THREAD re the proposed variation to the EA at Unimelb. #voteno @NTEUNational @NTEUfightback @NTEUVictoria 1/17
As you probably know, things aren’t good in higher education at the moment. They haven’t been for a long time. But the pandemic is both exacerbating existing issues and being used as an excuse to drive through further cuts and structural reforms to teaching and research...
by both university management and government. The effects are already severe, and felt hardest by the most precarious and least advantaged; students included. This is true in Australia as elsewhere.
At the University of Melbourne, after rejecting the NTEU’s (albeit problematic) National Jobs Protection Framework, on Monday the Vice Chancellor sent round an email proposing a variation to the existing enterprise agreement.
The variation was described in a way that made it sound modest and reasonable: ‘just a 2.2% pay cut’ with a promise to save jobs. A bit of collective pain for the greater good.
What the VC’s email failed to mentioned, what all subsequent communications and information on the university’s website are also strangely silent on, and you could find out only after multiple click throughs and more than a passing knowledge of labour law, was the fact that...
the variation would also substantially erode other workplace rights: including reduced entitlements to redundancy; reduced notice of termination; reduced rights to information and consultation; no more right to arbitration of disputes by the Fair Work Commission.
All this without any concrete commitments to protect jobs. It took a professor of labour law at Melbourne Law School poring over the variation with a fine-tooth comb to establish what we were not being told. That analysis is available here in writing nteu.org.au/melb/article/W…
and in this video explainer
There is a lot going on here. No doubt, the pandemic has affected the University’s bottom line. UniMelb is currently saying between $260 and $320 million in 2020.
But it is also an extremely well-off institution, running an average net surplus over the last five years, according to its 2018 Annual Report, of $170 million. The same annual report shows cash reserves of $845 million and total assets of nearly $8 billion
Staff have been given v little information about how the proposed pay cut sits in relation to the above. Just that it’s 'necessary'. And that other options have been explored.
Even if they have been, that doesn’t explain why the University would silently push to make redundancy easier whilst promising to save jobs. There’s a fundamental trust problem here.
As a result, on June 9, I will be voting no to the proposed variation. If more than 50% of current staff (including casuals) do the same, the variation will be voted down and we will retain the protections under the current EA. The university can’t unilaterally vary it...
And there's a chance we can get (back) at the bargaining table and push for full transparency.
The university will say (is already saying) that a no vote means job cuts. Given this variation makes redundancies easier and cheaper and that there is no binding commitment to protect jobs in this variation, I can't see how we're throwing our friends under a bus by voting no.
For that reason, I’d encourage you to vote similarly. And to encourage your friends to do the same. At the very least, please consider reading Professor Tham’s analysis above, or watching his video explainer… and passing both on to friends and colleagues
