Labor's VSU alternative (2 Viewers)

[Rafy]

Labor deserts student unions

LABOR has dumped its commitment to universal student unionism and will preserve the Howard Government's ban on universities collecting compulsory upfront fees if it wins the election.

Instead, Labor is considering HECS-style loans to students so they can pay to revive campus services that have been run down since compulsory student unionism was abolished last year.

These loans, like the old student union fees, would be compulsory, but students would only need to start repayments once they were working, having reached a certain income threshold.

The decision is a marked reversal on Labor's previous opposition to the laws enacted by the Government last year. Labor's former education spokeswoman, Jenny Macklin, had described the laws as an "ideologically motivated campaign" to end student unionism, which had funded campus activities such as sports, clubs, advocacy and child care.

"Labor is absolutely opposed to this unfair legislation and will defend the right of student organisations to represent students," she said in 2004.

But Labor sources now acknowledge it would be political suicide to reimpose compulsory annual fees of about $500 per student. The Opposition education spokesman, Stephen Smith, has told students and their service providers that Labor will not try to reimpose the old system.

Sports associations and campus service providers said they were disappointed but resigned to the likelihood that the days of collectively earning $155 million a year were over.

"That's the reality of politics - that's how I figure it," said Tom O'Sullivan, director of the Australian College Union Managers' Association. "We would have preferred [Labor] to have maintained their policy, but I can understand coming up to the election with that as a policy would have been a difficult proposition for them to sell."
[...]

 

[MuffinMan]

how is it different to now? We pay hecs now so it's not that much different

 

[Triangulum]

how is it different to now? We pay hecs now so it's not that much different

The difference is that instead of compulsory upfront union fees, there'd be a compulsory fee added to your HECS debt. (Or, technically, your HELP debt.)

 

[Anonymou5]

Even though I've never supported the Howard government for various reasons, I'd say that there really isn't a better alternative to the VSU right now. If I wanted to join a club I'd pay the 10 dollar fee rather than a couple of hundred dollars for useless services which I will never use.

 

[MuffinMan]

The difference is that instead of compulsory upfront union fees, there'd be a compulsory fee added to your HECS debt. (Or, technically, your HELP debt.)

I thought we got rid of union fees already???

 

[UnIqUe PrInCeSs]

This is worse than USU

Instead of forcing individuals to pay for unionism they're going to force society as a whole to pay for it (until it gets paid back, anyway).

 

[Atonofrash]

hahaha that was my suggestion when me and brogan were talking about it

 

[stazi]

hahahahh how on earth is that 'deserting' student unions? it's basically the same system as before, however, students who can't afford to pay it at the present time will be able to pay it when they start making enough money to pay for it.

 

[rozymisty]

QUT only charged $120 per semester, which was a waste of valuable money! The government should pay for those student services rather than us below poverty line students.

What did i get for my $120 last year, a diary...wow expensive diary, oh and a $40 food voucher. Most of hte money i reackon was wasted on admin stuff...for nothing!

Ive noticed though that the welfare dept have suffered with reduced busaries etc, but i found that strange to believe as I thought it was a uni service, not student association.

Thankfully I wont really have to worry about it next year.

 

[jb_nc]

what the hell does this mean

"I'm not considering a compulsory HECS-style arrangement, and the whole basis of the approach is one of a voluntary approach, so I'm not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee," he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1930310.htm

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

At first I was a little anxious, then sleepy, et cetera.

The HECS idea seems cool. I've no objection to paying for union services at all, but it was nearly impossible for me to come up with the moolah last year. This solves both of my problems. Good ol' Australian Labor.

 

[UnIqUe PrInCeSs]

Shouldn't it be illegal to force someone to take out a loan?

 

[Atonofrash]

uhh... HECS?

 

[jb_nc]

Shouldn't it be illegal to force someone to take out a loan?

was it illegal to force people to pay the union fees??????????

 

[UnIqUe PrInCeSs]

I mean from a moral perspective

HECS isn't compulsory for all students attending university

I currently have no HECS debt and never will

 

[Atonofrash]

In that case I'm sure you could pay your union fees upfront. Or perhaps less well off people shouldn't be entitled to an education...

 

[jb_nc]

I mean from a moral perspective

luckily you are around to enforce every one's own morality

 

[UnIqUe PrInCeSs]

In that case I'm sure you could pay your union fees upfront. Or perhaps less well off people shouldn't be entitled to an education...

i earn just enough to pay my fees each semester

because of the 20% upfront discount i'd give hecs fees priority over union fees

additionally hecs fees are paying for something i use... ie. my education that i'm getting from the uni, you know, the reason i decided to go to uni (and pay for it) in the first place

union fees would be paying for something i don't use... and strongly object to being part of... ie. a union.

if i decide to leave the country when i'm finished my degree (cf. 90% of unsw commerce students?) then the taxpayer has paid for my roughly $2000 worth of union membership

where do we draw the line, why not compulsory membership of the church of satan funded by taxpayer loans?

 

[UnIqUe PrInCeSs]

luckily you are around to enforce every one's own morality

you don't think it's wrong for the state make individuals pay for something they don't want and won't use that's of no benefit to society as a whole?

 

[jb_nc]

you don't think it's wrong for the state make individuals pay for something they don't want and won't use that's of no benefit to society as a whole?

i don't want or use the pension yet i do not think it is amoral.

actually if you're talking "benefit to socitey as a whole" it would be better to take everyone 65+ not living off their own means out the back and shoot them