NTESU (national) Blog

WHAT PRICE ACADEMIC FREEDOM

2008-12-03T14:24:00.005+02:00

Section 16 of the South African Constitution states :

16. Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes

freedom of the press and other media;
freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
freedom of artistic creativity; and
academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.

2. The right in subsection (1) does not extend to

propaganda for war;
incitement of imminent violence; or
advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.

16.1.(2),(3),(4) all relate to academic practitioners in the pursuit of knowledge generation, knowledge dissemination, and knowledge utilisation.

So, its been interesting that a large university (though some question this label this week) has used disciplinary action to suppress two of its academics who were commissioned by the Faculty of Science and Agriculture to compile a document on academic freedom for presentation to the Senate of the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN). All information alleges that the Vice-Chancellor, one, Prof Malegapuru Makgoba, refused to table the document in Senate and that the academics questioned this. Makgoba set-up a mediation process and then set disciplinary action against the academics - who it might be argued were just doing what the Dean and Faculty had legally instructed them to do in terms of the functions of Faculty. Some significant legal cost was predicted in these disciplinary acts, (although the one academic backed-down and the other resigned) one wonders if there is a budget deficit for such things given these are unbudgetted items for a defined budget organisation.

Anyway, the uproar around things has raged for a month or more and the NTESU (National) has done a number of things to attempt to highlight the academic freedom issues which in reality underlie the situation. The trouble is that there is no commonly understood charter in this country and not all institutions have either an academic freedom declaration or an academic freedom committee, or both. In fact, the statements one sometimes see are so watered down that its ridiculous. And, these are documents drafted and debated by academics! There is one of the NTESU Branches which when it first presented its proposed recognition agreement also presented several addenda one of which was about academic freedom. Management in the form of the then Dean of Arts, rejected the notion of including the document and one of the reasons was that there would have to be broader debate of the text before management would agree to it.

WHAT UKZN, AGAIN, PRECIPITATES

So, I was interested in comments forwarded from the UKZN open change listserv recently because they run to a thrust that the NTESU(National) has been pursuing, or, certainly during the times that I have been a member of the NEC. Also NTESU (Rhodes) in 2001, when the Branch refused to attend the Congress of that year because of constitutional issues with the arranging of that Congress, forwarded a motion which their AGM approved and was sent to the NEC of the time and it called for some form of discussion to be generated on Academic freedom. That text in available (as well the text of the UNESCO Recommendation on the Status of Higher Education Teaching Personnel (1997)). It called for action even as far as the Constitutional Court in order to derive a standing common understanding of Academic Freedom in SA (there had already been many violations).

With regard to the comments below by, presumably, a member of the UKZN change listserv :

"I would suggest an approach from NTESU national to the Minister to request facilitation of discussions at all tertiary institutions followed by a national conference on the subject of academic freedom of speech."

** The NTESU NEC met with the Minister of Education in March 2008. At that meeting we raised several issues about academic freedom (UFS, UFH, UKZN, NWU amongst others) and asked the Ministry to facilitate a colloquium on the issue. At the time the HEIAAF document from CHE was not readily available. We also asked the Ministry to facilitate a tri-partite meeting between NTESU, HESA and the DoE HE Division in which the various issues could be exchanged and also it would be a good thing just to create a break in the vacuum between the Union and HESA and its members.

The NTESU National President has been in engagement with the DoE D-G and we would now have to be seeking for them to take up that suggestion with more commitment.

ACADEMIC PROFESSIONALS

There is suggestion around the creation of a professional organisation for academics even under NTESU's guidance. While one can appreciate this suggestion, such a professional organisation presents some difficulties and would not necessarily enjoy the recognition or participation envisaged by proponents. Nothing says that institutions would have to recognise the principia set by such a body even if SACE-like registration and regulations were applied. It might be more appropriate for the NTESU to establish a standing academic freedom sub-committee like the gender reference group. There should also be an academic freedom barometer (and one would advocate to the NEC that NTESU establish part of the NTESU web site as a place to report on these things from submissions by the membership).

