Important - New Legislation - Read! (1 Viewer)

[Minai]

not everything in the union is sponsored though minai

in fact, i work in the uts union, and it is only a minority of it's services that rely on external money

everything else is funded by fundraising parties ($2, which will have to rise dramatically), and the compulsory fees

I was talking about the UNSW Union, I have no idea how the UTS union is run, and I was going by an article published by the UNSW student newspaper where the union president admitted this. It could be lies, yes.

 

[Bambul]

This is what I got from the UNSW Union Annual Report. The 2004 one isn't out yet, only 2003, I got my info from note 2 (page 29). It's available at http://www.union.unsw.edu.au/website/documents/annualreport.pdf

Total Revenue - $19,307,434
Membership Fees - $5,774,815

That means that 70.1% of revenue comes from non-membership fee sources. There will still be some people that join the Union, so say 30% of people join and fees are cut by 50%, that means that the union will be receiving 74.6% of its previous revenues. This means a number of services will be cut or scaled down, but the Union will not ceace to exist.

I really encourage people to actually look up the official numbers for themselves rather than just assume something that you read on page 3 of the newspaper or heard on the 6:00 news. I'm not saying that to push one view or another, I just want to see people informed.

Edit: I forgot to include interest on deposits in my calculations, it accounts for about 1.5% of revenue, so my figures of 70.1% and 74.6% would go up to roughly 72% and 76% respectively.

 

[Xayma]

Bambul: But the union will only have to provide services at a loss (such as food) to union members, while they will start to make a profit off those who aren't union members.

 

[Riewe]

Maybe if they just spent their money on services, not political campaigns, then i don't think the Government will have a problem, much like i won't have a problem. Maybe if the Unions make up a universal plan whereby all money collected by the union WILL NOT be used for protests or other overtly political activities, and instead ALL money will go to providing essential services (everything else beside protests), then myabe, just maybe, they will change their mind and re-instate USU.

 

[Minai]

Those figures prove that anti-VSU'ers simply exaggerate and sensationalise their claims that "campus life will DIE!"

 

[Riewe]

And another thing which supports VSU is that there is a poster doing the rounds at UTS about a protest march against Iraq. Then at the bottom it says "This poster would not be here under Voluntary Student Unionism (VSU)" I think they want us to turhn anti-VSU, but the only thing i think it does is make people pro-VSU, because then, they won't be supporting activities like these.

 

[slip]

would they still receive so much sponship money if the union had less members?

i think not... try considering why so many poeple sponser unions, or give them discounts!! because it gives them some kinda of access to so many students...

 

[neo o]

The entire food argument is such a cop out, and I'm sure this has been pointed out already, but this is such a nice big thread and I thought I'd join in. Even IF campus food is slightly cheaper than food off campus, THE UNION STILL MAKES A PROFIT OFF THE SALE OF CAMPUS FOOD. Rather ironically, the subsidies that students pay, that cut the price of food, also rather conveniently allow the union cafes to cut food compared to off campus places. The bastards still make money out of you though.

And, I'm not sure about everyone who has money, but I know that I can't afford a $7 lunch. I buy any extra food I need like rice etc either from asian groceries or in bulk from the food co-op.

 

[Xayma]

Actually they typically do.

USYD Union in '03 ('04 figures arent out) lost about $8 to catering to every $7 in.

Of course this is often subsidisng the higher wages that often fall to the union members and their mates.

 

[Lexicographer]

Interesting you mention the uni food co-op, because I do recall that being a service heavily subsidised by the union.

Just something I thought worth mentioning.

 

[stazi]

what is the food co-op? and where is the food co-op? and what does said co-op sell?

 

[slip]

the protest unions organise wouldnt cost that much money, and there arent that many of them. so really i think its about time people got over that.

and you know if unions make this world a more compasionate place, and better for the people whose causes the support i think the $200 is worth it. who knows maybe one day they will support something you are passionate about.

i bet none of you agree with the 25% increase in hecs fees. who is going to lead a student body in protest against further hecs increase with out a union? be glad we have the power to protest, if not the fact that we have nothing to worth while to protest which is what you are effectively saying.

