SU to get a 5th officer costing €20,000 a year without students being consulted

x43r0

I really don't have any faith in anything productive coming from this thread. If anyone here has serious concerns and wants to get some kind of satisfaction from arguing their points then the only effective way is for all parties concerned to sit down and talk face to face. You would get more said and done in 10 minutes than 10 days online.


Or keep virtual wankfest going on here

Byron85

Byron85 wrote: »

I have a problem with your attitude on here dismissing any and all criticism and somehow managing to conflate the argument/discussion with those nutters from Youth Defence. Your tone was dismissive and arrogant;

Oh lordy. Try reading your own posts sometime and you might see that you're very much inside a glass house, stockpiling stones.

Byron85 wrote:

you asked Pi^2 to provide a list of his expenses and his contribution to the S.U's finances.

Yes, because he asked the SU to calculate what savings they make for him versus what they spend doing so. If you've got a better way to calculate it, do tell.

x43ro wrote:

I really don't have any faith in anything productive coming from this thread.

You and me both, brother…

Byron85

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh lordy. Try reading your own posts sometime and you might see that you're very much inside a glass house, stockpiling stones.



Yes, because he asked the SU to calculate what savings they make for him versus what they spend doing so. If you've got a better way to calculate it, do tell.



You and me both, brother…

I must say, you more than live up to your reputation. If you can't deal with the criticisms and questions in a proper manner then I suggest you don't post here as you're just doing the S.U a disservice.

Other than that, i'll leave you to it.

Byron85

Byron85 wrote: »

I must say, you more than live up to your reputation. If you can't deal with the criticisms and questions in a proper manner then I suggest you don't post here as you're just doing the S.U a disservice.

Good to know I've successfully garnered a reputation, must cross that off the To-Do list. For the record, in my own opinion I've dealt just fine with the criticisms and questions; the criticisms don't really apply to me as I'm not a current SU officer, and I've given whatever answers I can to the questions that are posed. To be perfectly honest, if anyone here seems to be inclined towards sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "LALALA" when exception is taken to their dogmatic anti-SU ranting, it might well be yourself. But hey, think what you will of me, you'll find that I don't particularly mind

Eliot Rosewater

Deleted User wrote: »

They're hardly mutually exclusive.

Erm, yes they are. College funding is being reduced, and the SU is actively campaigning for more of that limited funding to be allocated to SU activities instead of education. Money is finite.

Deleted User wrote: »

These arguments about cost are all too familiar; they're really, really similar to the Youth Defence campaigns for SUs to disaffiliate from the USI so that students would supposedly be able to buy an extra pint every academic year. Laudable aims, indeed.

Association fallacy. You're trying to associate me with Youth Defence to weaken my position. That doesn't work.

Anyway, as Byron said, we just want to be consulted. It's our union, and our money. People interested in the SU, like yourself, can claim that it's in the best interest of the student body however, firstly, you are extremely biased - it's something you believe in so you're obviously going to feel it should get lots of money - and secondly, it's everyone's union, not just that of a couple of hundred people who are involved.

As far as I can see, there's no argument against having a referendum. The only reason I can see why you'd be against it is if you're afraid the general student population will put an end to your (expensive) pet project.

Byron85

Deleted User wrote: »

Good to know I've successfully garnered a reputation, must cross that off the To-Do list. For the record, in my own opinion I've dealt just fine with the criticisms and questions; the criticisms don't really apply to me as I'm not a current SU officer, and I've given whatever answers I can to the questions that are posed. To be perfectly honest, if anyone here seems to be inclined towards sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "LALALA" when exception is taken to their dogmatic anti-SU ranting, it might well be yourself. But hey, think what you will of me, you'll find that I don't particularly mind

I'm not anti-S.U. I just think they have delusions of grandeur and as a result over-extend themselves. More needs to be done to get more students voting in the elections. Everyone I talk to has issues with the S.U and the way it's run. In this case, it's the issue of the money.

Eliot Rosewater

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Erm, yes they are. College funding is being reduced, and the SU is actively campaigning for more of that limited funding to be allocated to SU activities instead of education. Money is finite.

Money certainly is finite. However, if SU activities support those who are receiving education, then the money is still being used to the benefit of the students' education. So I'm still inclined to disagree that they're mutually exclusive, although I can certainly see where you're coming from.

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

You're trying to associate me with Youth Defence to weaken my position.

