Compulsory uni service fees to be reintroduced (1 Viewer)

[spiny norman]

No I don't, I think if you told people "Either pay your taxes or you do not get to use our roads/hospitals/etc" they would pay them. What you have with VSU is people being told "Either pay your fees or don't get the benefits of the union" and they're not... so yeah I think they're quite different.

What if, as said above, taxes were optional on art galleries or other niche aspects of society that aren't commercially viable to stand on their own? Would that be okay, as clearly the majority are disinterested, so therefore why should it remain?

Such as? A little bit of extra happiness or whatever? Hell you let me keep the $200 and I'll have more money to pay for my textbooks, that'll make me loads more happy.

University education is massively overpriced, I'm not going to argue that, and the sooner the government accepts Whitlam had it right the better. At the very least, make HECS much cheaper and, as proposed before, have it absorb the price of union fees.

What about people showing up, learning, then going to work so they can pay for their learning, going to spend time with people in their life that they really care for etc so they can maintain a proper relationship with them? Not everyone wants the university club/society lifestyle, in fact if everyone did then the societies would be in the exact same position that they are now, the only reason they're strapped for cash is because they're not getting the excess funds of people who don't derive the same benefit.

I work to pay for my learning too. A great many people do. But I don't see how you can argue that someone who wants to make university a fun, social thing (as it's been for a very long time) should be financially punished and, basically, people who use it as a means for an occupation and nothing else should be rewarded for that. It's striving towards making us a far more disconnected, boring generation, embracing academia over any other attribute.

I dealt with this... Basically no you have to pay for things even if you don't like them you a) Like some things and see the need for such a government structure to exist and b) The majority of people tend to like most of the things.

I don't know if they do. I've lost count of the amount of people who think it a great injustice that their money, that they worked so hard for, is taken from them in taxes and given to poor people in welfare. It's a reason why so many people hate taxation - they see it as rewarding slothfulness.

 

[spiny norman]

Oh jesus christ hahahhaha Truly you could just explain why it is you feel student unions should be compulsory and not industrial unions. I mean there does seem to be rather similar benefits to members of the industrial unions, right? There is an argument here, but you're not making it and I won't make it for you.

I actually do think it's fair that, if you opt out of paying trade union membership fees, you should not be eligible for all of the benefits that come with that membership.

But no, I do think student unions and trade unions are rather different beasts. There's some amount of comparison (such as Howard's loathing of both), but all in all their differences are greater than their similarities.

 

[Slidey]

Nah, now you're just being a child, playing silly semantics.

You know exactly what she means.

Um, no he's not.

Student unions and labour unions have fairly minimal links.

Basically the only thing they both share is a potential for corrupt bureaucrats running them. But this isn't an inherent trait of either labour or student unions and indeed is a generally possibility in all organisations.

The Howard government was succesfully able to misrepresent all student unions in this way, yet it when it tried to do the same to labour unions it failed. I'm not sure why, but probably because they are too quite different types of unions.

 

[katie tully]

Um, no he's not.

Student unions and labour unions have fairly minimal links.

Basically the only thing they both share is a potential for corrupt bureaucrats running them. But this isn't an inherent trait of either labour or student unions and indeed is a generally possibility in all organisations.

The Howard government was succesfully able to misrepresent all student unions in this way, yet it when it tried to do the same to labour unions it failed. I'm not sure why, but probably because they are too quite different types of unions.

Um yeah, he is.
All you did then Slidey was talk about the potential for corruption.

They're still inherently the same and he was still trying to play semantics with the word 'union'.

Quit it.

 

[Slidey]

Student unions: Designed primarily to augment the academic side of tertiary education with social and sporting activities; activities encouraged by the university to produce more well-rounded graduates, paint a more enticing face of university life, and to temper the stress of academia. Student unions are generally encouraged and supported by the university, and often inextricably bound with the university.

As a secondary role, they provide student representation in the rare cases it is required; universities don't seek to not give people degrees - it would serve them no purpose. There is no clash of interests between students and teachers except on rare counts of plagiarism or misconduct (from either students or teachers). They are more mediators between parties than defenders of students.