 

[Riewe]

the protest unions organise wouldnt cost that much money, and there arent that many of them. so really i think its about time people got over that.

and you know if unions make this world a more compasionate place, and better for the people whose causes the support i think the $200 is worth it. who knows maybe one day they will support something you are passionate about.

i bet none of you agree with the 25% increase in hecs fees. who is going to lead a student body in protest against further hecs increase with out a union? be glad we have the power to protest, if not the fact that we have nothing to worth while to protest which is what you are effectively saying.

But it is the principal of the thing. Should people be allowed to spend my money on political events? I don't give the Liberal, Labor or Greens money for their campaigns, so why should i be FORCED to pay you this student activism? And i somewhat agree with the 25% increase, as i agree with Dr Brendan Nelson in that why should taxpayers fully fund university placements, when they also have many other things to fund.

 

[jellybeenz]

A society is only as strong as its weakest member. If we all only look out for ourselves, who is going to look after those who can't help themselves?

The Union helps people who need it. If you don't need help, great! But what if you do? If the Union doesn't haven enough funds to help you and nobody will lend money to a poor student and you don't understand the centrelink forms? What then? I think of the union as a safety net. Remember, anything can happen to anyone.

 

[Generator]

I don't give the Liberal, Labor or Greens money for their campaigns, so why should i be FORCED to pay you this student activism?

Actually, you do (in part) through Government funding... Besides, political activisim is hardly the primary concern of the SRC (or whatever the representative group may be called at your uni, if it isn't the union itself), it's just the most obvious to the general body of students. It isn't that fair to just dismiss the SRC's role on the basis of a distorted view of reality, is it? I will admit that a greater degree of transparency would be welcome, though.

 

[Riewe]

The simple answer is that education the population should be in their interests.

however in many ways its the poorer people that end up subsidising the people (who in general are richer) that go to uni.

It assumes that the lower economic classes are the ones that are at uni. The reality is the other way around = a whole bunch of uni students who seem to be confused as to their economic class. Everyone thinks they are 'middle class'...

Actually, it is the rich who pay the most tax, therefore it is the rich who are subsidising the poor to go to uni, not the other way around.

 

[Xayma]

Except the rich constitute a MUCH higher % of those who go to uni.

 

[slip]

Actually, it is the rich who pay the most tax, therefore it is the rich who are subsidising the poor to go to uni, not the other way around.

actually the rich dont pay most of the tax, middle class australians do.

the rich employ great accounting schemes which mean they pay next to no taxes.

secondly alot of the rich dont even pay HECS, they set up there businesses when there older so that they never earn over $30 000 a year (often by giving all the profits to one memeber of the family) and hence never have to pay the hecs bill.

and finally its alot of the rich kids that get youth allowance, they get there parents pay them the $16000 throught there parents businesses, which the kids then give back to the parents, and then go to centre link and get youth allowance.

and then because these rich wankers are rorting the system the government has to increase taxes which then fall on middle and lower australia.


well thats my socialist rant.

 

[braindrainedAsh]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National...ion-rescue-plan/2005/03/20/1111253885035.html

Pokies at uni? Crazy!!!!

 

[meyero]

actually the rich dont pay most of the tax, middle class australians do.

the rich employ great accounting schemes which mean they pay next to no taxes.

secondly alot of the rich dont even pay HECS, they set up there businesses when there older so that they never earn over $30 000 a year (often by giving all the profits to one memeber of the family) and hence never have to pay the hecs bill.

and finally its alot of the rich kids that get youth allowance, they get there parents pay them the $16000 throught there parents businesses, which the kids then give back to the parents, and then go to centre link and get youth allowance.

and then because these rich wankers are rorting the system the government has to increase taxes which then fall on middle and lower australia.


well thats my socialist rant.

That was terrible!!!
What are you basing this all on?
You think rich people could really be bothered to not have their own business in their name so that they won't have 2 pay HECS fees, and what about the majority of rich people who are working for a high income, they don't all own their own businesses? And how would rich people get youth allowance? One of the conditions of youth allowance is that your family income has 2 be below a certain level!