Most of this has been bandied about over the years. There was at a time the suggestion that the CHE act in the manner that SACE does / should and that all academics should register as a matter of a "professional" registration. In the case of SACE this means that there are certain minimum qualifications before they will register one as an educator and one cannot be employed unless registered. As we know, until recent years there has been no qualification which qualifies university level staff as educators. (could make a comment often made here but lets not inflame things with reality.)

Its a bit of a fraught issue and academics find many ways to argue against the institution of such a system / requirement. Funnily enough, based on academic freedom (for some misguided reason). One of the arguments is that this sort of thing will tie things down and that is not how academia works. Heck, does it work the other way?

The comment appeared "...I wonder what measures will entrench academic freedom ...".

Senate!

What is the UKZN Senate (or any) doing around all of this. The claim from the management is that this is a disciplinary issue and the rights of the University cannot be questioned - as in the Findon letter to Faculty of Science and Agriculture. But, in reality, Senate could introduce a motion of no confidence in a VC, it could petition itself to gauge the number of senators who support the VC or not. It could refuse to vote with the VC at critical times. A VC without a supporting Senate should be relatively toothless.

Problem with this is that academics seem to find it difficult to take up the "academic arms" available to them when necessary. In fact, when someone at UKZN was asked about this, and the role of Senate, gave the answer that the Senate would not go that far (for various founded or unfounded reasons given we won't go into here). But, at what point are all those full professors embarrassing themselves before their peers? Perhaps they are not all full professors, heads of department? May be the academic roles of Senates have been usurped in favour of managerialism?

Ombud and academic "tribunal" - another suggestion. Well first we have to come to a South African definition that we commonly understand and subscribe to - or there will be no framework for adjudication. The UNESCO Recommendatioin was going to be a declaration but one of the prime drafters said they found it very difficult to get that through. So it ended being a recommendation. That is what will most likely happen with an academic freedom charter. HESA would probably not let it be binding. We won't know until we test them. It would be (and maybe rightly so in a normal academic community) a voluntary matter of subscribing - that leads to many forms of corrupting and ignoring the tenets espoused in the document. The wider world has had these charters for years, the Greeks wrote down seven fundamentals, yet, there are significant violations all the time, internationally.

To enshrine it is one thing, but, as Mbeki said recently, most of the time people take what they interpret and for their own purposes and lose the spirit and organisational nature of these things because they don't like it individually.

This generic comment is also heard : "In my opinion, we need to remove the idea that we are merely employees of the university, and re-establish the idea that we are the university: a collegial academic community".

There are institutions which do it this way, take heart, but collegiality is a very clear myth anywhere. Academics have to note this fact, and that is more or less universal especially when Senate loses its functionality because it does not lead, preferring to be led.

ACADEMIC BOYCOTTS?

One of the primary objects of NTESU is to defend Academic and Research Freedoms as enshrined in the SA Constitution. Some developments which will begin to unfold in the near months will begin to create a strengthening of the position of members of the union movement to more effectively represent these issues.

In terms of the current activity at UKZN. The NTESU (National) has mobilised overseas unions to comment and send these comments to Makgoba, Mr Mia, CHE, DoE, HESA and others. We have encouraged them to decry the violation of academic freedom and also to consider the prospect of an academic boycott by their members, of the institution, until it clearly upholds academic freedom and to state this to the University in their comments.

Of course, they must say what they will and we cannot do too much to lead them, although they did ask the opinion and advice of NTESU as the relevant local nationally based union prior. It remains to be seen how many actually do this. We have sent messages to those office bearers in the EI that we know of as well. If these things come off then a rain of significant messages will be arriving at UKZN. The petition site seems to be going well.

WHAT'S A VALID PRICE?

In 2001 the NTESU (Rhodes) hosted an American academic who was at UFH at the time (Glen Howse) who was horrified at what was happening around a certain issue. They set up a seminar with him and in the end not more than a handful of academics attended.

