ULSU UGM 2012 (rescheduled for Tuesday, Week 10 at 7pm, location TBC)

J_E

That's the problem. Not enough people care, and this is a serious issue that we need to tackle next year. We need people to be interested enough to come along and take part, because decisions are made at these meetings which can affect the student body as a whole. It's also good to be in the loop in regards to the SU side of things. No good to be passive and think someone else will be in your place because they won't.

reunion

Cydoniac wrote: »

That's the problem. Not enough people care, and this is a serious issue that we need to tackle next year. We need people to be interested enough to come along and take part, because decisions are made at these meetings which can affect the student body as a whole. It's also good to be in the loop in regards to the SU side of things. No good to be passive and think someone else will be in your place because they won't.

I want a motion to reduce sabbat pay to €1333.50 a month to be in line with Post-graduate pay.

This would save ~€6k per sabbat, with 3 sabbats thats ~€18k a year. A communications officer could be elected at a cost of ~€16k a year. I think people showed up to the EGM due to Kelly and Paddy's possible conflict AND that the communications office was going.

Considering the near 50-50 split for removing communications officer I do think a motion to reinstate the communications office on the grounds that sabbat pay is reduced to €1333.50 a month would generate quite a few more interested people.

Note: Sabbats have said pay is not a factor in running. €1333.50 is suitable as every postgrad is living on this amount.

Opinions?

SarahBeep!

Submit the motion.

OhMSGlive

reunion wrote: »

I want a motion to reduce sabbat pay to €1333.50 a month to be in line with Post-graduate pay.

This would save ~€6k per sabbat, with 3 sabbats thats ~€18k a year. A communications officer could be elected at a cost of ~€16k a year. I think people showed up to the EGM due to Kelly and Paddy's possible conflict AND that the communications office was going.

Considering the near 50-50 split for removing communications officer I do think a motion to reinstate the communications office on the grounds that sabbat pay is reduced to €1333.50 a month would generate quite a few more interested people.

Note: Sabbats have said pay is not a factor in running. €1333.50 is suitable as every postgrad is living on this amount.

Opinions?

You have my support on this. If it's not too late, submit it.

highlydebased

Submit it ASAP today would be my reccomendation.

wnolan1992

highlydebased wrote: »

Submit it ASAP today would be my reccomendation.

By what time would motions have to be submitted by?

reunion

wnolan1992 wrote: »

By what time would motions have to be submitted by?

I checked yesterday and it was Tuesday, however I was told it may be possible via one of the motions. Alternatively via referendum/rescheduling the meeting to this time next week (as 1 weeks notice is required).

Edit:
I think if I had told this to any candidate running they probably would have gotten votes on that point alone.


Might have been an idea to hold the rescheduled GM to before/after the results or maybe incorporate them in. Would certainly have also increased numbers.

deise go deo

Quick Reminder, 7pm KBG12

J_E

Shame the Battle Of The Bands is on at half 7, would have made it otherwise...

Delta Kilo

In all seriousness though, has anyone here ever worked a full time job in the real world?

€1300 is fantasy money lads, really and truly. I earned significantly more than that on coop, and for less hours too and I wasnt exactly rolling in it either. Regardless of the financial state of the union, I would hate to see it become a place where staff are abused.

It should never go lower than the minimum wage imho, ever.

reunion

Delta Kilo wrote: »

In all seriousness though, has anyone here ever worked a full time job in the real world?

€1300 is fantasy money lads, really and truly. I earned significantly more than that on coop, and for less hours too and I wasnt exactly rolling in it either. Regardless of the financial state of the union, I would hate to see it become a place where staff are abused.

It should never go lower than the minimum wage imho, ever.

Some of us earned €550 per month (before rent and transport) on coop doing full time hours in the real world. Also some coop students don't get paid.

1333.50 is the phd salary on campus, every phd student can survive on it. why should unqualified people, with little to no experience in the position they are about to take up, get a competitive graduate salary for a job no one takes up for the money?

Delta Kilo

The phd students "wage"is more of a subsistence than a wage per se. They will also get payment in the form of the actual phd itself. Also, you can guarantee that any teaching hours they do are paid above minimum wage.

Sabbats are employees of a private company, ulsu. Not only is paying them less than minimum wage demeaning and downright insulting, it is illegal. It infringes on their rights as employees.

reunion

Delta Kilo wrote: »

The phd students "wage"is more of a subsistence than a wage per se. They will also get payment in the form of the actual phd itself. Also, you can guarantee that any teaching hours they do are paid above minimum wage.

Sabbats are employees of a private company, ulsu. Not only is paying them less than minimum wage demeaning and downright insulting, it is illegal. It infringes on their rights as employees.