Wasn't my intention, apologies if you thought it was. I've no idea what your stance on abortion is and for the purposes of this conversation it's irrelevant. The point I was trying to make is that it was another campaign that would have resulted in less support for students in the name of "saving money".

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

As far as I can see, there's no argument against having a referendum. The only reason I can see why you'd be against it is if you're afraid the general student population will put an end to your (expensive) pet project.

I'm not against a referendum per se, I just don't like the accusations that the students weren't consulted when they were – through a referendum, as it happens. The new sabbatical has existed in potentia since that referendum passed and certain people (not me, admittedly) have been gearing themselves towards serving the student body in that position since then. I don't particularly want them to have to wait another year to run for that position because the referendum, that was already passed, had to be held again.

Byron85 wrote:

I'm not anti-S.U. I just think they have delusions of grandeur and as a result over-extend themselves. More needs to be done to get more students voting in the elections. Everyone I talk to has issues with the S.U and the way it's run.

Looks like we're finding common ground, based on that post. I apologise for accusing you of being entirely anti-SU, then. But can we at least agree not to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

KnifeWRENCH

Ah, student politics....

Deleted User wrote: »

Nice try, though.

If you've a problem with a post, report it. Don't accuse other users of trolling.

And a general note to everyone: Debate is welcome on this forum, so long as everyone maintains a level of civility. So argue away to your hearts content but don't let tempers flare up here.

panda100

I know this isn't directly linked to the thread title, but thought Id thrown in my two cents about UCCSU.

I used to be very involved in UCDSU and since I moved down to study in UCC I can't get over the difference between the two.

There is zero presence of the Student Union on campus.I wouldn't even have a clue where their offices are or anything! The only posters I have seen since September are the ones for the November protest, which was advertised incredibly poorly and only a day before the event. Also theres been no follow up on this one demo,what about doing information stalls in different facultys to ensure students make it an election issue...yet there seems to be nothing.

Should the SU not be running events,posters campaigns, meetings etc on all issues affecting students? In UCD the SU ran big awareness campaigns every week. From disability awareness to career seminars to eating disorder campaigns to finance advice. I've not seen one thing advertised by the SU the whole year?

It seems like everything is left down to individual society's, which have little to no funding. Like shouldn't it be the Welfare officer running the mental health campaign over the next few weeks and not a small society such as the Slainte society?

And while it maybe an issue for another day the societys guild is a joke , rejecting student initiatives such as Mind Matters and the Pro choice society. Universities should be awash with posters, leaflets and people teeming with idea's and opinions, but the stringent poster regulations means there's no room for anything except the same UCC ents, hardybucks vs Rubberbandits, posters that have been up all year.

x43r0

panda100 wrote: »

And while it maybe an issue for another day the societys guild is a joke , rejecting student initiatives such as Mind Matters and the Pro choice society.

I'm a patient person but this is the kind of shít that bothers me. Mind Matters never made an application to be a society so was never rejected.

The Pro-Choice Vs Students for Life thing could have a book written about it and I'm sick of the whole issue so you'll excuse me for not discussing it at length because frankly its dead and buried at this stage.

If these two particular issues really bother you then email any one of these people if you want to find out more. Remember how we did things in the old days? If we had a question we would talk to those qualified to answer it, not leave the question in public and invite uninformed speculation and retarded guessing

I'm sure they'd only love to discuss your concerns and tbh you'd get a far more conclusive answer than you would by moaning on fúcking boards.ie

Biffman

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I'm very suspicious of the Express. In the same article Byron Murphy refers to the Express and the Motley as the SU's media outlets. That's media independence for you. A move like this should have been covered more extensively - there should have been a for and against debate thing. It's €20,000. I think they're trying to get this in on the sly - why else would the SU not have mentioned it at all?

This refers to the start of this thread, I don't have time to read it all.

If you're gonna complain about an article, please read the thing first. We didn't have to cover this as a story, 90% of students won't care. I made it clear in the first paragraph the funding was coming from the university, and investigated why this position was explored and the possible problems associated with it. For the 5 millionth ****ing time, the SU fund the media, and that is it. Not once has anyone at the SU asked us not to run with a story or asked us to change something.

I hate forum boards, because ignorance seems to be acceptable when it's anonymous.

Sapere Aude, mother****ers.

KnifeWRENCH

And a general note to everyone: Debate is welcome on this forum, so long as everyone maintains a level of civility. So argue away to your hearts content but don't let tempers flare up here.

