[ProgSoc] Compulsory Student Unionism coming back!

Roland Turner raz at raz.cx
Wed Nov 9 17:02:34 EST 2011


On 09/11/2011 12:01, Daniel Bryan wrote:

>> The fundamental objection to compulsory unionism is that there is no 
>> choice in the matter, and that societies and unions should entice 
>> people to join rather than force them. To Raz's credit have you even 
>> seen the student unions 'campus benefits'? With the exception of the 
>> SMH subscription which the first few people get they're rubbish.
> Fact is, we don't live in a society that's at all based on these 
> libertarian approaches. You can be a constructivist if you want, but 
> our institutions, laws, etc. are the result of centuries of tradition, 
> establishment and institutionalisation, not the following of an Ideal 
> like "people should have free association!"

It's broken, therefore it is a fact that it's broken. We don't live in 
the kind of place where stuff gets fixed.

</irony>

Freedom of association _*is*_ an important value in Australia. 
Governments are not permitted to use taxpayer funds to run election 
campaigns. Labour unions are not permitted to use member funds to pursue 
political agendas other than those of their members. Etc.

> You can complain about compulsory unionisation in workplaces if you 
> like, but they're the reason the "weekend" exists. Literally.

The discussion is about compulsory _*student*_ unionism.

The argument that weekends are a union construct is a little thin. Henry 
Ford's workplace practices seem like a more plausible explanation.

> Completely aside from all the valid criticism of the way student 
> unions were organised and operated prior to VSU, it's unambiguous - 
> beyond any doubt whatsoever - that the introduction of VSU was a 
> political move. It was an attack on:
>
>   * the people who relied on services that only compulsory student
>     unionism could provide (which were//generally /not/ replaced by
>     the universities themselves, as was claimed would happen at the time
>

Whether or not you feel that VSU was an attack on needy people (I 
staunchly support VSU, but have no desire to attack needy people), if 
there are essential services missing from universities then, of course, 
they should be provided the same way they are anywhere else: by private 
concessions where they can be run profitably and taxpayer-funded 
(contracted, bulk-billed or by government employees as appropriate) 
where they can't. There isn't something peculiar about universities - 
unless you view them as some sort of adult day-care facility - that 
justifies slugging indebted students for this.

>   * the perception that student unions are biased towards progressive
>     politics (absurd - the representation of political factions in
>     student unions and associations generally matches the political
>     views of the student body at large, which is widely known to be
>     left of society at large.
>   * the union movement in general
>

I don't buy either of these claims.

> More pointedly, it matches the general trend to reconceptualise the 
> average person not as someone who has a job and generally occupies a 
> particular position in society as a skilled worker or producer but 
> rather as someone who, regardless of their actual real position, can 
> be a Shareholder and Entrepreneur and Rationally Negotiate All Their 
> Contractual Obligations On A Day To Day Basis. There's a reason people 
> in Europe used to joke about us as "the shareholder economy". They 
> find these Ayn Rand fantasies laughable. It's hand-in-hand with 
> WorkChoices: they are part of the same programme.

Oh dear.

The "follow the standard life script, be a lifelong cog in someone 
else's machine" approach to living was essentially a 20th century 
phenomenon. To their credit, unions applied the general shortage of 
factory labour to help create this system at the beginning of last 
century and it worked _*very*_ well for a great many people for decades. 
As there is no longer such a shortage (quite the contrary in fact), it's 
increasingly a non-viable approach. The general trend that you're 
observing is not some libertarian conspiracy, it's rational response to 
a radically changed environment.

> If your concern is really with The Indebted Student, point your finger 
> at the massively over-priced courses offered by universities.

Actually, they're not over-priced. (Indeed, if they were, Australian 
students would be flocking to universities elsewhere. You'll note that 
the trend is actually the other way around.)

> Point your finger at their outrageous building programs,

The obligation (when I started at UTS) to pay a student housing levy 
despite the fact that the university provided no student housing was 
equally unjust, yes.

> their wholesale exploitation of international students (UTS in 
> particular is notorious for this),

I don't know what this means. Googling digs up some less than clear 
claims, can you explain what exploitation is occurring and how UTS is 
getting away with it.

> the constant increase in class sizes.

This is part of a broader problem of public provision of a service, 
although it has the same cause as compulsory student unionism: students 
have little political power, so they're an easy target when bureaucrats 
need to get their hands on more funds for something.

> This is basic stuff. It's about the health of the herd. People benefit 
> from the institution that occupies most of their life for years at a 
> time actually, like, being able to provision some services that are 
> meaningful to them as humans -

Sure, but:

> proper counselling,

Why should this be provided in a special way in universities, in 
preference to the arrangements that are made for adult citizens outside 
universities? Why should indebted students who aren't using these 
services subsidise those who are? (Note that this is a very different 
question to that of the funding by the taxpaying population as a whole 
of certain services for the benefit of society as a whole.)

> childcare,

Ditto.

> social events,

Sure. If only someone had invented a way for adult citizens to hold 
social events that didn't require sticking non-participants with the bill.

</irony>

> funds for political advocacy, etc.

!!

You get that any money that the Union uses for political advocacy is for 
the interests of the Union and those close to its staff, that many of 
the students whose money is appropriated for this purpose oppose the 
Union's politics? Surely the injustice here is pretty obvious?

- Raz
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://progsoc.org/pipermail/progsoc/attachments/20111109/f7bf2e33/attachment.html>


More information about the Progsoc mailing list