Its no wonder academic freedom is only defended in the crisis times. There is a huge assumption that collegiality (the grandest of myths) operates and an even bigger assumption that academic freedom just lives and breathes amongst us like some biological fundamental of the system. Short monosylabic English slanguage is the response to that.

At the end of the day what price is attached to academic freedom? Is it the sacrifice of some academics such as those at UKZN and other institutions around the world in the process of chipping away at management until the point made? Is it loss of academic connection with the outside world and broader academia through academic boycotts of institutions? The loss of academic integrity? Academics should ask themselves : whether they actually do enough as individuals or as subscribers to collectives to defend this right and principle? There are few who would admit that the academic community itself is remiss in not being very vocal against managements - all of whom, incidentally, remember, were academics themselves. One isn't required to be a brave person to become an academic but as an academic if one is not brave then one will never take the professional criticism and analysis well.

And, perhaps this is the issue around the world, some Vice-Chancellors are neither brave nor academic.

That's the price, because we allow them to be appointed, either for the wrong reasons, or, without enough force or reason against silly or real imperatives.

ACADEMIC FREEDOM

We either want it or we don't, its not a soft topic.

"But at least we must have some way of entrenching, once and for all, the right to assemble on university property in office hours to discuss what we want to discuss, have access to information, and speak to the media, without needing permission from anyone, least of all unsympathetic "managers". In my opinion, we need to remove the idea that we are merely employees of the university, and re-establish the idea that we are the university: a collegial (!) academic community."

UNITY IN TERTIARY EDUCATION
*************************

TOWARDS ONE HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR UNION

2008-10-17T17:12:00.004+02:00

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.

Reflections on Unionism in HE

2008-06-26T09:53:00.002+02:00

The NTESU National President recently responded to the news that one of the Branches of the NTESU was planning to disband. This is an interesting note on the environment in which unionists in higher education in this country exist because its not the first institutional representation which has met this attitude from the employer.

There are several branches which have experienced the claim from their institutions that one cannot organise without being sufficiently representative. This is an interpretation of the LRA and is essentially not correct. The right to organise is enshrined in the Act, employers who then say that the union cannot meet can only do so on the basis that meetings cannot take place during working hours. So, what's wrong with lunch time. Those employers who will not allow the use of venues are simply obstructive. These are rights that one has to argue for and engage employers over.

Interestingly, in some of these institutions, it has been other unions which appear to have colluded with employers to keep the NTESU out of reprentational consultations. This is a "sad note" on turf-centered thinking and certainly creates devisions within the Labour movement which are not constructive. Our law unfortunately runs on majoritarianist principles and that means that local recruitment is essential and this is not easy work, requires commitment from the same people who fought for our freedoms in the past.

Higher Education employers are not not known for their co-determinative approach and they are generally highly resistant to academic and administrative staff unionising. This includes intimidation of staff into not joining unions. Its a bizarre aspect of institutional life when we all understand academia to be free-thinking institutions not draconian top-down zones. Unfortunately, the very institutions which one would expect to embrace co-determination, freedom of association and other human and labour rights are the one's that resist and deny these the most. Employers claim they are collegial with the academic community - this is a big myth.

Here are the NTESU National President's comments extracted and edited from an email.

It is unfortunate that our attempts to contact and meet with the Branch Executive were met with no response. Being a unionist is 'not a bed of roses' - especially when fighting for the rights of others and in a sector that is slowly becoming aware about the concept of unionism and have tended up to the recent past to 'hide their head in the sand'. This is not only at ---, but also at almost every HEI. Unionism is hard work with rarely any recognition, an arena of battles and simutaneously educating our very people - this is also compounded by the type of Managers we are also dealing with; and the social/global competitive environment we are all facing. We cannot 'throw our hands in the air and wait for others to save us', nor can we fall into apathy as 'students' are presently in, nor turn our faces the other way, nor throw in the towel.

