VSU Impending - WHAT CAN YOU DO? R00fledoodleZ (3 Viewers)

[Not-That-Bright]

Yea I fully agree with you there Asquithian. I'm just picturing fights over 'what the union paid for', imagining some disabled guy who didn't join the union not being allowed to use an access ramp or something like that... and union shops instead of simply removing the benefit of cheaper food saying "you CANNOT eat here if your not a union member".

I know that could be far fetched, but it is a slight worry.. I feel that instead of trying to adapt the union (as its full of young hotheads like us) will fight a very bitter fight.

 

[neo o]

Heh.

Sorry to take this thread off on a slight tangent, but even though you are all in favour of VSU, that does not necessarily mean that you are opposed to the student organisations themselves, right?
By that I don't mean that you support the 'right' of others to make the choice, but rather that you would join (be it one or all) of your own volition. I do realise that you all accept/tolerate their presence and the idea of choice, so that isn't the issue.

Just wondering.

Edit: You would join if it seemed worthwhile, that is (it isn't an ideological position, in other words).

1) I would join if it was worthwhile, in fact I may join next year. Currently, I don't appreciate the amount of money that the ANU's rather inefficient SA squanders on administrative costs. If you look at the 2005 budget that I posted above, you can see that the president alone takes 3% of the unions income (in the form of super, an honorarium and over $1,000 of mobile phone calls).

2) I feel that, ideologically if the unions need to work to get members and funding, then services will improve, and useless costs (see above) will be slashed or cut considerably. If that happens, I know that my money is either going to worthwhile causes (I have no objection to funding the ANU environmental department, or even the sexuality department, though the "womens collective" is a different story ) and services that people frequently use (the more popular clubs, gym membership etc).

Perhaps, the free pizzas and free kegs of beer that debating society members get on a weekly basis (incidentally the guy who runs debsoc is, I believe the Vice President of the ANUSA) will be cut, if the union is forced to actually represent all of its members.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Ok, hows bout the seats?
What if they said "these seats were paid for by the student union! Only union members may have a seat!".

Is it really that hard to imagine this sort of non-sense happening?
I support the idea that non-union members shouldn't get union benefits, but i'm afraid that it will go way too far.

 

[Xayma]

Joyce wants amendment to student bill
April 10, 2005 - 2:19PM


Nationals senator-elect Barnaby Joyce says he plans to introduce an amendment to the government's proposal to scrap compulsory student unionism, to force students to pay a fee to support sport.

He says university students, not taxpayers, should foot the bill for maintaining university sporting clubs and facilities.

A substantial portion of student fees are given to university sports clubs to reduce costs to student sportsmen and sportswomen.

It has been predicted that the government's bill will deprive university sports programs around Australia of $100 million putting many clubs at risk of collapse.

Mr Joyce said he was adamantly opposed to compulsory student unionism at universities.

But he said when it was scrapped it would have an effect on uni sporting facilities.

"We will be suggesting amendment in such form that sporting facilities are covered by a fee or some form of structure," he told ABC TV.

"The essence of this legislation, and this primarily very good legislation, is to get rid of compulsory student unionism and the militant aspects that it represents, and no one's got an argument with that.
AdvertisementAdvertisement

"But the job of the Senate is look at legislation and say when this legislation hits the ground it's going to have an effect ... on the sporting facilities, especially regional universities."

But Mr Joyce said he would not vote against the government's current bill.

"But what I would make (is) this commitment that, if in regional universities, we find that all the sporting infrastructure starts to fall to pieces, then that must be picked up by the public purse," he said.

"And instead of having sporting infrastructure supported by the students it's going to be supported by every taxpayer, and I think that's highly unfair."

Is it me or would that just fuck up the whole purpose of VSU? But he wont have power considering he wont vote against it.

 

[braindrainedAsh]

I am a little bit in the middle on this one..... I am kinda anti-VSU, but I can understand why some people want it. However, I think the VSU proposal could be modified somewhat to still allow unions to function, but so that people were only paying for what they wanted.

E.g. Union fees could be broken down in to several smaller fees. E.g
You could have

General Union Admin (which everyone is is paying for one of the union's services) $30
Union Sporting Fee $60
Union Childcare $30
Union Food and Entertainment Fee $50
Societies Fee $30
Political Activism Fee $30

This is just a rough example

So, say if you wanted to access union sports facilities, but nothing else, you could just pay the admin fee, and then the sports fee. Does that make sense? Then on your union card it could indicate what you had paid to join etc. So you would only have to pay for what services you wanted to use.

