VSM bill to pass today

[Ab]

Cue wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[ZoSo]

Onya

[Ab]

I hope proceedings at Parliament weren't disrupted by the huge VSM protest. I hear Wellington was practically gridlocked by the masses.

[cyc]

Good news. So glad I went to Auckland where I got to say "fuck off" to the AUSA every year. All these poor student union heads around the country -- they won't be able to force people to support them producing articles mocking suiciding victims, telling people how to do date rape, and generally helping themselves to others' money.

How sad. My heart bleeds for them.

[fixed_truth]

Luckily students have heaps of spare money to keep the clubs, societies and culture groups going!

[CCS]

Members usually pay to keep their clubs going. Why should it be any different?

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by CCS

Members usually pay to keep their clubs going. Why should it be any different?

Because these members have barely enough to scrape by.

Btw I have no problem with VSM if that's the choice students have made via their elections. Read: Democracy. I don't like it that the Govt. has overridden a democratic decision by the students on how they wish to organise themselves. Also afaik under the compulsory scheme students are still free to opt out anyway.

[Golden Teapot]

It was different when I was an Uni. The student union decided to buy a motor boat for the FIVE members of the boating club and as you can imagine they managed to argue this was a wise way to spend money through a propaganda piece in their own magazine.

[A Corpse]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

It was different when I was an Uni. The student union decided to buy a motor boat for the FIVE members of the boating club and as you can imagine they managed to argue this was a wise way to spend money through a propaganda piece in their own magazine.

Sounds like how the country is being run anyway. Important lesson in democracy.

[Golden Teapot]

It's similar except that almost the only people who stand for election of a student union are those who harbor extreme left viewpoints.

But yes you're right it's somewhat similar.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Because these members have barely enough to scrape by.

Cry me a river. Why should they get freebies funded by everybody else? Students need to get with the real world.

[Ab]

...and passed a few minutes ago.

Hooray! Congratulations to Heather Roy and ACT. And DIAF to Labour who blocked lots of potentially good pieces of legislation while attempting to stop this law via filibuster.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

I hope proceedings at Parliament weren't disrupted by the huge VSM protest. I hear Wellington was practically gridlocked by the masses.

Well, I imagine students have a few more pressing concerns this time of year.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by CCS

Cry me a river. Why should they get freebies funded by everybody else? Students need to get with the real world.

because of the detrimental effect on student services.

[CCS]

I think students can get along just fine without "cafeteria services, a bar, radio station, and bookshop." They'll be able to spend more time studying instead of drinking.

[Ab]

But student union activists do so many important things

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

because of the detrimental effect on student services.

This is where your typical practice of posting articles in lieu of making actual arguments is so dangerous and stupid. Barton's overall argument is that VSM is economically costly for students. First piece of "evidence" or observation in support?

Auckland took the voluntary path. It didn't go well. In 2000 numbers plummeted - just 3000 out of 28,092 students agreed to pay the $30 joining fee. By 2002 the numbers were still dismal - just 2700 out of 31,502 had joined.

Its mandate slashed, the Auckland University Students' Association (AUSA), with a proud legacy of serving students since 1891, was down, but not out.

What "didn't go well", Mr "I am a fucking idiot" Barton? That students decided that they didn't want to join the AUSA? What's this got to do with anything? But wait, it gets worse.

In the first year of voluntary membership there was a $92 rise in the University of Auckland's "student service levy" from $75 to $167 and it's been increasing ever since.

Correlation does not equate to causation, motherfucker. And do notice that student service levy doesn't just pay for things formerly supplied by the union.

AUSA objects to the notion that we are in some way an example of how students' associations can survive, even thrive, under a model of voluntary student membership," the association said in its submission to the select committee overseeing the bill.

AUSA's survival is thanks to its contract with the university and largely because it had built up and owns a number of profitable business assets - including cafeteria services, a bar, radio station, and bookshop. Unable to collect mandatory membership fees to fund its services, AUSA sold some assets, placed others in trust, and restructured some into commercial entities with the purpose of providing a dividend to the association.