I undersand where you are coming from......pioneering is never easy...... I have been insulted, ridiculed, threaten by management, had my salary stopped by a VC, given a DC letter with allegations of sabotage, thought I was losing it mentally.......... and even been shot. WHY DO I STILL CONTINUE? I believe in human freedom, free from suppression and oppression. I believe that by awaking our people in HEIs beyond 'bread and butter issues' we will contribute to our country. I think it is not going to get any easier. I believe that there is a purpose in who we are, what we are and what we have to do.

Its interesting to look at the comments which came from the Branch. Because, there are other institutional representatives in HEIs who have given the same comment. Here is an edited version. There is clear frustration with Management here.

The Branch listed these, but not limited to these, issues :

The Branch not being recognised as per the institution's threshold and substantive representation;

(COMMENT the Union is registered, not the Branch, and the employer cannot refuse to recognise it and its branches. however, it can demand a level of representation before consulting and / or negotiating with the Union - it is the job of local recruiters to see to this growth.)

The non-participation of the Branch has meant that the members voice had no platform.

(COMMENT as mentioned above our law is majoritatian in nature but this can be worked around by defining the workplace and hence creating a representational group. This has been done in at least two campuses where recognition agreements have led to more flexible cooperative agreements with managements - (Rhodes and WSU).

The Branch's failure to arrange an affordable funeral scheme.

(COMMENT the first priority of a union is the labour rights of its members, benefits such as these are nice to haves and require the members to pay very high union dues or at least that the union has very many members. Members have to acknowledge that a union is not a consumer organisation but given numbers can facilitate consumer based benefits.)

Management barrs NTESU from holding meetings during working hours.

(COMMENT the employer is entitled to do this, at least until a recognition agreement clause comes into action and changes that. Two things make Branchs grow vigorous recruitment, and, the decisions of management which is often the best recruiter of members for a union.)

Frustrated by a lack of communication with our constituency which now feels the Union is somehow a fly by night scheme.

(COMMENT if the employer is restricting communication then this is refusal of a basic organisational right. There are several basic organisational rights which the employer must afford to the union regardless of representativeness. Communication with members and potential members is one of these.)

Cost to Company in Tertiary Education Institutions

2008-06-06T17:43:00.001+02:00

We are NOT and never will be companies. We don't really care what companies do. We come to work in these environments mainly because we seek an environment of collegiality and dignity for all workers. We don't have CEOs and we believe in exchange for the benefit of the institutions not dictation benefiting shareholders profits.

So, what can we say in describing the worker approach to Cost to Company (CtC)? In the experience of some NTESU negotiators at Branchs you will encounter the following comments about CtC.

1. We don't trust their figures (they report a sub set to us in order to obfuscate) and its reported in a complex jargon typical of Human Resources Divisions.

2. In a "defined income organisation" one has to use other strategies to manage remuneration. (as opposed to income generating).

3. Managements link CtC to performance management (a spurious link which is driven by the following).

3.1 Any form of scaling goes away and even the CoL increases are managed out of existence in favour of bonusing in a vacuum of skilled supervisor, middle and senior management to manage bonus assessment.

4 If pension / provident, medical aid and housing are just subsumed into salaries packaging (in the name of providing flexibility for staff members) then there is never further growth or another increase on these for anyone. The employer now no longer has the 15% on their books for pensions and the subsidy for medical aid simply stops (wrapped into the package which only grows by the cost of living (CoL) additions in future. The flip side of flexibility is collapse of pension and medical aid (especially where these are in-house schemes) and huge long term savings for the employer on the backs of current and future employees. We're back to the 30's and 40's when the real union movements won these battles and introduced these benefits. Eventually we'll be back on the streets fighting for them back.

5. CtC tries to match apples with oranges from the salary-data-reaping companies (we don't trust these data or their definitions of our post descriptions for this industry ie. we think there is mismatching going on driven by the following). (Support staff in private sector do one function supported by three other co-workers - support staff in our sector do four functions with a wide skills basket with no co-workers).