No actually phd students are required to ta for free. 5 times before they graduate to be exact. They could do something else such as private tutorials but so could sabbats.

Sabbats also get pay in the form of a cv boost. phd students are employees of the college, we receive a stipend which the sabbats could get.

The lower wage (which is higher then the dole) may make sabbats budget appropriately. This would also free up money for campaigns and services next year.

Delta Kilo

Its plain and simple, its law. You can't pay an employee less than the minimum wage. Its illegal. End of story. There are exceptions to this, one of them is if you are in a structured training program. phd falls into this. A sabbat is not in a structured training program, nor do they fit into any other category on the exceptions list and therefore must receive minimum wage. Its black and white.

highlydebased

I am unsure about this but I have been told that what sabbats get is in fact a stipend. Therefore it could be reduced hypothetically to a fiver a week. I'm not suggesting lowering it that much btw.

If it were a wage then obviously they can't be paid less than 8.65 an hour.

reunion

Delta Kilo wrote: »

Its plain and simple, its law. You can't pay an employee less than the minimum wage. Its illegal. End of story. There are exceptions to this, one of them is if you are in a structured training program. phd falls into this. A sabbat is not in a structured training program, nor do they fit into any other category on the exceptions list and therefore must receive minimum wage. Its black and white.

You can be paid 80% of minimum wage first 6 months and 90% of minimum wage for the next 6 months.

Talk to the general manager, in theory they can be paid nothing.

Delta Kilo

I'm on my phone so apologies for the grammar.

I agree with lowering to the minimum wage, but any further id not fair.

It goes without saying, if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

spurious

roro1neil0 - Please stop dragging threads off topic, criticising people's grammar and spelling and generally being quite annoying.

Ginge Young

reunion wrote: »

No actually phd students are required to ta for free. 5 times before they graduate to be exact. They could do something else such as private tutorials but so could sabbats.

Sabbats also get pay in the form of a cv boost. phd students are employees of the college, we receive a stipend which the sabbats could get.

The lower wage (which is higher then the dole) may make sabbats budget appropriately. This would also free up money for campaigns and services next year.

I don't know where a lot of this is coming from. I get 0 money from the college and I am not required to teach any hours for free. There is a difference between someone who is funded and who isn't, and you cannot compare the wages of sabbats to PhD students who have managed to get funding in some form, it's just two different things. I agree that it can be the minimum but they should not go below it.

leaoj

Is reunions motion submitted?

I'll attend if so to vote on that.

If it's not submitted, then I hope it doesn't make quorum.

wnolan1992

leaoj wrote: »

Is reunions motion submitted?

I'll attend if so to vote on that.

If it's not submitted, then I hope it doesn't make quorum.

Makes perfect sense. If you can't reduce it by the full amount you want, hope it can't be reduced by any amount at all.

Jester252

Did it go ahead?

BlueFlowers

Jester252 wrote: »

Did it go ahead?

Didn't reach Quorum so I don't know if it still went ahead, I would imagine not.....

roro1neil0

they should have held it in the sunniest part of campus

deise go deo

Quorum sucks!

What do people think of an online UGM format?

Use the existing online voting system and add a discussion forum.

-It should be fairly easy to reach a quorum of 200
-You can have an outline of the implications of each item to be voted on.
-The discussion forum with a thread on each item to be voted on would allow students to engage with each item as in the current form, your username on the forum could be your actual name and ID number so that people will know who is saying what as in the existing format.
-It would also allow people away on Co-op and Teaching pratice to engage with it if they wanted.

The problem with reaching quorum in the existing format is not going to go away, going online should solve that problem and it offers some advantages over the existing format.

roro1neil0

that's a great idea, all forum posts should be translated to irish too

Polar Ice

deise go deo wrote: »

Quorum sucks!

What do people think of an online UGM format?

Use the existing online voting system and add a discussion forum.

-It should be fairly easy to reach a quorum of 200
-You can have an outline of the implications of each item to be voted on.
-The discussion forum with a thread on each item to be voted on would allow students to engage with each item as in the current form, your username on the forum could be your actual name and ID number so that people will know who is saying what as in the existing format.
-It would also allow people away on Co-op and Teaching pratice to engage with it if they wanted.

The problem with reaching quorum in the existing format is not going to go away, going online should solve that problem and it offers some advantages over the existing format.

You'd probably need quorum to make changes like that

highlydebased

A grand total of 34 in attendence...

roro1neil0

You'd be sure if the motion on the table was to raise the sabbatical officer remuneration by a euro per hour they'd get a packed house.

SarahBeep!

This is absolutly ridiculous! But why is no-one questioning why there was absolutly f*ck all class reps present?