Oh how terrible. The UoA actually wants to pay to support the AUSA and have its services when the AUSA appears on the face of it to provide good value. Is the AUSA insecure about its ability to continue to convince the university that it remains worthwhile?

AUSA points out the bill also creates unnecessary costs.

In the past unless students opted out, membership was a given. Under free voluntary membership AUSA has to spend thousands of dollars to get students to join. The 2010 bill was $60,000.

Oh my god they actually have to proven themself useful before they might extract some $$ out of others. WHAT A FUCKING NOVEL CONCEPT!

At the University of Auckland, there remain some perplexing questions. Why is it the only university to have voted by referendum for voluntary membership? Why, despite substantial membership drives each year do some 10,000 students not join the association? Odd, because those 10,000 are still paying for the association services - through the compulsory student levy.

Welcome to the real world, Mr Barton. People don't have to do what pleases you.

Seriously, can someone actually spot anything useful out of that article?

[CCS]

That article seems to be filed under the 'news' section but reads more like an opinion piece.

To revisit some of what cyc highlighted:

Auckland took the voluntary path. It didn't go well. In 2000 numbers plummeted - just 3000 out of 28,092 students agreed to pay the $30 joining fee. By 2002 the numbers were still dismal - just 2700 out of 31,502 had joined.

It didn't go well? Huh? That proves the opposite! It could only be considered not to have gone well if you were one of the fewer than 11% students who wanted to be members!
Another way of phrasing that quote is:

In 2000, numbers exploded - 25,092 out of 28,092 students decided they didn't want to become members of the student union. By 2002 the numbers were still positive - 28,802 out of 31,502 had chosen not to join.

Yay for voluntary student union membership! The vast majority of students who would otherwise be forced to join a union they didn't want to belong to demonstrated that making membership optional is a worthwhile thing!

Chris Barton is an idiot. He clearly believes that compulsory student union membership is a good thing but tries to explain it by showing just how few people actually wanted to join the union.

Why, despite substantial membership drives each year do some 10,000 students not join the association? Odd, because those 10,000 are still paying for the association services - through the compulsory student levy.

What the fuck? Seriously? That's some pretty poor reasoning. Maybe because... they don't want to pay twice for the same thing? Maybe because... oh, I don't know... they just don't want to and it's their fucking decision not to join if they don't want to? Maybe they're pissed off that despite no longer being forced to join the union, they still have to pay for a union they are not members of?

[cyc]

Originally Posted by CCS

What the fuck? Seriously? That's some pretty poor reasoning. Maybe because... they don't want to pay twice for the same thing? Maybe because... oh, I don't know... they just don't want to and it's their fucking decision not to join if they don't want to? Maybe they're pissed off that despite no longer being forced to join the union, they still have to pay for a union they are not members of?

Look you need to justify why you don't want to be a union member, Tory!

[cyc]

http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/...-out-students/

THEY ARE HERE TO GET YOU! Another conspiracy theory brought to you by Labour morons.

[doppelgänger of someone]

Hang on, right now student can opt-out of AUSA, so in principle it is already voluntary. What Heather Roy wants is to make AUSA "opt-in".

Empirical researches have shown that most people choose the default option, no matter what the default it is. So the strong membership number AUSA has right now is because membership is a default, NOT because students recognize AUSA's merits. On the other hand, if Heather Roy has her way, the default will be "no AUSA". It doesn't matter what students really think, they will most likely pick the new default en masse. That's what researches show. So there is a bit of paternalism behind either making AUSA opt-out or opt-in.

The most liberal way is to have NO default, but it is practically impossible, because you HAVE put one option ahead of another, and people are more likely to pick the first one (i.e. the default) no matter what that option is. Maybe a randomized form where there is a 50:50 chance of VSM appearing first can negate the default bias.

Bottomline: Heather Roy, whether she realizes it or not, is being just as paternalistic as advocates of CSM.

