Mike Hanne, U of Auckland said...
- Dr David Small said...
-
Thank you for your post, Mike. Your declaration that you will only support a Presidential candidate who ‘unequivocally supports amalgamation’ helps to illustrate my sense of unease about this issue. I have had messages from other members who vow that they will leave the union if the amalgamation goes ahead. These passionately held and mutually exclusive positions are occurring in a context where members are being lobbied hard by the leaders of our union to vote yes to the amalgamation.
We entered this amalgamation discussion from a position of strength. And I do not believe that the interests of AUS members will be imperilled by either a yes or a no vote. We do not need to amalgamate to continue to be a strong and effective union. If we do amalgamate, we can devise ways to be as strong or stronger with our newly-merged members.
Legitimate Arguments
Unlike some issues, I think that there are entirely legitimate reasons for people to vote yes or no to amalgamation. On the yes side, I think that the arrival of a large number of ASTE members in universities through College of Education mergers and AUT removed an institutional distinction which was the historical basis for them being in a separate union. If AUS simply poached those members, it would cripple ASTE and severely undermine the strength of the tertiary unions so there is a logic of logistics and efficiency to amalgamation. And duplication is wasteful of scarce resources.
On the no side, unlike some of my academic colleagues, I believe the greatest risk for existing AUS members is to general staff. Through the tripartite talks, the government has made the unprecedented step of providing direct additional funding to university salaries. This has been primarily based on the compelling argument about the need for academic salaries to be internationally competitive, but it has also benefited general staff in universities. The risk in amalgamation for current AUS general staff is that there may be pressure for their claims to be linked less with university academics and more closely with general staff in the wider tertiary sector.
I have drawn my own conclusions from these and many other arguments, have expressed my personal view about amalgamation in various contexts including the Canterbury Branch and the National Executive, and have cast my vote. In the current context, however, I have chosen to hold my own counsel on this matter rather than nailing my colours to the mast. This is because, notwithstanding my public reservations about the undue haste in this process, I think members should now be allowed to consider the arguments and form their own views. And frankly, I don’t see why my view should be worth any more than any other member’s view.
Emerge Strong and Positive
One of the most pressing challenges of the new National President, whoever it is, will be to ensure that the AUS emerges from the amalgamation decision in a strong and positive way. That is my primary orientation at present and I believe that I would be in a better position to meet this challenge if I am not perceived as being a strong advocate of either side of the amalgamation debate.
There are a number of potentially problematic scenarios that are possible after the current ballot closes:
• There may be a majority in support of amalgamation, but one that is insufficient to mandate such a radical change;
• There may be some campuses strongly in favour amalgamation and others strongly opposed to it;
• There may be an evenly spread and sufficient support all over the country, but also a sizeable minority (including many active members) who are so disaffected that they want to resign.
• And even if the vote is clearly yes, people may consider that a no vote from TIASA (which I believe is highly probable) would change the situation sufficiently to require ongoing consultation and negotiation.
In the event of a difficult scenario emerging, my commitment would be to find the best way for us to all move forward as a united and effective union.
As AUS National President, I would put my energy more into listening to members and less into lobbying them. The lobbying and advocacy I would like to focus on would be directed less at AUS members and more at government and the VCs.
I favour amalgmation because it will create a single, stronger union voice in the tertiary sector and reduce duplication of effort. I want to vote for a presidential candidate, who unequivocally supports amalgamation. Maureen Montgomery clearly does. Before I make my choice, I want to know if David supports amalgamation or, as his answer to 'Anonymous' might be read, he doesn't.