......

x43r0 wrote: »

I'm sure they'd only love to discuss your concerns and tbh you'd get a far more conclusive answer than you would by moaning on fúcking boards.ie

Biffman wrote: »

......

I hate forum boards, because ignorance seems to be acceptable when it's anonymous.

Sapere Aude, mother****ers.

*sigh*

Evidently, trusting people to have a mature student-politics debate without simply resorting to swearing at people and using clichéed memes rather than actual discussion was a mistake.

KnifeWRENCH

Right. We'll try this again.

Less of the aggro.
Less of the facepalms.
If you can't discuss things civilly, then this will just be locked again.

Any personal abuse will warrant an infraction and/or ban.

Eliot Rosewater

Biffman wrote: »

If you're gonna complain about an article, please read the thing first.

I think it's quite obvious from my OP that I did read it, so I don't know why you said that.

Biffman wrote: »

For the 5 millionth ****ing time, the SU fund the media, and that is it.

Any clued-in consumer of media will make themselves aware of possible or existent biases in the media they are engaged with. When I read The Guardian I am aware that it has a Liberal Democrats/social democratic bias and that this will colour its portrayal of events and its commentary (even its book reviews!). I know The Irish Examiner has a pro-Labour slant, so that when they lead their budget coverage with "In an attack on the vulnerable..." I know it doesn't necessarily mean the budget will put people below the breadline - it just means the Examiner's pro-Labour sympathies will have been set off.

When I'm watching coverage on RTE News I'm acutely aware that the station has a history of FF bias, and that the station is funded by a FF government.

One can never fully trust the way in which a media outlet deals with those that fund it. RTE is an example, as is most of the television media in Italy. This is especially true in small environments - like universities - where those running the media will be very familiar - even friends - with those political people they are reporting on.

By being so sceptical I'm just doing what every consumer of media should be doing.

Biffman

Then why did you imply I said the funding was coming from students? First paragraph I made it explicitly clear it was university funded.

Absolutely, and I'm sure the Express does have certain biases. We're students for example, so our coverage is always gonna have a students-first slant. We try our best to be objective however and possibly as a result have had not one complaint all year. Not bad going, if I do say so myself.

However the implication that we gave this story reasonably small presence in the news section because the SU don't want people to know is offensive to someone who actually enjoys working in journalism. We gave it a small presence because by and large, noone cares.

panda100

x43r0 wrote: »

The Pro-Choice Vs Students for Life thing could have a book written about it and I'm sick of the whole issue so you'll excuse me for not discussing it at length because frankly its dead and buried at this stage.

Thank you for illustrating my point perfectly. Two society's on a topical issue that students want to be actively and involved with but are banned from doing so as 'its dead and buried at this stage'.

There just seems to be no encouragement from the SU to discuss or get involved with issues that are important to students. Isn't that the whole point of college? To use your initiative and get active on issues that your learning about, be that gender Inequality or Mental health?

My point is that this should be about quality not quantity. The quality of the SU seems dire at the moment, and their presence on campus non-existent. I seriously doubt bringing in another full-time officer will change this.

Eliot Rosewater

Biffman wrote: »

Then why did you imply I said the funding was coming from students? First paragraph I made it explicitly clear it was university funded.

Because the students fund the university! Or, because, if not put into the SU, that money could be put into student teaching services. Either way, it's costing the students. The university doesn't have a money tree, at least since the Celtic Tiger trod on it in his death throes.

Biffman wrote: »

However the implication that we gave this story reasonably small presence in the news section because the SU don't want people to know is offensive to someone who actually enjoys working in journalism. We gave it a small presence because by and large, noone cares.

Point taken.

Eliot Rosewater

panda100 wrote: »

Thank you for illustrating my point perfectly. Two society's on a topical issue that students want to be actively and involved with but are banned from doing so as 'its dead and buried at this stage'...

panda100, why are you bringing all this up? This has nothing to do with the 5th officer. One of the standard charges brought by the SU against people who criticise it is that they are merely "haters": that they're universally against everything the SU does. By going on such a broad attack on the SU in a thread that was started to discuss as single policy, you're only feeding that partisan notion, and, in my opinion, reducing the credibility of people like myself who just want a referendum on this one specific issue.

