someone else will' effect that wont be seen here (where they can discriminate).

 

[withoutaface]

The rent will also increase significantly if wentworth is privatised more, as is the current plan.