24 hours notice for a “preferendum”, with no public debate is an absolute disgrace.

KarmaBaby

Students received an email today giving 24 hours notice on a “preferendum” vote, asking them to vote for which funding model they would prefer for their third level education. While the union gushes about making itself more accountable and better structured, it decided to communicate this extraordinarily important preferendum with a minimum amount of notice and under the utmost secrecy.


If you are in favour of affordable education, that does not involve creating a debt generation, then please vote for “100% Exchequer Funded”.


This means that the government would fund 3rd level education through central taxation, as it should, as it has done in the past, and as it is done in other countries in Europe that have much higher standards of 3rd level education. Anything else is unacceptable. Students cannot bend to the government’s will for them to pay back private banking debts for decades to come, but that is what is happening.


24 hours notice, with no public debate on the issue is an absolute disgrace and the likelihood is that many students will have no understanding of what they are voting for and either tick the first box or another one at random.


The Tralee Union has known about this for some time as this preferendum has already taken place in other colleges. This could have been a key topic for discussion with the election candidates in the lead up to the elections, but the preferendum was kept secret until the hustings were over. Why?


Please voice your disapproval of this process with your union representatives old and new. The only way they will change is if we protest in numbers.



Why is the Union is doing this, and in this manner?



It is because it wants to move away from campaigning against the reintroduction of third level fees. We’re beginning to wonder whether or not the USI is there to dictate current government policy to students, or to defend students’ rights against government policy. They’ve even included “100% student contribution” as an option! Crazy Stuff.

Encrypted Pigeon

KarmaBaby wrote: »

If you are in favour of affordable education, that does not involve creating a debt generation, then please vote for “100% Exchequer Funded”.

I didn't vote on this, didn't know it was even happening but anyway, does this statement not contradict itself? I mean we can continue with this notion of free fees (nothing free about it - 4k out of my pocket this year) but something has to pay for the college as the money isn't there any more [insert rant here about banks and reckless spending, loans BS im sick of listening to etc. etc. ] and if they don't charge directly for it they will tax us all to the balls for it later anyway, so either way we are heading for a debt generation.
If anything was going to be done, I would have favoured the loan system whereby you could pay back once you start earning. That way, you pay if you earn and don't if you don't. I would love for it to be free but I feel the reality of the situation is they are going to get their money one way or another and if you are giving me my choice of execution method then I would have to go with the loan system.

OK, I didn't really mean to rant or start an argument its just how I feel about the current circumstances, if you feel I'm wrong by all means educate me.

EDIT: Actually I see it now on FriendFace, it has been passed.

KarmaBaby

Sintel wrote: »

I didn't vote on this, didn't know it was even happening but anyway, does this statement not contradict itself? I mean we can continue with this notion of free fees (nothing free about it - 4k out of my pocket this year) but something has to pay for the college as the money isn't there any more [insert rant here about banks and reckless spending, loans BS im sick of listening to etc. etc. ] and if they don't charge directly for it they will tax us all to the balls for it later anyway, so either way we are heading for a debt generation.
If anything was going to be done, I would have favoured the loan system whereby you could pay back once you start earning. That way, you pay if you earn and don't if you don't. I would love for it to be free but I feel the reality of the situation is they are going to get their money one way or another and if you are giving me my choice of execution method then I would have to go with the loan system.

OK, I didn't really mean to rant or start an argument its just how I feel about the current circumstances, if you feel I'm wrong by all means educate me.

EDIT: Actually I see it now on FriendFace, it has been passed.

The loan system has been a disaster in every country it has been implemented. In Australia it has contributed to about 4 billion dollars in personal debt over the last ten years, as people are condemned to spend the rest of their working lives paying off six figure debts accumulated in college. It's also another step towards privatisation and market based education, more similar to the U.S. By the way in Australia and New Zealand, many students simply emigrated to the other country in order to avoid paying back their students loans. In Ireland you may see the same. The banks would pay for tens of thousands of young Irish people to be educated only for them to leave the country forever to avoid crippling debts.

It should also be fairly obvious that taking on a huge loan is a deterrent for many low income families to send their kids to college, not to mention the fact that banks may not even give loans to students from families with bad credit ratings and we have a bout 100,000 families in the country right now in mortgage arrears. How would they even be able to pay back this loan and would they be allowed one anyway? In effect, we'd end up with a two tier society of haves and have nots. The UK is already very far down this path and that's where we're heading.

The statement you quoted doesn't contradict itself because we don't have a proper progressive tax system in this country anyway, and we have the lowest corporation tax in Europe. We're moving towards a situation where the government will simply take your taxes and give them to the banks and big business, instead of using them for public services. That's what any funding model other than exchequer funding would enable.

If the government implemented even a small wealth tax it would plug the gap in public funding and reduce the need for increasing college fees. Aside from that the multinational companies that benefit from the future labour of Irish students, should be contributing more in taxation to improve the Irish education system.

KarmaBaby

I see that student voted in favour of exchequer funding.