One of the biggest problems I see in student politics discourse generally is this partisan "haters vs hacks" perception. It allows extremes on both sides to ignore others, leaving people who are genuinely interested in hearing criticism and engaging with the process drowned out.

x43r0

panda100 wrote: »

Thank you for illustrating my point perfectly. Two society's on a topical issue that students want to be actively and involved with but are banned from doing so as 'its dead and buried at this stage'.

No one is banned from discussing the topic or raising awareness of either side of the argument. All I'm saying is that i'm personally sick of talking about it and that neither side will get a society dedicated to their argument. Its nonsensical to base an entire society around a debate.



Just to clear it up in case someone thought otherwise, The Societies Guild is not a branch of the SU. It runs on its own constitution and does not not report/answer to the SU. The level above the Guild is the office of the VP for the student experience.

Pi^2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffman
However the implication that we gave this story reasonably small presence in the news section because the SU don't want people to know is offensive to someone who actually enjoys working in journalism. We gave it a small presence because by and large, noone cares.

Point taken.

I think the Express should revise what they think we care about. In fairness, everyone in UCC is well educated and whether we admit it or not we care about the college. Sure, it might be a subconcious feeling that only surfaces when there is a threat of reg fees going up or on graduation day when it dawns on us that we won't be coming back. But we care, and it would be nice to know what is going on from time to time. So, you can keep feeding us drivel in the student paper or challenge us with something stimulating. But I guess the fact that ye printed the article at all is something. Bravo.

Also, if you look at it the right way, I'm sure there is some truth in this - "the implication that we gave this story reasonably small presence in the news section because the SU don't want people to know". Firstly there is a difference between not wanting someone to know something, and wanting someone to not know something. In the former you don't actively pursue spreading the information. In the latter you actively suppress the information getting out. Obviously Rosewater was hinting that the SU (who are normally very ostentatious about their great work) weren't exactly eager to let everyone know what they were planning. The Express played their part by not probing deeper and by not giving the piece the coverage it deserved. That's not journalism.

Oh and as Rosewater says, just because the college say they're paying for it doesn't mean the students aren't paying indirectly. In fact, it simply means the students are paying. End of story.

panda100, why are you bringing all this up? This has nothing to do with the 5th officer.

In panda100's defence, if one takes a holistic view of this discussion, his points are valid albeit slightly poorly delivered (no offence). I.e. If the SU are perceived in a negative light by the student body then what does it matter if they bring in another sabbatical officer? The level of disconnection between the students and those "representing" them is so tremendous that it truly is irrelevant what the SU do.



My question is when will the 6th Officer come in? Or the 7th? etc. And will anybody do anything to stop that? I wish they'd surprise me and actually cut it back to 3. You can claim they're understaffed all you want, but ask yourself how did they manage every other year? It's not like the number of students has increased dramatically. It comes back to what Byron85 said and the fact that they over-extend themselves. And for what? For whom? For the laugh, for themselves.

votecounts

Was in UCC a few years ago, never had much use for these officers, seems a waste of money.

panda100

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

panda100, why are you bringing all this up? This has nothing to do with the 5th officer.

Personally, I would think it has everything to do with the SU and the image it is reflecting onto students. I am not a SU hater at all, far from it. I think they're vital especially in these tough economic times. I guess my experience of the UCCSU has been poor compared to UCDSU.

But your right, I was not here last year, so I don't know much about the 5th officer debate. Though from this thread I think its unfair to say that students weren't consulted. Keith O'Brien obviously ran on a card that he would expand the union and push for a fifth officer. There was a referendum held on the issue that passed democratically, and there was an article about it in the student newspaper. Its hardly cloak and dagger stuff.

On reflection, I think If this position means better communication and involvement between the SU and the students , then I'm all for it.

DJCR

Ok, So the University is down €20,000 but the USI is still up the membership fee (in the region of €45,000 I believe).

Seen as the USI is evidently not doing their job (arn't they there to support the SU) and it has become neccesary to hire a new person I think you should take it from the fee. Or leave the USI altgether and be up €25,000 that can be used to further the educational needs of your students as opposed to those in officers in Dublin who have negotiated fantastically on the students behalf over the last 8 to 10 years?

Eliot Rosewater

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

I know The Irish Examiner has a pro-Labour slant

I know it's off-topic, but I wouldn't necessarily say the Examiner is pro-Labour. But your point about media bias is completely fair and well-made, although I wouldn't say the Express has a noticeable pro- or anti- SU bias; as Biffman says, the majority of Express readers probably don't care about SU issues.