6. Corporatisation of Universities which are defined income organisations, educational and organisational cultures is MISDIRECTION and WRONG. It is highly disruptive of staff morale and the principles of collegiality.

7. We agree with the NEHAWU there are discrepancies (evidenced by the following).

7.1 CtC only works above a certain high level of salary band, it can't work in the service and general staff sectors where high debt means never having the disposable income to spend on pensions and medical cover in aCtC packaged environment. Rather do it collectively and up front. Members get into trouble this way.

8. When doing CtC management conveniently leave out most of the pool of recruitment organisations. For instance, management talk about analysing the main recruitment pool in some centers for, say, service workers (usually the local town or city). The CtC data does not include the Public Service Departments, Eskom, Telkom, Municipals etc - salary data-reapers do not have these or management neglect to ask for them for full comparison and calculation of compa ratios. When we pointed this out they said Oh we didn't consider them to be major employers!

9. All of the comparisons based on the CtC principles have resulted in every support post so far evaluated for 50th %-tile being down graded.

10. We are quite certain that the exercise is : how little can we get away with paying general staff and how much can we save here? ie. What benefits can we "package" or cut-out. About 25-30% of Academics received any extra remuneration in the exercise done for them - the others now have one foot on the desk the other on the bed.

11. CtC predicates itself upon appointees being able to "package" their remuneration. But, we are contractually obliged to belong to the Med Aid and the Pension / Provident funds the employer subscribes to. What else is there for us to package? Its senseless in our organisation which defines everything. Our med aid and pension funds would collapse if everyone were to drift off and choose their own outside schemes, etc..

12. CtC means that when packaging happens a lump sum is placed in an employee's hands. This means that things are only subject to CoL increases. In a defined income industry these are highly limited and therefore the advance (promotion or scale of salary) is eliminated. CtC of pension, in particular, becomes really cheap for the employer. In fact it goes away altogether because their 15%, current, is added into income for us; our tax rises and their CtC drops dramatically never to reappear again. That 15% stops right there we are left with the overall general salary minimum CoL increase based on the resources of defined income institutions like ours attract. How individuals apportion any pay increase in CoL to take care of increasing their pension income prospects becomes their own problem. One hopes that interim increases in CoL (the only thing left in really hard-nosed negotiation) will be well utilised for other than debt redemption by our members. Members don't want to get involved with financial managers and insurance brokers - they want the organisation to cooperate with them in these provisions - hot shot moving is not what this industry is about if we wanted that we would go and work somewhere else.

13. CtC results in management bombastically coming with the "only / of course we are correct - you idiots ...".

14. This is critical -- CtC brings the best of 1940's and 1950's employer thinking to the fore in which we sell our souls to "the company store".

This is why these institutions are playing the insufficiently representative me and blocking / bashing NTESU around the country. They know weak numbers can keep us out of the negotiation rooms around these things.

15. Our management here doesn't seem to think that where we might be better off, better than outside places its a GOOD THING. They would rather go to the lowest common denominator.

Explaining the reason for this Blog

2008-05-30T17:24:00.003+02:00

Dear NTESU Member

This is an issue driven facility which will try to explain some issues that have been going on from the Executives' portfolios and other things we know are puzzling you. We will try and post explanations to queries you put to individual Executive members so that we can all share the explanations. It will also begin to give you a chance to comment on these issues so that the Executive can get some idea of what your thoughts and feelings are about the local, management and national issues that affect you as workers in a South African University.

But, there are a few rules. Your postings will be moderated. We are not interested in personal attacks on members of a university's management, its Council or on the Executive. Fair criticism will be accepted but only if there is some attempt at analysis of the issue, facts, information, or if there is additional information which you have to offer and which is based in fact. This is not a place to start rumours, support rumours, post disinformation or mischievous comment or to be facetious or satirical.

We take the role of the Union and unionism seriously, and we are sure that you do too. Its about your continued job security and enhancing your conditions of service and working environment.

MAKE A POINT OF INFLUENCING DECISIONS THAT AFFECT YOU ....