Fair play.

I hope the union now understands this effectively means they have been mandated to fight against third level fees, even if the USI won't.

Encrypted Pigeon

Ok, Ill take on board what your saying, still may not necessarily agree, the fees are coming / rising (cant wait to see the reg fees for next year :rolleyes:) and it will progressively year by year impact more and more lower income families so I would have believed a proper managed loan system (shooting myself in the foot here remembering what country were in) would be the best option. Again, this is just a personal opinion, I'm caught up in this also, I don't want to have to pay extortionate fees, just looking at the reality of the times.

So anyway, seeing that we have voted in favour of exchequer funding, what do you believe the union actions in the "fight against fees" should entail? march around again? strike (a proper one)? Sorry for being pessimistic but I cant really see what can be done to stop it but only maybe work out an alternative solution.

KarmaBaby

Sintel wrote: »

Ok, Ill take on board what your saying, still may not necessarily agree, the fees are coming / rising (cant wait to see the reg fees for next year :rolleyes:) and it will progressively year by year impact more and more lower income families so I would have believed a proper managed loan system (shooting myself in the foot here remembering what country were in) would be the best option. Again, this is just a personal opinion, I'm caught up in this also, I don't want to have to pay extortionate fees, just looking at the reality of the times.

We already have the second highest fees in Europe and one of the lowest contributions from the state towards education as a percentage of overall spending. When scandinaivan countries had their economic crisis around 2001 they never even thought about introducing 3rd level fees and its not a co-incidence that the countries in Euope that have the highest education standards, have 100% (or close to it) excheqeur funding.

The "reality of the time" is basically the argument the FG/Labour government is coming out with. "There is no more money" blah blah blah....meanwhile they're taking the student contribution and handing over Billions to unsecured bondholders, bust property developers and failed banks, with the notion that the economy will fall apart if they don't, but the economy is falling apart anyway. Greece had a structured default and wrote off a large chunk of bondholder debt. Eventually we will have to do the same, so all of this austerity and fee increases, will have been for nothing.

Sintel wrote: »

So anyway, seeing that we have voted in favour of exchequer funding, what do you believe the union actions in the "fight against fees" should entail? march around again? strike (a proper one)? Sorry for being pessimistic but I cant really see what can be done to stop it but only maybe work out an alternative solution.

I would be all for strike action, particularly on the issue of the grant being wiped out for postgraduates. That one is absolutely scandalous and shows that we're moving towards a situation where the highest level of education is reserved for the rich elite. Student strikes have proven to be effective in Canada, Israel and Chile.

I think students can also look to the campaign against the Household TAx and Water charges as an example of a well organised and successful campaign of civil disobedience. I have no doubt that Phil Hogan is going to get the boot after he fails to implement this new tax. It's extraordinary that the USI hasn't supported that campaign because the tax would result in higher rents for students and an increased burden on their families. The reason they haven't of course, is because so many USI officers are in FG/Labour/FF and support austerity, effectively stabbing their own members in the back.

The problem with students of course is that there is no real leadership whatsoever within the USI. They have the power to mobilise 200,000 students but chooses to do nothing more than one march, write a few lobby documents and conduct a few photo stunts for the benefit of a handful of union figureheads,

Most students are moving away from the USI. I see several colleges disaffiliating in the next few years, with the possibility of a new, more left minded union taking shape. That's really the only hope that students have, because the USI as it stands is totally beyond redemption. The only two candidates that have been put forward for the USI presidency are both ógra Fianna Fail, and most probably in favour of a graduate tax (even though they may not publicly admit it). That's USI styled democracy for you.

Encrypted Pigeon

Good post. /tips hat in acknowledgement

Speaking of marches and striking, I remember last years protest march, while there was a good turn out for the main protest, there was still a half decent attendance in classes, myself included, as we had not been directed otherwise, seemed kind of strange. But what else was anyone who wasn't travelling to the big smoke suppose to do (officially)? so you would think there should have been an officially sanctioned strike aswell ???

KarmaBaby

Sintel wrote: »

Good post. /tips hat in acknowledgement

Speaking of marches and striking, I remember last years protest march, while there was a good turn out for the main protest, there was still a half decent attendance in classes, myself included, as we had not been directed otherwise, seemed kind of strange. What else was anyone who wasn't travelling to the big smoke suppose to do (officially)?

Well this is really the key point isn't it?

As long as students obediently continue to go to their classes, causing no disruption to the system whatsoever, then the government is pretty much free to do what it likes, up to and including the reintroduction of full fees which, judging by the UK where they pay about €12,000 a year, is where we are heading.

To draw a comparison, this would be like trade union workers deciding to continue working 9-5 every day, but protest about reduced pay and conditions at weekends, during their time off. What pressure would that put on their employer? None whatsoever, but this is effectively what the USI is asking us to do, and what we are continuously told will be effective. It never has been and the USI has now overseen no less than 14 increases in the student contribution since the 90s, by following the same old failed lobbying policy.