DJCR wrote:

Seen as the USI is evidently not doing their job (arn't they there to support the SU)

It's not quite as simple as that. The USI operates as a national voice for all affiliated third-level institutions, it doesn't tend to involve itself with local management issues that much. The Welfare Officer visits when we run Welfare campaigns, the Equality Officer visits when we run Equality campaigns, etc., but on the general management side of things we've only got the Southern Area Officer. And while she's a fantastic officer, looking after all the colleges in the South means she can't afford to constantly look at the day-to-day running of each individual institution; she's more there as back-up for large-scale events, such as marches, demonstrations, elections, and so forth. The other thing is that large universities such as UCC are considered to be better able to self-manage ourselves on local issues than smaller institutions such as the ITs, due to our greater resources and numbers, so the SAO (rightly) is more dedicated to ITs. And introducing this new officer is, essentially, us utilising those greater resources and numbers.

DJCR

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not quite as simple as that.

It really is, stop paying the membership fee.

Deleted User wrote: »

The USI operates as a national voice for all affiliated third-level institutions

Yes they do, do you believe they are doing a good job on that front?

Deleted User wrote: »

It doesn't tend to involve itself with local management issues that much. The Welfare Officer visits when we run Welfare campaigns, the Equality Officer visits when we run Equality campaigns, etc.,

So they show up say Hi, and leave... well worth the money. I relaise also that they provide the promotional material and posters etc etc etc for the week but surely ye could do that yourselves at a cheaper cost?

Deleted User wrote: »

but on the general management side of things we've only got the Southern Area Officer. And while she's a fantastic officer, looking after all the colleges in the South means she can't afford to constantly look at the day-to-day running of each individual institution; she's more there as back-up for large-scale events, such as marches, demonstrations, elections, and so forth

But its your Union, your issues, your money and as fantastic as she is she can't deal with your College? You pay an extortionate amount of money for "Back Up" services which you really probably don't need! Do you need her to hold your hand on a March/Demonstration, do you really need them to help in your elections... if you need independant people at the polls do a swap with CIT.. when they have their elections you guys man the polls and vice versa.

Deleted User wrote: »

The other thing is that large universities such as UCC are considered to be better able to self-manage ourselves on local issues than smaller institutions such as the ITs, due to our greater resources and numbers, so the SAO (rightly) is more dedicated to ITs. And introducing this new officer is, essentially, us utilising those greater resources and numbers

So you admit you don't need them?

DJCR

DJCR wrote: »

It really is, stop paying the membership fee.

The membership fee really isn't that much; it does come down to approximately €5 per student per year. If we disaffiliate, then we lose the benefits of USI affiliation, including (but not limited to): officer training, activist training, a national forum for students, and organised representation of students on a national level. Meanwhile, USI loses the mandate of approximately 19,000 students and becomes a much less effective body as a result. In my opinion, neither is a desirable outcome for either ourselves or USI. That said, I do think students are entitled to a disclosure of the services that USI provides.

DJCR wrote:

Yes they do, do you believe they are doing a good job on that front?

Short answer: yes. I don't think that USI Officerboard has turned in a perfect performance this year, but it has been very good nonetheless.

DJCR wrote:

So they show up say Hi, and leave... well worth the money. I relaise also that they provide the promotional material and posters etc etc etc for the week but surely ye could do that yourselves at a cheaper cost?

There seems to be some confusion here about my standing, given all the "you"s and "ye"s, so let me clear that up first: I do not currently hold a position of any sort within UCCSU. Anyway, on your point: I think it's fair to say that the support given by USI officers during campaigns of that nature is more extensive than just showing faces or providing promotional literature. Most people elected to USI are experienced SU politicians, and lend invaluable experience to the organisation and execution of these campaigns. Also, having officers for the specific areas on the ground in affiliated organisations does afford grassroots students the chance to ask them what USI is doing in these particular areas on a national level.

DJCR wrote:

But its your Union, your issues, your money and as fantastic as she is she can't deal with your College? You pay an extortionate amount of money for "Back Up" services which you really probably don't need! Do you need her to hold your hand on a March/Demonstration, do you really need them to help in your elections... if you need independant people at the polls do a swap with CIT.. when they have their elections you guys man the polls and vice versa.