I dunno, it's just a basic sort of idea which may not be practical in the big scheme of things, but I think if you could pick what you wanted to pay for then VSU wouldn't be so bad.

 

[neo o]

I am a little bit in the middle on this one..... I am kinda anti-VSU, but I can understand why some people want it. However, I think the VSU proposal could be modified somewhat to still allow unions to function, but so that people were only paying for what they wanted.

E.g. Union fees could be broken down in to several smaller fees. E.g
You could have

General Union Admin (which everyone is is paying for one of the union's services) $30
Union Sporting Fee $60
Union Childcare $30
Union Food and Entertainment Fee $50
Societies Fee $30
Political Activism Fee $30

This is just a rough example

So, say if you wanted to access union sports facilities, but nothing else, you could just pay the admin fee, and then the sports fee. Does that make sense? Then on your union card it could indicate what you had paid to join etc. So you would only have to pay for what services you wanted to use.

I dunno, it's just a basic sort of idea which may not be practical in the big scheme of things, but I think if you could pick what you wanted to pay for then VSU wouldn't be so bad.

That's exactly what will happen under VSU, except nobody is going to pay for say, member honorariums

 

[iamsickofyear12]

I am a little bit in the middle on this one..... I am kinda anti-VSU, but I can understand why some people want it. However, I think the VSU proposal could be modified somewhat to still allow unions to function, but so that people were only paying for what they wanted.

E.g. Union fees could be broken down in to several smaller fees.

Thats what I was saying in the other VSU thread. I don't think this will happen though, cause the pro student union people are too busy telling everyone how bad this is going to be and not trying to work something out so they can still operate ones it happens.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Ah hilarious.

Really all you have to do is check the profile of people to tell if their opinions are valid or not.
[...]
Arts
Female
English Extension 2 (4 Unit English)
General Maths (or absence of maths altogether)
Community and Family Studies
Society and Culture
History Extension
Does not work.

Now, singular ones of these things on there own may not instantly mean the person's opinion is invalid, however, the presence of many of these qualities does mean you should immediatly stop reading any posts from this user, and try as hard as possible to belittle them.

How does undertaking those subjects make an opinion more likely to be invalid? I would think the opposite. That you believe doing a higher level of maths makes someone's opinion more likely to be valid, particularly with respect to social and moral issues, is quite absurd.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Ok, hows bout the seats?
What if they said "these seats were paid for by the student union! Only union members may have a seat!".

Is it really that hard to imagine this sort of non-sense happening?
I support the idea that non-union members shouldn't get union benefits, but i'm afraid that it will go way too far.

Depends if the seats are bolted to the ground, becoming fixtures and part of the land, and thus part of the uni

 

[Rorix]

I would probably pay sport and union but not SRC contributions (at USYD).

 

[Shuter]

How does undertaking those subjects make an opinion more likely to be invalid? I would think the opposite. That you believe doing a higher level of maths makes someone's opinion more likely to be valid, particularly with respect to social and moral issues, is quite absurd.

Oh no, don't get me wrong, it's not the fact that you've completed the course that makes the opinion less valid, it's the TYPE of people who CHOOSE these subjects who have retarded opinions.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Oh no, don't get me wrong, it's not the fact that you've completed the course that makes the opinion less valid, it's the TYPE of people who CHOOSE these subjects who have retarded opinions.

Yes, but how are these "types" of people more likely to hav less valid opinions? They have actually been educated in subjects appropriate to what we're discussing. Thus, I would think they are better-equipped to deal with the issues.

Your point stems from the an attitude that the people interested in society and culture, English and studying Arts, etc. are somehow spouting misguided, idealistic (and I suspect you think left-wing) wankery. A gross misconception. It would be a much more accurate generalisation to say that commerce students (educated in maths, business and economics) are more likely to be philosophically and socially lacking in their ability to both (a) express an interest, and (b) show insight, into social perspectives on these types of issues, if anything.

 

[Phanatical]

It's all well and good to talk about how much is going to change for USYD's main campus with VSU - but I wonder exactly how much the new Union will be willing to spend at MY campus. We currently receive a grand total of $15000 towards maintenance of the Music Cafe, CSA funding, SECS funding and the Con Christian funding, out of the $800000 students based at the Con's Macquarie St. facility contribute. It's not much better for the students based at the Con's Seymour Centre facility - all the services are on the Darlington side of campus, while music students are with the Engineering students. I'm starting to understand why the Engineering students aren't pleased with the Union, and I assure you that music students based there are also not happy.

