My "ONE VOICE CAMPAIGN"
Since its inception (1996 registration 1998) the NTESU has taken the strategic view that a single voice for higher education was essential. Fragmementation of representation would, in the end, become counter productive for workers in the sector.
The thread of this strategic view has been running mildly in the background of the last ten years.
During this time several decisions and resolutions have been taken in Congress to create and foster closer relations with other unions in the sector such as NUTESA, SAPTU, and others, which would add value to the representational offerings to our members. The latter would include UASA, Solidarity, SADTU, NEHAWU.
Over recent years, there has been some discussion with UASA as well. There has also been a great deal of collaboration with NUTESA and even SADTU and NEHAWU through the ETDP SETA and its labour caucus at various levels within the governance structures.
There is a great deal of resistance in reality to the notion of one voice. One has to say this, because, when it comes to acting on the resolutions there is suddenly expression of ambivilence. The National Executive becomes divided and decisions to action the resolution are left unattended to either by omission to make arrangements or reluctance to get past branch interestes over national interests.
A real issue in these debates is whether one merges the various sectoral unions, or, the unions club together and then subsume into a large union structure as a silo within that structure. The advantages of this are big. In one word : resources. There are interesting identity debates in this scenario most of which should be irrelevant in the light of serving the interests of the membership and workers in the unions' ambit of operation.
New union necessary
There has been support for the idea that it would be better to form a new union, specially designed to recruit as many members as possible, rather than simply expect everyone to join one of the existing ones. It was therefore necessary to work out what such a new union should be like.
The unions, while seeing the coming new landscaping and the implications, simply did not release themselves from their "turf" interests and take the issues into commonality and take appropriate action. Having said that this is also a trifle unfair. There certainly were talks and attempts which were taken seriously by the respective task teams but then were not taken forward with a broader strategic view by the Congress and Conferences of any of the unions involved. There are documents which prove the intent - none that prove the commitment.
Differing views
Interestingly, several years ago there were calls to form a KZN-based union for all HE sector workers, as a rapid initial move towards unity, while others declared this to be a non-starter: their members had joined a national union to have a national voice. In discussions, there was also some tension between a “radical” element, seeking an active campaigning style, and a “low profile” group. It was not clear that everyone was in favour of “inclusivity”, a necessary element to form a single union - when it meant inviting in people who disagreed with you!
Why the "one voice campaign"?
Firstly, this has largely been carried on in the background by this writer as the only person left from the founding national executive. That's one issue around the players in the recent years of the union's life-span.
Secondly, there is increasing pressure on all unions from outside the labour community to come into one union representing all. There are two main reasons for this.
One: bodies such as the Department of Education and HESA don't want to have four or five different meetings around issues. It is also difficult to run a consultative meeting where each union has a different standpoint, or an apparent difference which after discussion is just the same thing approached from another angle and meets in the middle.
Two: its difficult to take the inputs of the likes of the NTESU forward based on the representational profile of the unit. A small, albeit reasonable and rational, representative body just is not recognisable enough for the DoE, for instance, to use as a "representative opinion" when it goes to HESA or even to Portfolio Committees.
Thirdly, negotiation is a numbers game. Representation is a number game. Without numbers one runs into number two above very quickly.
Fourthly, there are an increasing number of local executives across the board asking the question why are we in separate houses - when we are the same family and represent the same interests?
Over a number of years there have been two attempts to bring NTESU and NUTESA together. The first prize would have been full amalagmation. The closer relationships between the these two has really been driven by individuals who occupy seats at the national bodies. Not by the National Office Bearers of the past few years. Players in those attempts with one or two exceptions have moved on.
What's Changed
NTESU was born out of UDUSA which at the time operated as a pressure and comment group within the University sector. NUTESA grew out of the Technicon sector and the sector was not a participant with UDUSA. There were no real connections between the two sectors. With the new landscape for higher education and the mergers, the disappearance of the technicons and creation of the universities of technology, a great deal changed.
The connection between the worlds of universities and technicons was quickly made. The interaction of the two unions between each other and individually on campuses has become more direct and collaborations or simple exchanges of information and strategic views and planning have become important to the common interests of workers.
What's Happened
NTESU - NUTESA dialogues
As long ago as 2000 discussions between representatives of NUTESA and NTESU decided to put together views on the design of a new union. Each group had a mandate to proceed with such discussions and they could draw on previous discussions that had taken place over a number of years.
By 2004 there had been two distinct inter-union discussion periods. Both unions recognised the need for a single voice and both felt that any new national union must incorporate these two. If they could agree on the features the new organisation should have, this should be a good base on which to invite others (e.g. institutional unions and staff associations) to join.