That's one specific officer, and I was referring to her work specifically. Again, that comes down to the fact that she's there when we need her, and we don't need her to oversee the day-to-day operations of the SU. The role of the SAO is really more to support smaller institutions; that doesn't mean she doesn't help us on occasion, and it certainly doesn't mean the rest of the Officerboard aren't there for us. Oh, and UCCSU does swap personnel with CITSU around election time, as far as I'm aware -- you'd be surprised how many people are actually needed.

DJCR wrote:

So you admit you don't need them?

Don't need whom, the USI or the Southern Area Officer? In the case of the latter, I don't think UCC needs that officer as much as the smaller colleges do, but it is still a position that has lended, and continues to lend, much-needed assistance to UCCSU when required. In the case of USI, we absolutely do need them to be a voice and a point of organisation and support for students on a national level, and we absolutely do need to retain membership so that we can influence both their actions as a union and their voice for students in the national discourse -- in my opinion.

DJCR

Deleted User wrote: »

The membership fee really isn't that much; it does come down to approximately €5 per student per year. If we disaffiliate, then we lose the benefits of USI affiliation, including (but not limited to): officer training, activist training, a national forum for students, and organised representation of students on a national level. Meanwhile, USI loses the mandate of approximately 19,000 students and becomes a much less effective body as a result. In my opinion, neither is a desirable outcome for either ourselves or USI. That said, I do think students are entitled to a disclosure of the services that USI provides.

I really don't think they are a very effective organisation, €5 per student is a very nice way of putting it but the fact remains the same, You're spending a lot of money on something you don't need. I mean "activist" training ??? A national forum for students is fantastic but at the end of it all what have they accomplished?

Deleted User wrote: »

There seems to be some confusion here about my standing, given all the "you"s and "ye"s, so let me clear that up first: I do not currently hold a position of any sort within UCCSU.

Sorry, reading back does sound like that, what I actually ment by the You's and ye's was the General Student Body/UCCSU... The Royal "ye" so to speak

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't need whom [...] In the case of USI, we absolutely do need them to be a voice and a point of organisation and support for students on a national level, and we absolutely do need to retain membership so that we can influence both their actions as a union and their voice for students in the national discourse -- in my opinion.

I suppose, what I'm saying is - Is there any thing that they do that "you/ye" can't do for yourselves.
I mean its all well and good having National representation but the USI doesn't do anything apart from the odd march... it meets with ministers and achieves what? At the end of the day they really can't influence much. I mean look at the fees issue over the last five years (that has been the main issue on a national basis and they have consistently failed - I say consistently because the last hike wasn't the first)!!!

Also, each 3rd level institution have individual issues that would be better served if UCCSU took the capitation directly. You could then use that money to invest in your own University Union facilities.

I just don't see value for money in it.

As for national representation - SU's can communicate, do the national marches etc without them!

DJCR

DJCR wrote: »

I mean "activist" training ??? A national forum for students is fantastic but at the end of it all what have they accomplished?

I wouldn't be so quick to write off the importance of training -- the fact is that the most effective and highly-regarded SUs in the country are the ones that are USI-affiliated and therefore the ones whose officers and activists benefit from the training. I know correlation doesn't always imply causation, but the evidence here is pretty compelling.

DJCR wrote:

Sorry, reading back does sound like that, what I actually ment by the You's and ye's was the General Student Body/UCCSU... The Royal "ye" so to speak

You're grand, just clarifying

DJCR wrote:

it meets with ministers and achieves what? At the end of the day they really can't influence much. I mean look at the fees issue over the last five years (that has been the main issue on a national basis and they have consistently failed - I say consistently because the last hike wasn't the first)!!!

It's true to say that the last hike wasn't the first, but I'm not sure that it constituted an outright failure on behalf of the USI. I would imagine that without the lobbying power of the USI, the hikes would have been far more stringent -- indeed, old-style tuition fees may have made a return.

DJCR wrote:

Also, each 3rd level institution have individual issues that would be better served if UCCSU took the capitation directly. You could then use that money to invest in your own University Union facilities.

It's true to say that the money spent on USI affiliation could be spent on local SU needs instead -- if you do the maths on it, the amount that UCCSU pays as its registration fee to USI would cover the salary of the new officer about three times over. The problem is that it's not an "either-or" choice -- having the facilities on a local level doesn't do the work of national representation, and vice versa.

DJCR wrote:

As for national representation - SU's can communicate, do the national marches etc without them!