The problem with VSU legislation is that the dirty politics which seems to define the student movement is the ONLY thing that will survive. Clubs and Societies will disappear, and the student organisations will have to become totalitarian - why spend money on a campus with 800 students, when they can spend it on a campus with 30000 and entice more people to become members? I'd like to see universal unionism on a greatly toned down level, and for my campus to join with the SCA to create our own independent Union and SRC, free of the bullshit of the main campus.

Regarding the Women's Officer, there has been, and will be immense opposition to either creating a Men's Officer, or doing what the Australian Intervarsity Male Rights Association (AIMRA) prefer - to Abolish the Women's Officer, and replace her with a non-gender-specific Gender and Equal Opportunity Officer. It is the policy of the National Union of Students (NUS), to which most SRC's are members, to "Condemn any move by any campus towards the implementation of a 'Men's Officer' position at any campus student organisation," as it "is symptomatic of a backlash society and indicative of the ignorance of the importance and role of Women's Officer as an important education portfolio in campus student organisations and within NUS"

I've written about this very issue, and have a recent Vibewire article up - http://www.vibewire.net/2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8873&Itemid=71

 

[MoonlightSonata]

but but what if they are not fixed! They will be chattels!

Well............... that would be a problem wouldn't it

hmm

 

[Shuter]

Your point stems from the an attitude that the people interested in society and culture, English and studying Arts, etc. are somehow spouting misguided, idealistic (and I suspect you think left-wing) wankery. A gross misconception. It would be a much more accurate generalisation to say that commerce students (educated in maths, business and economics) are more likely to be philosophically and socially lacking in their ability to both (a) express an interest, and (b) show insight, into social perspectives on these types of issues, if anything.

Yes that's the gist of it. I don't see how you can say people educated in maths, business and economics would be philosophically lacking, as these areas are all deeply interrelated with philosophy. History has shown many great philosophers were also mathematicians.

And the rest of the post essentially sums up why these opinions should be ignored:

rationality > emotion.

 

[Frigid]

my opinion on VSU is still undecided... we'll just have the see the consequences i suppose... it's a bit like the GST

if we fuckup, i want Brendan Nelson OUT.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Yes that's the gist of it. I don't see how you can say people educated in maths, business and economics would be philosophically lacking [...]

In comparison to Arts students.

And the rest of the post essentially sums up why these opinions should be ignored:

rationality > emotion.

You somehow equate English (an Arts subject) to emotion. The ability to communicate ideas and argue properly is a very pertinent aspect of debate. Of course maths is a part of philosophy, but the fact that many great philosophers were also mathematicians is neither here nor there - we're talking about commerce students. I doubt studying accounting is going to help you understand as many social issues as a sociology course (Arts) does. Similarly studying business associations has little to do with valid opinions regarding the role of government institutions and policy choices in comparison to someone studying politics (Arts). I might also ask where you find justice in science and maths - someone studying philosophy (Arts) will have a far greater understanding than someone studying those subjects.

It is not only disingenuous to say that those involved with Arts type subjects are more likely to have less valid opinions, it would in fact be the opposite.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

On this note it is interesting that the right wing union at U New England has gotten rid of queer space and installed a 'mens officer' and a 'hetrosexual officer' (cos you know hetrosexual men have it so tough). The president of the UNESA also purchased an Australian flag and a framed picture of QU2 to show how patriotic they are up there.

Their o week banner was also 'we control your country; we control your campus'

Wow that's scary.
They're obviously idiots.

For instance, i understand installing a hetrosexual officer, as long as u also have a queer officer, because there are issues pertaining to hetrosexuality that sometimes need to be delt with which are just as serious as homosexuality.
Also, what's wrong with installing a 'mens officer', at university men are a minority group and if you go by test scores, we obviously need some help!

The 'we control your country, we control your campus' thing is funny... What a crappy slogan, and it just perpectuates crap.

 

[neo o]

The idea of a mens officer is stupid, as is the idea of having a women's officer. As is the idea of having both queer, and straight officers, and personally the idea of clubs that encourage the membership of a single race - are also stupid (I draw a distinction between 'racial clubs' such as the Chinese club at UNSW and clubs that focus on a particular culture.

However, in regards to all of the above roles, A single gender office would be sufficient to deal with :

- Men's and women's health.
- Counselling for men and women.
- Distribution of contraceptives.
- And the like.

Unions are refusing to recognise the needs of people that aren't gay, and whom aren't women i.e.: Quite a few of their members. When VSU rolls around though, they'll have to try and work for EVERYONE'S membership.

 

[Rorix]

(cos you know hetrosexual men have it so tough).

I won't rest until women adorn the computer wallpapers around campus.