[ProgSoc] VSU (Was: What should the exec do? (Was: Scrap VSU info from UTS Union))

Andrew Halliday andrew.halliday at gmail.com
Tue Mar 10 02:51:02 EST 2009


On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 11:21 PM, jedd <jedd at progsoc.org> wrote:

> On Mon Mar 9 2009, Andrew Halliday wrote:
> > >  "Other people force you to pay money, so why can't the union?"
> >
> > Actually, my argument is more along the lines of "If you live in a
> > society you must participate and contribute to support that society"
> >
> > If you don't want to pay tax then go somewhere that doesn't require
> > you to (and enjoy the excellent services and representation there) or
> > vote for your party of choice that will deliver such an outcome to
> > you in the next relevant election.
>
>  And a few minutes ago you said to Raz that you can't compare
>  voting with your wallet to the effects of voluntary fee payers,
>  because there's no competition.
>

Yup.

 I'd suggest a similar problem for you here - there is nowhere else
>  for someone who doesn't want to pay fees to go, in a scenario
>  where all universities force you to pay those fees.


Yes. And?
Such fees are not a problem. Really. Whether they should be compulsory is
one of the issues, is it not?


>  Or are you suggesting that anyone that doesn't want to be forced
>  to pay student union fees should study in a different country?
>

That's always an option, a drastic one and hardly cost effective but an
option nonetheless.


>
> > A University is run like an enterprise and like a public service.
>
>  Which?


Well, both elements are present.


> > Your analogy is flawed. You ignore that many of these services were
> > created due to social demand by the student population combined with
> > the observed need by administrators who were looking to be socially
> > responsible as a matter of duty of care to the student body. To say
> > that this has all been forced upon students unfairly is unfounded.
>
>  I don't believe my analogy is flawed.
>
>  I suggest that the rationale for many of these services may no longer
>  be applicable.   It's possible to get health care at non-campus
>  health centres.  It's possible to get legal advice at non-campus
>  legal centres.  And  I can continue with the array (child minding,
>  beer, sausages, etc)
>

I'm not denying this. It's the convenience, it's the cost (how many places
bulk bill these days? How many places will offer free legal advice? How many
places offer child care placements at affordable prices near Uni's?) its the
accessibility. These services evolved from student demand after all.


> > Perhaps the best way is to have a campus referendum. Honestly I think
> > that most won't oppose the issue because the cost over an average
> > degree is about $1000- and it's HECS deferrable. I pay  $936- per
> > SUBJECT at Uni. If it's deferrable I'm hardly going to quibble about
> > it and I doubt too many others will either.
>
>  So now your argument is "it's a lot of money, but not much compared
>  to what you're already paying, so don't worry about it" ?
>

It's a component of my case but not the core of it.


> > The problem is that folks such as yourself continually try and cast
> > yourself as an entity separate to the rest of the community in which
> > you live and the society in which you exist. Such organisations are
> > not here to do your bidding. They're here to do 'our' collective
> > bidding.
>
>  Our includes me.  My bidding is that you don't hit me up for
>  a grand for some sausages (yeah yeah, and a bunch of other
>  services I'd never use - point remains).
>

It's funny. People like you also would have the same thing when it comes to
public expenditure. And yet when you end up actually needing something, say
health care, you'll all bitch and bellow and complain about the lack of
service. You can't have your cake (money in pocket and lack of service) and
eat it too (have the service, just only when you want it). Actually it's not
funny. It's sad and tragic that such self centred people exist.


>  Such organisations are not the ethically neutral entities that you
>  seem to wish they were, and they should not be treated as
>  sacrosanct merely because you like what they did for you.
>

I don't think they are ethically neutral, although I might hope they aspire
to be, and I do not think ANY organisation should be treated as sacrosanct.
That's why we have accountability, external audits, surveys and of course,
ELECTIONS.

I like them holistically (trust me I get critical with the details) because
of what I see them do for people who need the services they provide and
because I see what happens when people don't get access to those services
and it sucks.

Andi.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://progsoc.org/pipermail/progsoc/attachments/20090310/17de37c3/attachment.htm 


More information about the Progsoc mailing list