The following is an abridged version of a statement circulated in the National Tertiary Education and Industry Union (NTEU) concerning the recent agreement between the Melbourne University administration and the uni's NTEU branch, which links a 12% pay rise to university revenue targets. It is in response to another statement distributed by Militant member Bill Deller defending fellow Militant member Andy Blunden, who spoke in favour of the deal at the Melbourne Uni NTEU mass meeting.
When you strip away the sectarian rhetoric, it becomes apparent that a number of major issues of significance to the Melbourne University situation and to the NTEU nationally are not even discussed in Bill Deller's communication.
The message that the Melbourne Uni agreement sends to students and staff determined to fight the rationalist agenda in education is that the NTEU will not offer more than lip service opposition. More than this, it signals that the union will actively assist management in extending the user-pays principle and accelerating the process of corporatisation in return for an extra 6.5 %.
The type of agreement adopted at Melbourne University is an obstacle not only because it undermines the students' campaign against up-front fees but because it also stops staff from campaigning against the adverse effects on their wages, conditions and job security which result from this latest stage of corporatisation.
Deller misrepresents the situation in the Melbourne University branch of the NTEU. Despite his rhetorical attacks against the opponents of the deal, whom he describes as "sectarian critics", the vote taken at Melbourne University on the EB deal was extremely close, with almost 50% voting against it (123 for and 119 against).
The left could have "won" majority support to oppose a rotten deal and had the support of the union's National Executive and the Victorian division to do so.
Nor was the deal the best that could have been done after a long and exhausting struggle. Indeed, if the Melbourne NTEU leadership had proposed rejection, the ground would have been prepared for a strengthened struggle around pay, conditions and education funding. This has been pointlessly sacrificed.
Deller's central assumption is that given the cuts in government funding, any pay rise was going to be funded by "stinging the students" and therefore it is okay for the Melbourne University branch to make their pay rise contingent on meeting management's specific revenue generation targets.
University managements have tried to play the guilt card on staff for many years now. They have told staff that if they get a pay rise, either jobs will have to go and both staff and students will suffer or students will have to pay more in fees. Deller accepts this logic.
In the course of negotiating a pay increase it may be necessary to make certain specific trade-offs. However, what the MU branch has agreed to is far more dangerous because most of the trade-offs are unspecified. MU management can designate all sorts of restructuring processes "necessary" to achieve the "productivity goals", just so long as there is "no overall reduction in staff numbers". Any opposition to restructuring proposals could be construed as preventing the uni from reaching its targets.
The danger lies in tying the hands of the union in this agreement when more serious and unforeseen moves by the employer might emerge in the future. This not only puts pressure on the union leadership not to take such action but also breaks down the solidarity between staff in productive courses and departments (i.e. those with lots of full fee paying students) and those in unproductive courses and departments (where there are no or few full fee paying students). Staff in "unproductive" courses and departments will be pressured not to resist jobs being transferred because this could jeopardise the pay increase.
The agreement defines the productivity of university staff solely in terms of their ability to generate revenue for the university from fee paying students.
Much has been made of the fact that the agreement states that there will be "no overall reduction in staff numbers". In the context, such a clause does seem to be a significant victory. However, the fact is that a lot of job shedding has already taken place and with deregulation of fees MU is looking to expand its operations and market share. This puts the claims that this was a major concession in a new light.
There are also national ramifications of the agreement. The Melbourne University deal establishes a standard which will set other branches who have not concluded agreements back. It also weakens the real position of branches that have signed off already.
The Deller/Blunden position amounts to a capitulation to the Howard government's agenda for tertiary education. It is difficult to sustain even the rhetoric of an education alliance if the union indicates that it is not willing to fight over an issue which is central to the students. When student representatives raised their concerns precisely over this issue, Deller has the affront to call this a "provocation".
It is one of the tasks of the union to cement this alliance, and to convince the union membership of the need for it. The deal cut at Melbourne University hinders the NTEU in this task at a time when we need to take a stand over some of the fundamental issues in the rationalisation of education.
Jeremy Smith, branch executive member, University of Ballarat, NTEU
Helen Jarvis, UNSW branch, NTEU
Ben Reid, Melbourne University branch, NTEU
Pat Brewer, University of Canberra branch, NTEU
Shane Hopkinson, Newcastle University branch, NTEU