In contrast:

Labour unions: Designed primarily to "keep the bastards honest" because there is a clash of interests between the employer and the employee - one wants to pay less, one wants more pay. The vast majority of resources and activities centre around such employee adovacy. These unions are not mediators they are negotiators; they are pro-employees.

As a secondary role, some unions seek to provide various job perks in the form of leisure activities or social activities.

 

[katie tully]

universities don't seek to not give people degrees

When CSU was still in at CSU, we weren't allowed to re-enrol or get our transcripts if we didn't pay the union fee.

Get fucked if I'm not going to get my degree after paying a fucktonne of HECS, because I refuse to pay their bullshit union fees.

 

[spiny norman]

At the two Uni's I've been at both Unions have been corrupt as all hell and have provided next to no services to students apart from 'advocacy'.

So you have the power to change that, if you are a union member? Either fix it with what power you've got or overhaul the system and replace it with something better. VSU isn't something better - it took the power and replaced it with nothing, letting uni services just go to shit because of lack of funding.

Again, if a government was corrupt (and most certainly they often are) should they be swept aside to make way for nothing to replace it with, or should you try and fix it?

Entirely different circumstances, you're 'paying' for an education, that's what University is primarily about. If people wish to partake in sporting teams/etc then they usually pay a fee. I know my local rugby club costs a yearly fee so I should expect that. Also it's not income rated, Students are already poor, why slug them with more cash that they may need because they're struggling to live in sydney/pay rent... etc.

But student unionism means that those who need the services more (eg. parents) can use them. In one of my classes last semester there was a mother who couldn't organise someone to care for the child for one of the days of class, because she had a limited budget and because the university no longer has any facilities for the child she had to bring him to class, disrupting the learning for everyone, especially her. How can that be averted without CSU?

Both provide support and ostensibly advocacy services for the members. Legal advice, events, support, networking... etc.

Much of a muchness if you ask me.

That same description could fit churches. Are they too cut from the same mold as student unions and trade unions?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Shambolic move. I am against my socialist brethren and abhor compulsory student unionism in all its grotesque forms.

What I would support is some kind of means tested, taxation-esque system where a lump sum isn't imposed upon all the student population. Now that would actually make sense.

 

[Slidey]

To be honest, I think student unions are important and they should be funded. But I've never said I agree with the fee model.

The government or the university should be providing the small amount of funding such unions require to do their real job (NOT politics). If it is the university providing it, than there should be a law enforcing all universities to provide such a fund, along with a minimum fund allocation. Such a law would also place severe restrictions on student political campaigning, especially prohibiting the use of the student unions' funds for political activity.

I certainly agree that students don't need yet another monetary burden.

 

[Classic Rudiger]

I'm stoked. It means that there is better financial structures to support the sporting clubs - some of which struggled under the abolition of CSU.
The return of it means that these clubs will continue to survive an ensure the healthy diversity.
I understand the hesitation of people to embrace the concept because of the term unions and the connotations of this. The opt out clause means that such the sporting union will survive, and they are disassociated with political unions and the like.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Holy hell wait I support that out of all the methods that people have proposed.

Is this satiric Miles or the super-serious Schroedinger talking?

It means that there is better financial structures to support the sporting clubs - some of which struggled under the abolition of CSU.

Hmm. Most probably because the clubs in questions were redundant and uncessecary, and hence a wasteful way to spend student money.

especially prohibiting the use of the student unions' funds for political activity.

I believe that student politics is a worthwhile way to spend money. I certainly agree with the funding of giving the student body a voice in parliament and whatever through the NUS. I just have a problem with thousands of dollars being spent on worthless positions and frivolous student elections (that I take part in simply because they're there though).

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

^Right you are Socrates. I'm just not sure that being rid of student advocacy all together is a greater good than funding it in its cancerous form.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

I'm stoked. It means that there is better financial structures to support the sporting clubs - some of which struggled under the abolition of CSU.
The return of it means that these clubs will continue to survive an ensure the healthy diversity.
I understand the hesitation of people to embrace the concept because of the term unions and the connotations of this. The opt out clause means that such the sporting union will survive, and they are disassociated with political unions and the like.

do you really need my cashmoney to go out and chase a ball around a field?