###

Given human psychology is what it is, some people say the best way is to just make the best option the default, e.g. given that it is better to save for retirement early in one's career, the default option to superannuation is compulsory contribution, but with opt-out clauses, so it is still liberal in principle. (This is the OPPOSITE of Kiwisaver! Labour/National can potentially save billions of dollars in incentive contributions, if they would just make Kiwisaver opt-out instead of opt-in like we have now...)

As far as student union goes, I just don't know what the objectively "best" option is. Personally I never really used AUSA services other than subsidized bus tickets (I'm not sure AUSA contributed to the cheap bus tickets or the bus companies just automagically give students discounts...) I don't mind subsidizing others, but IMO a lot of the people who run AUSA are as self serving as any business. Some of them even graduated to become politicians, horror of horrors...

[cyc]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger of someone

Hang on, right now student can opt-out of AUSA, so in principle it is already voluntary. What Heather Roy wants is to make AUSA "opt-in".

I thought the UoA student body voted for membership of the union to be voluntary? That was the case when I was last there around 5 years ago.

[doppelgänger of someone]

That piece of opt-out information I gleaned from that Chris Barton article...

Membership isn't compulsory because students have the option to conscientiously object. The Human Rights Commission also told the select committee "that students' freedom to not associate is protected sufficiently under the current Act".

[Ab]

All rather academic now that the law has been passed.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger of someone

That piece of opt-out information I gleaned from that Chris Barton article...

I wouldn't rely on that Barton article. I am pretty sure that the AUSA remained a voluntary union after I left.

Either way, I am looking forward to the LOLs to be delivered by the Labour morons.

[A Corpse]

Originally Posted by Ab

All rather academic now that the law has been passed.

Indeed. Once a law has been passed we should all stop discussing it. That is what's best for all of us. Honestly.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by CCS

The vast majority of students who would otherwise be forced to join a union

Obviously there's debate about whether the mechanisms for someone to apply for exemption are adequate. Even if you agree there isn't, I'm not convinced the way to solve this is to override the system that most students wanted. Students decided that the best way to run student services is through charging a universal services fee and having a representative body (also chosen by students) to administer. Rather than this politically motivated Bill I would liked to perhaps have seen changes to the exemption mechanisms in order to reinforce someones right not to be compelled to join an association. So the minority have their freedom of association made clear while the wider student body can decide how they want to run services.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by A Corpse

Indeed. Once a law has been passed we should all stop discussing it. That is what's best for all of us. Honestly.

What's best for us all is for people to know what they're talking about. Compulsory union membership was rejected by Auckuni students (in three separate referenda: 1999, 2001, and 2003) and AUSA has been voluntary since 1999. There's no "opt-out". It's been a voluntary union for over a decade.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Obviously there's debate about whether the mechanisms for someone to apply for exemption are adequate. Even if you agree there isn't, I'm not convinced the way to solve this is to override the system that most students wanted. Students decided that the best way to run student services is through charging a universal services fee and having a representative body (also chosen by students) to administer. Rather than this politically motivated Bill I would liked to perhaps have seen changes to the exemption mechanisms in order to reinforce someones right not to be compelled to join an association. So the minority have their freedom of association made clear while the wider student body can decide how they want to run services.

What a load of unreasoned bollocks.

The lazy reasoning that "Oh you can get an exemption from the unions so compulsory union membership doesn't breach the minority's rights whilst respecting the will of the majority!" ignores how the NZ Bill of Rights Act actually works. Section 17 guarantees that everyone has the right to freedom of association. The right is an individual right. It says an individual has the right to choose to associate or not with other groups/people. Section 17 doesn't confer upon groups the right to force others to associate with them.

Now of course, s 5 of the NZBORA states that the rights guaranteed by the NZBORA can be justifiably limited to the extent that is reasonable in a free and democratic society. You will of course say that "COMPULSORY STUDENT UNION MEMBERSHIP PROMOTES STUDENT SERVICES BLAH BLAH" but as we have seen student services hasn't collapsed at UoA. If all you can put up is that nonsense from Chris Barton and the self-serving submissions by the student unions in support, you need to try harder.

