Sectoral Tensions Surface

Send this page to a friend

Your name:
Recipient name:
Recipient email:
Message (optional):

Sectoral Tensions Surface

Image of Professor Paul Thomas, Vice-Chancellor

22 May 2004

The troubled topic of 'Industrial Reform in the University Sector' was the focus of a national conference in Sydney this week.

Since local enterprise bargaining (EB) replaced the centralised wage-fixing system in the mid-1990s the internal dynamics of universities have changed significantly.

The move to EB was based on the belief that the industrial negotiations that characterised business could be equally well applied to universities, as they too were being expected to operate increasingly as businesses.

For many that is a fundamentally flawed assumption. It was a period nevertheless, when the Commonwealth Government disengaged from a direct responsibility for funding university salary increases, and also initiated the serious erosion of operating grants. This in turn, of course, reduced the capacity of universities to pay their staff appropriately and provide the span of industrial work conditions they would like and was deserved, especially by the highly qualified.

Over that period of nearly a decade, student numbers have almost doubled, operating grants have been cut, staff-student ratios have worsened, the proportion of casual staff has increased, and pressures on most staff have become greater. Whilst the Nelson reforms address some of these issues, there remain the two huge problems of whether indexation of university grants will be more generously formulated to sustain the current improvements into the future, and whether the funding from students through HECS has been lifted too high whilst direct government funding has sunk too low. Some universities, for example, now only receive 30 per cent of their funding from government.

The result of these huge changes in universities is that every time there is a salary increase there is a consequent diminution of government monies available for other areas of the University.

Not unexpectedly the Conference unleashed the deep-seated tensions that have arisen in the system over this period.

It has been a period when the major staff Union in particular has had to safeguard conditions across the sector and their 'pattern bargaining' has confronted the purity of 'local enterprise bargaining'.

The Universities' Union spokesperson criticised both the tactics of the staff unions and the lack of clarity about what the agendas of governments have really been.

The student spokesperson told of the serious impact of under-funding on students, as well as lack of staff consultation opportunities, amongst a raft of problems they believe have eroded the quality of the learning environment.

One vice-chancellor spoke passionately about local unions demonising university management and suggested that vice-chancellors, in particular, were characterised as obstructing the improvements needed on salary and conditions, and therefore staff could only be looked after by joining the Union.

I spoke on the increasing number of university stakeholders who are now becoming more vocal, demanding, and sometimes intrusive about change processes and performance and the likely long-term impact on this University administration.

This whole complex area of industrial relations, pay and conditions, the management of change, local leadership versus imposed operating and reporting expectations is going to continue to test the sector.

The likely scenario is that, as with the allied socially significant area of health, we are going to continue to see growing demands. More public and private resources will be needed to sustain quality systems and develop world-competitive infrastructure. More thinking needs to be done, not just on the public-private balance of funding, but also on what are the defining characteristics of a modern university and what are the responsibilities of the various stakeholder groups.

For a modern university to become a major international force, the sectoral tensions have to subside, and all the stakeholders will have to respect their different and complementary roles, and more clearly articulate their views, which must be academically and financially sustainable, of how the University is to develop.

Professor Paul Thomas is Vice Chancellor of the University of the Sunshine Coast

  • ABN 28 441 859 157 |
  • CRICOS Provider No 01595D |
  • Updated: 09 Jan 2012