I can immediately see two issues with that. Sure, SUs CAN communicate; the problem is, unless that communication is facilitated by the USI, they don't. There are exceptions, of course: UCCSU and CITSU collaborate on the Cork protest marches, despite CIT not being USI-affiliated. But that's two colleges who are practically in the same neighbourhood, it's hardly a precedent case for national inter-SU communication.

The second issue is a bit more about political reality. The marches themselves are intrinsically worthless; nothing was ever solved by students going out and pounding the streets, it was solved in negotiation. Where the marches BECOME useful is during the negotiation phase, when an SU negotiator can say "well, I've got this many people who say they won't vote for you if you go against us on this issue, and you know I do because you saw them out marching under my banner" -- they're essentially a show of force. Now, to play around with your hypothesis, let's imagine what would happen if the USI were removed from the equation. Yes, if the various SUs got together they could probably coördinate a national march themselves, and fund their own students' protest materials and travel costs to carry out the march. The question is, what happens with the next step, the negotiation phase? You can't send every single SU sabbatical officer into the meeting with the Department of Education; in fact, you can't even send in all the SU Presidents. So, continuing the hypothesis, let us say that the Presidents elect (or otherwise choose) a negotiation team from amongst their number. Problems erupt immediately, as the impartiality of the negotiation team members is immediately questionable -- will they act in the common interests of the whole conglomerate, or will they be biased towards the SU that they currently serve on and their own constituents in their own institutions? Meanwhile, grassroots students are getting annoyed, because they have had little-to-no say in who represents them at the negotiation table, unless it's their own SU President that gets sent in.

So from this thought experiment, the hypothetical ideal negotiation team emerges: they are impartial, in that they don't serve any one particular SU but instead serve all the constituent SUs; and they are somewhat democratically elected, in that (at the bare minimum) a sample of each institutions' students were allowed to vote on who joined this team. Because of the workload and the fact that these negotiations tend to be ongoing all year round, this team will be paid full-time employees of the students.

The thing is, this hypothetical team isn't actually hypothetical at all -- they're very much real, and they're known as the USI Officerboard.



At this point I'd like to thank you for engaging me in debate on this -- you're easily the most civil sparring partner I've had on this issue in ages

DJCR

Deleted User wrote: »

I wouldn't be so quick to write off the importance of training -- the fact is that the most effective and highly-regarded SUs in the country are the ones that are USI-affiliated and therefore the ones whose officers and activists benefit from the training. I know correlation doesn't always imply causation, but the evidence here is pretty compelling.

I totally agree training helps, I was just commenting on "activist" training, i thought it was quite funny to be honest - It's usually the activists who need quietening down... it's the rest that need a kick up the arse

Deleted User wrote: »

It's true to say that the last hike wasn't the first, but I'm not sure that it constituted an outright failure on behalf of the USI. I would imagine that without the lobbying power of the USI, the hikes would have been far more stringent -- indeed, old-style tuition fees may have made a return.

Fees by the back door have occured under USI representations, Books have rocked to abstortionate prices, College accomodation is still very expensive (even though there are grants available to build them), I mean its all well and good having Rag weeks/SHAG weeks etc etc but when are they actually going to help students?

The tuition fees issue - Right as soon as the USI knew they had lost this (because they have, whether they admit it or not the country cannot afford to keep education free as much as we would all like to see it stay that way) so something has to give, will it be health services/less tutorials/bigger class numbers?

Its getting to the stage where Students in college are struggling (A far higher percentage than before because of these extra fees). I mean even the new fees system smacks that the USI had very little to do with it: €2000 for the first child, €1500 for each child after that - that looks to me like it was aimed at families rather than the student population.

So with fees here and students struggling to pay now what other options do we have??

Well we can't take out a student loan with special rates as it a plan hasn't been set up. Can't have (to give it the most negative name) a Graduate Tax as it would take a while to set up now and where would you start. Definately can't go to mammy and daddy these days. Part time jobs are so few on the ground where is the money supposed to come from ?

The USI had/have no plan B, they see ministers but money speaks louder than words - the ministers have no money for education and the USI had a "success", as in the rumours of a hike to €3,000 was very well played. Currently €2000, hike to €3000 we negotiated them down to €2500 (Maybe I'm being just a tad cynical but ...)

