Important Message from Branch President: Results Bans Lifted, Campaign to Continue
From Branch President Cathy Rytmeister:
Dear MQ NTEU members,
By now you will have received the notification of the lifting of the partial bans (meeting attendance and transmission of results). Especially for those of you who were not at the General Meeting today, I feel it's important that we all have a clear picture of why the Branch Committee recommended this course of action and why the vast majority of members at the meeting supported it.
Firstly, we have always said that we would continually reassess our industrial strategy in the light of changing circumstances and as more information became available about its impact. In terms of impact, we believe that the withholding of results has been highly effective. It has demonstrated to the Management that NTEU members are willing to take strong action in defence of their workplace rights and conditions, and that the Union can mobilise and organise its members quickly and effectively. It has also activated many members, engaged people in the bargaining and budget issues at the heart of our discontent with Management, and shown that the senior management of the University are increasingly out of touch with the views of University members on the ground. It has exposed the inadequacies of the University's information systems and the Management's ability to respond appropriately to widespread collective action by staff.
The industrial action we have taken has also forced Steven Schwartz, Peter Dodd, Judyth Sachs and Tim Sprague to defend management's actions in the media, in emails, in MQ Announcements and via the Macquarie website. Further, it has spurred the formation of good relationships with student activist groups, who have supported us in many ways and continue to do so - several of these groups will be joining us in action on Information Day.
In short, this particular form of industrial action has done its job. Several members who spoke at the meeting not only commented to this effect, but also saw that the time of maximum effectiveness for the withholding of results was coming to an end. By voting to lift the bans on our own terms and at a time of our choosing, members have maintained the initiative in this dispute and provided a gesture of good will to students.
However, the meeting was certainly not in the mood to give up our fight - on the contrary, members recognised the importance of maintaining a sustained campaign into 2011, with both industrial and political/protest actions planned. We have already endorsed and notified a two-hour stoppage on Information Day - watch your email for further information and for notice of a meeting on the 4th of January to finalise plans. If you are not on leave that week please let us know when you are available to help out. Plans include distributing leaflets and gathering for a meeting at 10am with some guest speakers. The meeting also endorsed action aimed at maximising the dissemination of information to students and staff as build towards a series of one-day stoppages and a large "Town Hall" meeting of staff and students in Week 2 of semester.
And at THIS Town Hall meeting, we'll get to VOTE.
The formal resolutions are below:
Resolution 1
This General Meeting of the NTEU Macquarie Branch endorses the lifting of all partial bans notified to the University on 22 November 2010.
The lifting of the bans will take effect either:
- Immediately following this meeting, for members present at this meeting, or
- On receipt of email notification from the NTEU Macquarie Branch, for members not present at this meeting. This email will be sent immediately following this meeting.
Resolution 2
This meeting of the NTEU Macquarie Branch endorses the following political and industrial actions:
- Open General Meeting (all staff and students) combined with a 2-hour stoppage in late January.
- Town Hall meeting combined with a 2-hour stoppage in Week 2 of Semester 1.
- Running an Information Stall at O-Week.
- Distributing Information to students during advising week.
Resolution 3
This meeting of the NTEU Macquarie Branch endorses consecutive one-day stoppages in week 2 of semester 1.
Post a comment
Comments
[ +2 ] @Tony - there are a number of grounds for our appeal against the general staff agreement. We have also pushed for better provisions around recruitment and retention of Indigenous staff - the NTEU has been a real leader in this area, and we have a very active Indigenous Policy Committee that guides all of our work in this area.
Like • Dislike • Report AbuseO-Week presents an ideal opportunity to inform students about lots of things - not just the role of the NTEU in the University and the industrial action that will be happening in first semester, but also about really important things like workplace rights - most students do casual work and are vulnerable to exploitation if they don't understand the legal protections they have and how to access assistance in dealing with workplace injustice. But the University apparently wants to deny us that opportunity by not allowing us to have an O-Week stall. We'll keep people posted on developments via this website.
[ -2 ] @Cathy - I totally agree with your point on the two agreements, it is not only more powerful for your union movement, but it is more powerful for staff as well. I saw on the UNSW FWA decision that they were objecting due to no Indigenous targeting, is this something that Macq is looking at too? I've done a bit of work in my previous days in the territory and this is something that I actually like the unions being a part of as it pushes the agenda to the wider community.
Like • Dislike • Report AbuseI will be interested to see what you are doing at O-week as it is the perfect time to get the message out there. I didn't know that the management changed emails yuo wanted to send to us. See we don't know those type of things.
@Censorship - I think you are right if NTEU were looking at deleting all posts that were not "considerate and respectful" there wouldn't be too many posts here.
@James - settle down mate you can make your point without targeting people. Comments about peoples hygiene, race or sexual preference should never be tolerated. I'm hoping that you can post your points (negative or positive) in a respectful manner
[ +4 ] @Tony - we objected to the separation of our agreement into two (academic and general), firstly because we are stronger under one agreement (which is why management wants them split!!) and secondly because 90% of the conditions are the same anyway. And thirdly, because it stretches our resources having to negoitiate two rather than one (again, that's why management likes them separate - it's a sort of war of attrition).