 

[Enteebee]

What if, as said above, taxes were optional on art galleries or other niche aspects of society that aren't commercially viable to stand on their own? Would that be okay, as clearly the majority are disinterested, so therefore why should it remain?

I've already dealt with this aspect too... Do you actually read the posts of people who disagree with you? Well first I'll accept the contentious proposition that most people wouldn't want art galleries (remembering that a lot of people have niche hobbies so you could easily trade and say for instance: "okay I don't want an art gallery... but I really like skate parks" I think most such things would be dealt with in this way so we all get non-commercially viable things by agreeing to help each other get our desires), then I think it's a matter of saying well such things are on the margins of what the government mainly does and may as well take place given that the system overall is needed for many good reasons - I don't see this being true in the case of student unions, with student unions you are essentially setting up the government for these marginal areas...

University education is massively overpriced, I'm not going to argue that, and the sooner the government accepts Whitlam had it right the better. At the very least, make HECS much cheaper and, as proposed before, have it absorb the price of union fees.

At the least if you believe this should you not support USU being implimented while we have the current funding schemes in place?

But I don't see how you can argue that someone who wants to make university a fun, social thing (as it's been for a very long time) should be financially punished and, basically, people who use it as a means for an occupation and nothing else should be rewarded for that. It's striving towards making us a far more disconnected, boring generation, embracing academia over any other attribute.

I don't think it makes it a fun, social thing for most people tbh... I think the USU is a side-show and it's the students themselves, young intelligent people who make it fun.

I don't know if they do. I've lost count of the amount of people who think it a great injustice that their money, that they worked so hard for, is taken from them in taxes and given to poor people in welfare. It's a reason why so many people hate taxation - they see it as rewarding slothfulness.

I disagree I think the majority of people want hospitals etc build through their taxes and are quite happy to give them up for these causes.

But student unionism means that those who need the services more (eg. parents) can use them. In one of my classes last semester there was a mother who couldn't organise someone to care for the child for one of the days of class, because she had a limited budget and because the university no longer has any facilities for the child she had to bring him to class, disrupting the learning for everyone, especially her. How can that be averted without CSU?

The government should provide the minimum standard of wage to all people to get an education, tax everyone not just the students... it is a wider social good that such people get an education.

 

[Enteebee]

To be honest, I think student unions are important and they should be funded. But I've never said I agree with the fee model.

The government or the university should be providing the small amount of funding such unions require to do their real job (NOT politics). If it is the university providing it, than there should be a law enforcing all universities to provide such a fund, along with a minimum fund allocation. Such a law would also place severe restrictions on student political campaigning, especially prohibiting the use of the student unions' funds for political activity.

I certainly agree that students don't need yet another monetary burden.

You know I actually agree with this. If a government feels that as a part of creating a more sophisticated society it would be beneficial to have unions etc in our universities then I believe they should fund them just as they fund new sporting grounds etc.

 

[Slidey]

Oh I've wanted to do this for so long

THIS THREAD WOULD NOT EXIST UNDER VSU

In Soviet Russia thread... VSU... exists... you.

That's all I got.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Yeah mang you shoulda left it alone

 

[aussie-boy]

Student unions: Designed primarily to augment the academic side of tertiary education with social and sporting activities; activities encouraged by the university to produce more well-rounded graduates, paint a more enticing face of university life, and to temper the stress of academia. Student unions are generally encouraged and supported by the university, and often inextricably bound with the university.

I completely agree

And USUs also help find accomodation, jobs and legal advice

And if you dont like the extra curricular activities, or if you are going to be selfish and deny collective benefits to the uni society - go find a different uni that doesnt attempt to offer such a wide range of benefits.

The reason USYD, for example, has such a fantastic reputation is because it has provided generation after generation of well rounded professionals (most of whom have drawn valuable life experience from the activities that unionism supports).

 

[Azamakumar]

HSC: 2008.

lol

 

[withoutaface]

dont know whether youre joking or not (and i dont like rudd but do like this particular policy); but rudd doesnt see any of the money

NUS (and student organisations in general) donate fucktonnes of money to the ALP.