So what are the USI doing for students now to maintain their levels of education in regards to class sizes, number of tutorials etc .... nothing.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's true to say that the money spent on USI affiliation could be spent on local SU needs instead -- if you do the maths on it, the amount that UCCSU pays as its registration fee to USI would cover the salary of the new officer about three times over. The problem is that it's not an "either-or" choice -- having the facilities on a local level doesn't do the work of national representation, and vice versa.

Its a comfort thing really isn't it? I can totally understand. You know there is a national issue and there is one body that you can go to. However, I would like to think that a group of tewenty something year olds could organise themselves if the need was there.

Deleted User wrote: »

I can immediately see two issues with that. Sure, SUs CAN communicate; the problem is, unless that communication is facilitated by the USI, they don't. There are exceptions, of course: UCCSU and CITSU collaborate on the Cork protest marches, despite CIT not being USI-affiliated. But that's two colleges who are practically in the same neighbourhood, it's hardly a precedent case for national inter-SU communication.

UL were in Cork too They arn't USI affiliated. When the will is there, there is a way !! We don't need the USI to say we are marching in Dublin on such a date - put out the message and away you go. If the issue is of enough importance people will show up. Then you can put your "activist" training to good use

Deleted User wrote: »

The second issue is a bit more about political reality. The marches themselves are intrinsically worthless; nothing was ever solved by students going out and pounding the streets, it was solved in negotiation. Where the marches BECOME useful is during the negotiation phase, when an SU negotiator can say "well, I've got this many people who say they won't vote for you if you go against us on this issue, and you know I do because you saw them out marching under my banner" -- they're essentially a show of force.

See above, sorry kinda rambled on

Deleted User wrote: »

The question is, what happens with the next step, the negotiation phase? You can't send every single SU sabbatical officer into the meeting with the Department of Education; in fact, you can't even send in all the SU Presidents.

Yeah, I get your point but from a political point of view students tend to go back to their constituencies and vote there (if they vote at all) so their vote is somewhat diluted and to be honest right now, Education isn't the priority, it's jobs... why? It affects more people.
So from that view we're always, as students going to be up against it.
As for the "repesentatives of the gang of students" I'm pretty sure that can be overcome, maybe a rep from the south one from the east ... I dunno but that really isn't a big deal is it..... If your really honest?

Deleted User wrote: »

Problems erupt immediately, as the impartiality of the negotiation team members is immediately questionable -- will they act in the common interests of the whole conglomerate, or will they be biased towards the SU that they currently serve on and their own constituents in their own institutions? Meanwhile, grassroots students are getting annoyed, because they have had little-to-no say in who represents them at the negotiation table, unless it's their own SU President that gets sent in.
.

Impartiality not an issue - They would only come together for a national issue so it would affect all of them ... I really doubt that the government can be seen to be impartial either.

As for grassroots students, they just need to be kept in the loop as to what happens, also so should the SU Presidents so they can communicate it to them - nothing should be agreed until a "council of presidents" has met to chat about it and see if they agree or not (this happens in the USI anyway.. except we wouldn't be paying a fortune to do it).... being democratically elected and all they should have a little respect for a democratic vote

Deleted User wrote: »

The thing is, this hypothetical team isn't actually hypothetical at all -- they're very much real, and they're known as the USI Officerboard.
.

I disagree with that, what we have are a group of Presidents who are present on their campuses and actually talking to their students about their issues every day, reporting to other presidents on the issue before they go back to renegotiate a better deal or vote on it to agree.

But I think, we can say that I sumwhat rambled away from your Hypothesis - hope I managed to hit some issues with sort of shot gun style result .... firing over a large space and hopefully hitting something.

Deleted User wrote: »

At this point I'd like to thank you for engaging me in debate on this -- you're easily the most civil sparring partner I've had on this issue in ages

Ah yeah, it is both refreshing and nice to spar with someone who say's something and then backs it up as well as keeps it civil.

To round three ..................

daniel.ocarroll

Byron,

I've personally written your paper a complaint this year because of your paper's failure to cover Cork Student News' shortlisting for an Eircom Golden Spiders Award and know of at least one other staff member with the website who did. I should also mention that your paper has failed to mention Cork Student News even once since our launch, despite the fact that we're currently the second most visited student website in Ireland and have been mentioned in local, national, and international media including fricking CTV Canada!!! (www.corkstudentnews.com/mediacoverage).

So sorry to be so blunt, but your assertion that the Express has not received a complaint this year is an outright lie.