Like • Dislike • Report AbuseWe have done our best to involve students in the campaign and have tried to ensure that students have had access to information about the campaign and the industrial action - but of course the management controls the "all student" emails and the university website and so has been able to manipulate the message and mislead students from day 1 - so it's a big task just to counter the management propaganda. Nevertheless, we are in touch with student activist groups and will be working hard during enrolment and O-Week to inform students and activate them in the campaign for better learning conditions and educational quality - as this is very much in line with the campaign for better staff working conditions.
@Censorship - the management censored NTEU members for writing political statements on the VC's blog about the current action, not for being abusive or for vilifying other blog participants. The VC just didn't like us arguing with him.
OF COURSE I am reluctant to censor ANYTHING, but James just goes too far. I have previously decided to leave his posts as they stand because he makes himself look like such an idiot with the things he says but I will draw the line at sustained abuse, especially of others who post here.
If and when we get the time, the NTEU MQ Branch Committee will review our policy of NOT deleting posts and may change it. We do have published guidelines for participation in this blog (see below), and it may be time to enforce them.
[ -3 ] @Cathy nice threat to James didn't you complain about how censorship was being used by management to stop NTEU members posting? James is a little prat, but come on deleting all of his messages? that's just going to far. If you do that you will need to delete all the other messages on here from Students and members that have abusive comments. Scan through most of them and you'll see so many that contain language that wouldn't technically be accepted if you go by the letter of the law.
Like • Dislike • Report AbuseWILL you delete the other posts as well as James?
[ -1 ] @Cathy I just saw your previous post (think it was you CathyR) about why your union relented and not UNSW so that part of my comment has already been answered
Like • Dislike • Report Abuse[ +6 ] @James - seriously mate do you ever have a post where you are not abusing someone? You should know that the unions have funds set aside for action like this. Like it or not its what always happens. They also have the support of the Federal government as most of the senior guys there are old Union leaders.
Like • Dislike • Report Abuse@Cathy so NTEU didn't get the desired results? How come your branch then decided to relent while the UNSW mob haven't?
In regards to the appeal did your branch object on the first instance of the fair work decision?
I personally support your efforts on this section as I have previously been employed within the University structure (generalist) and the Uni I was at had all staff under the same agreement. Is this one of the big points besides the "Casual" worker section in your campaigns? How confident are unions in getting more academics from casual to confirmed? This has been going on at Uni's since I was working there, now i'm studying its still going on. I wouldn't be holding my breath on the management up top changing their minds on casuals. They will use the point that O/S students are becoming lower each year (which is the case from my discussions with many O/S students) as well as changing workforce needs etc. While they have clauses in their agreements to make things profitable I don't see them changing.
Support your views on all of this, but using students is the wrong way of doing things. Get students involved in campaigns no decent student rallies in years. If you could get large numbers of us on board to march and protest then things might actually change. Your views?
[ +7 ] @James: Like I said James, you're a funny bloke! Yes, the Union pays us from money we've contributed for exactly this purpose over the years. If you don't like it, tough! We act collectively to protect each other and ourselves. Who is going to look after you when your boss decides s/he wants to give you a raw deal? Or, are YOU going to BE the bastard boss and screw over the workers?? Wow, admirable ambition.
Like • Dislike • Report AbuseAnd I am warning you now, if you don't cut out the abusive language I will delete your posts (all of them) and you won't have a voice at all. We provide this opportunity for people to have a say - use it in a civil way, or you will lose it.
@Katrina: thanks for your inquiry. We didn't get resolution of our claims, but we did put the University on notice that we are very, very serious about them and will take further action when semester starts. The appeal you have read about is an appeal against the approval of the Professional Staff agreement (that covers the non-academic staff) - there are several grounds for appeal, including that the commissioner who approved the agreement erred in a number of ways in relation to whether the agreement meets an appropriate standard and whether the University had taken all the steps we believe are required under the Fair Work Act. It's complicated, but it means that the Professional Staff agreement is in place until the appeal is heard (and will remain in place if the NTEU loses the appeal), while we continue to negotiate the Academic Staff Agreement. If we win the appeal, we will of course demand that the University Management revert to a single agreement to cover all staff, which is what we had before they decided to try to divide members by separating the agreements. The NTEU covers both academic and general or professional staff.
[ 0 ] What you brought some soap you left wing hippie?
Like • Dislike • Report AbuseYeah they got $200 a day which is tax free. I bet they get their payments from the union as well.
Did you do any work for the University? NO just hippie loser stuff get a life and a real job. You wouldn't last two minutes in the real world
[ -6 ] @James where is the $200 from? I thought that they were stood down from work wasn't this the point of the action? If staff are getting $200 to do Union work over at UNSW then it's not too fair for the students. I'm glad our one is over and done with. They seem to be going on with their one there, wonder if it will be fixed before the semester starts
Like • Dislike • Report Abuse@Cathy did you get your desired outcome from the action? I read on the UNSW section that you are appealing some agreement here. Is that Academic or the other staff?
[ -8 ] @Matt - the point is that we don't NEED a large percentage of staff to take action to have an impact - as not all staff are in charge of transmission of results. Of those who are, the percentage who took part was much greater than 6%. Further, around 50-60% of the staff included in the University management's calculation are casual staff. Of the permanent staff, again, the percentage who took action was much greater than 6 OR 10%. It's all about targeting the action efficiently.
Like • Dislike • Report Abuse@James - you're a funny bloke! You reckon I did nothing for three weeks? ROFL.