** Bear in mind that what appears below is a history of what has been suggested in the past. In any upcoming discussions these will still be under discussion but the outcome may be quite different from these.
Some arising details on the issues are spelt out below. These are, incidentally, no different now from what they were in 2000.
a. Name of organisation.
b. Permanent base.
c. High-powered paid staff member?
d. Aims and objectives, and “organising principles”.
e. Membership: should anyone not be eligible?
f. Sections within membership.
g. Subscriptions.
h. Governance structures apart from national Congress.
i. Recognition agreement.
a. Name of organisation
Should this be different from both NUTESA and NTESU. NUHESA looked a viable starting point for discussion. While NUHESA looks good now it comes in conflict with the use of HESA for the university employers' organisation. It may be viable in making a point, but hardly seems workable at this stage. There is strong strategic argument for the retention of NTESU and the use of the NUTESA badge. The argument is that there is convincing evidence that NTESU has a well remembered name especially with the DoE, its on various invitation lists which other unions appear not to be on. There are many ex-UDUSA members in the higher education policy and bureaucratic structures around the country. This is valuable goodwill.
b. Permanent base
The Registrar of Labour Relations and other national level correspondents require a national union to have a permanent office, with someone in it, to be easily contactable and answerable. Gauteng would be an obvious location - but there are cost implications - there had been a suggestion from SAUVCA (now HESA) in 1999 that NTESU take office sapce in buildings as they were considering renting - particularly if there was to be a high-powered paid staff member (see next item).
c. High-powered paid staff member?
In the past, and, indeed, at present, NUTESA and NTESU are running their national offices on a low-cost basis. Neither has a paid staff member equivalent to a high-powered General Secretary whose job is to forge links, be a credible discussion partner with senior public service staff and politicians, and help draft policy. Such a person would be an asset, and increasingly important as the national Ministry of Education plays an active role in shaping HE.
d. Aims and objectives, and “organising principles”
There is everything in common between the ideas and intersts of NUTESA and NTESU.
e. Membership: should anyone not be eligible?
The NUTESA and NTESU constitutions differed and would need to be analysed again for changes : the latter allows anyone from Vice-Chancellor down to join. Recognition Agreements are used to manage the employer representative membership of such people normally providing for them to be represented by the union but not for the union to be reprepresented by them. There is discussion as to whether someone negotiating with the union, e.g. a head of Human Resources, should be able to be a member.
But there is Labour Court judgement and opinion that suggests people can realistically separate themselves in these contexts - and, after all, they are employees as well who happen to advise our councils on issues which affect them as much as they affect other workers. It is accepted that each is playing a role in the particular situation, rather than acting as a grand indivisible Employer. In playing such a role they will be bound by decisions of the group they are representing, and in other situations may well be represented by union officials if they themselves have difficulties with their superiors.
f. Sections within membership
A key question here is: who can fear being dominated by whom? Possible groups included: "academic” vs. “general” staff, “decision-taking” vs. “junior” staff.
There have been past recommendations on this and some statements of principle, and categories within governance structures appear in para. (h) below.
g. Subscriptions
The new union will need to decide whether to use a flat rate subscription (as NTESU now uses) or a sliding scale related to salary. Each has advantages and disadvantages.
h. Governance structures apart from national Congress - national level
A union should put its resources into resources. So, large governance structures will only redirect money resources from real support resources like administration and other office functionaries. The model most touted is a small Management Committee meeing monthy (best by teleconference) and larger Council of Chairpersons meeting per semester. Any constitution should incorporate all categories of staff and these should be fairly represented in decision-taking structures, it would obviously also address the manner of constituting the Council.
i. Branch committees
This is where the most variation is found with regard to local issues, characteristics and conditions. Multi-campus institutions can display considerable local variation. The union's national constitution should allow that representation on branch Executive Committees, and Committees of Representatives, must be equitable between sections of staff, and that each branch should decide on the balance of representation between campuses (where relevant) and between sections of staff.
One of the biggest dangers here is the "bloated democratic structure" syndrome. Balance is critical in these matters to achieve effectiveness.
j. Recognition agreements
Different branches may find different provisions to their advantage. The national office should have draft sample guidelines, but leave details to be negotiated at branch level rather than try to insist on a uniform pattern. However, all RAs should have standard clauses which must be put into effect. Of course the issue here is the differing characters of management and management responses to unions. But, in these things, as with union policy documents, unions should strive to create similar conditions in all institutions according to what the union Congress believes to be appropriate for all its members around the country.
This is a process of constant work and change management by Branch Executives at each local.
0 comments:
Post a Comment