Your whole "reasoning" process (I am frankly dignifying it by being so generous) is ass backwards. "Oh you have a right to freedom of association that's enshrined in law but somehow the majority's non-existent right to prima facie force itself on you should trump that right unless you consciously object!" ignores the reality that instruments like the NZBORA exist as a bulwark against the tyranny of the majority. Saying that lots of people like things a particular way ISN'T and can't sensibly be the main basis upon which you limit others' rights under the NZBORA.

[fixed_truth]

As usual your reading comprehension is appalling.

I'm not advocating people "force others to associate with them". If there's adequate mechanisms for exemptions then their rights aren't being limited.

[doppelgänger of someone]

Wait wait wait, so right now, AUSA is voluntary. Funding partly comes from compulsory student levy from the University itself. Partly through businesses such as main cafeteria, bars and bookshop. And because of that membership is free. And the membership number is healthy, with about 60% of full time students joined.

So why isn't AUSA being touted as a model of success for voluntary membership? 60% membership rate is VERY good. AUSA seems to have proven that students wish to join a student union, despite a default bias against it. And they are still able to provide services normally associated with compulsory student unions. (Just look at the AUSA website for goodness sake.)

Are advocates of CSM saying that if membership is compulsory, AUSA can do MUCH BETTER? I find that hard to believe, and at what cost to freedom to association?

Other student unions just need to HARDEN THE FUCK UP and evolve, like AUSA did.

[Ab]

What I don't understand is why Labour fought so hard and long over this bill. Labour pulled out every stop in trying to stop the passage of a law giving students a choice as to whether or not to join a student association. They blocked their OWN members' bills and fucked over the Royal Society of NZ just to tie up the House in an attempt to prevent debate on voluntary student-union membership.

Labour rolled over on surveillance, on copyright, on emergency laws for Christchurch, all the important stuff that actually deserves attention and scrutiny they just bent over for the Government. But when it came to something as trivial as student union membership Labour lost its mind and devoted all its energy to blocking debate on the topic. And they were still fucking useless and it still got passed. So all that effort was for nothing, all those other members bills got blocked for nothing, the Royal Society got fucked for nothing.

I don't get it. Is it just that Labour is now crazy and useless?

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger of someone

Are advocates of CSM saying that if membership is compulsory, AUSA can do MUCH BETTER?

At AU it's voluntary but the the extra cost that AUSA needs to run the services is covered by the University which is recovered from ALL students by way of levy. With no opt-out.

There's no guarantee that all Universities will do this nor what type of obligations this would mean for the student unions to the University concerning how things are run.

I think on the enrollment pack there should be a membership box to tick ($300 fee) and an opt-out box ($100 levy - to cover the services eg advocacy services, that all students benefit from).

[StN]

I'm still getting over the bit where Mr Bernard-Bernard Galaxy licked the urine off the footpath from the Queer services officer who worked at D-Vice as a sales consultant.

[pxpx]

Student unions are nurturing grounds for career polititians. Horrible.

[Juju]

Didn't Liz Shaw try to get involved in a student union?

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Ab

Is it just that Labour is now crazy and useless?

I forgot the Herald's description, which was "pitiful, pathetic, embarrassing and disgraceful."

[doppelgänger of someone]

Hey I didn't realize former Waikato Student Union president Sehai Orgad is now a candidate for Labour in Hamilton East. How about that? I remember someone complaining she is too hot...

[A Corpse]

So "vaguely attractive" = "too hot"?

[doppelgänger of someone]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

I think on the enrollment pack there should be a membership box to tick ($300 fee) and an opt-out box ($100 levy - to cover the services eg advocacy services, that all students benefit from).

So before yesterday, university student unions membership in general are opt-out. Auckland voted to make it opt-in instead of opt-out a while ago, but they still have a union. That just shows the strength of the union. You don't need social engineering like opt-out to inflate union popularity.

That sorry episode of Waikato student union collapsing after they voted for VSM just showed that those who ran the union to ground were muppets. Auckland showed that it CAN work. It just has to be run differently.