Student Unionism: Should it be Compulsory or Voluntary?

[brendan]

I think you know deep down that theres aggression inherent in your tone and writing technique.
If not, why not read something you have written as if you were reading part 2 of hte english exam.

You quoted "yes to all. but there are occasions when such government intervention is justified. this is not one of them.", as utilising an "aggressive" tone

While that is disputable in itself, even if you think that is so, i put it to you: so what?

How does that statement by me compare to this comment by you: "i can just tell that youre the dogmatic type of person who doesnt stop arguing with everyone around them until you get your point across... it gives a very obnoxious impression." which does not address the topic, but rather proceeds to attack me instead.

[Galelleo]

lol youre misinterpreting me.

I didnt quote that to demonstrate your tone... but to show you why i thought you were talking about govt intervention. In that same post i also conceded that point... which suggests you should have STFU because you "won".
After that, I just wanted to express to you the way you come across in your arguments.

Here you go, ill make you feel good about yourself, i think thats what youre looking for "Youre right, you will always be right, you are godly"
Go and polish your trophy case mate.

Ps. thanks for helping up my post count.

[brendan]

lol youre misinterpreting me.

I didnt quote that to demonstrate your tone...

The other two statements I made prior to you accusing me of being 'aggressive' were: "where did i say that? go on quote me." and "No where do I ever advocate that there ought to be "no government". So therefore, I must have been either overly aggressive in (1) asking you to substantiate your erroneous claim that i said "most cases govt intervention isnt justified..."?; or (2) clarifying that I have not advocated a position such that there ought to be 'no government'.

Now how does those statements by me compare to these by you in terms of aggressiveness:

i can just tell that youre the dogmatic type of person who doesnt stop arguing with everyone around them until you get your point across... it gives a very obnoxious impression.

you should have STFU because you "won".

Here you go, ill make you feel good about yourself, i think thats what youre looking for "Youre right, you will always be right, you are godly" Go and polish your trophy case mate.

[brendan]

In the whirlpool forums in the VSU thread:

Sorry but there is nothing good AT ALL about compulsory student unionism. Why force people to pay for services that they aren't going to use?

Go and fund it yourself, don't expect others to. Simple.

As an ex Student Union President, I agree with you

The Union needs to offer a package that students want to pay for, and see value in

For starters there are heaps of things that Students can do for other students that don't need money to fund them (just enthusiasm)

An interesting passage in the Senate report on VSU http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eet_ctte/highed_unionfees/report/report.pdf

While there will always be a need for student leadership in the organisation of provision of services and amenities, the nature of this leadership will change with the different expectations of university life post-VSU. Student leaders of the future will work for their support and they will earn it. This important challenge for student leaders has been ignored in submissions from student organisations, just as current student leaders have shown scant interest in preparing themselves and their organisations for university life post-VSU. We can expect both the emergence of different student leadership, and the re-invention of those who adapt to change. This was summed up by Mr Michael Josem, a student leader at Monash University:

?the abolition of high, compulsory up-front and unfair amenities fees will force changes. It will force us to work harder to serve students. We?ll have to work smarter to deliver services that students choose to fund. No longer will we be able to continue, reliant on a compulsory fee. We?ll have to deliver services that students actually want?.That?s challenging for many people. The status quo is comfortable. The mediocre is easy. The future, of change, progress and excellence, is unknown. We?ll have to be excellent - not merely adequate. Unsurprisingly, many people don?t like that.

[Collin Li]

Whoever voted "Compulsory" is going to face the tyranny of the majority!!!

[Galelleo]

Whoever voted "Compulsory" is going to face the tyranny of the majority!!!

Such is life.

[Galelleo]

Whoever voted "Compulsory" is going to face the tyranny of the majority!!!

Such is life... but of course... its obviously wrong to break the norm.

Unless youre stereotypical of NZers... theres nothing wrong with being a sheep... no worries!

lol... no i didnt vote compulsory.

[costargh]

Such is life.

Yeh and look where it has got Ben Cousins. No club. No job. Drug addict. No sense of what is right and what is wrong...
Shall I continue  
hehe

[brendan]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22948947-12332,00.html

"The NUS has dropped its policy of returning to the pre-VSU world of compulsory charges for services and representation."

[Andy]

optional/volountary

[brendan]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/plan-to-reinstate-student-services/2008/01/13/1200159277548.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

The article is quite biased against VSU:

"THE Federal Government will move to reinstate campus student services such as child care — which were forced to close after the Howard government's ban on compulsory union fees — with Youth Minister Kate Ellis to hold talks with universities next month."

If they did close then they would have closed because after giving people a choice no one bloody wanted them!! If people wanted them then they wouldn't have closed! Duh!

"destroyed welfare services, counselling and sports activities, particularly on regional campuses."
Same goes for the above, if people wanted them, then they would have joined the union and paid for it. The fact that after giving people a choice, students no longer wanted them is testament to the fact that well students didn't want it.

"The child-care centre is gone, the legal service is gone, sport funding has been significantly cut and the student radio station has gone,"

Why would they be gone? Because they didn't have enough revenue. Why didn't they get enough revenue? Because not enough people thought it was worth the money.

"At Bendigo campus the employment service has gone and discount food has gone."
That's nice, just look at the benefits but none of the costs and you will always get a positive sum. Again they are gone, because no one wanted them.

[brendan]

Post-VSU
http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2008/02/18/post-vsu/#more-424

[Collin Li]

Minister Kate Ellis has told the Adelaide Advertiser that "most people have now acknowledged that VSU has been a disaster".

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23230786-5006301,00.html

Yeah, a disaster for the union leaders, LOL, but a sweet victory for the students.

[brendan]

It would only be a disaster because students have voted with their feet to not join. Hence they don't really want it. If they wanted it, they would join

Opposition education spokesman Tony Smith said Ms Ellis needed to acknowledge she was the minister representing all students, and not just student leaders.

"If Kate Ellis wants to see more students join student unions, then she should demand the student unions deliver the services students actually want," he said.

Now there's some wise words.