Opt-out of the student union

isilidur1980

Why is there no opt-out mechanism for the student unions in Ireland? From what I understand it is the student unions themselves who decided that membership was mandatory. They will argue that this is due to the union being stronger if everyone is a part of them. I disagree with this point. It would benefit both the Unions and the students if the unions had to justify why people should be a part of them and match this with actions.
I am not a law student and so stand corrected on the next point. The constitution of Ireland offers us the right to associate. It implicitly offers the right to disassociate. The Universities Act has nothing stated explicitly regarding mandatory membership of Student Unions. If it did I would be guessing it could be struck down due to being unconstitutional. Why do the student unions feel they can override the constitutional rights of students in this country by not offering an opt-out mechanism?

BhoscaCapall

What actual purpose would it serve? In all my time at university I don't think I've ever been affected positively or negatively by the SU. Apart from the people involved in it nobody else really cares about it. People vote for their mates at election time and then forget about it.

I can see very good reasons for wanting to disassociate with the Free State. NUIG SU, not so much.

keesa

Yes. Has been discussed and rejected in the past. Believe there was a vote at one stage

isilidur1980

keesa wrote: »

Yes. Has been discussed and rejected in the past. Believe there was a vote at one stage

Completely irrelevant if the student union held a vote and it was subsequently rejected. The point is that people have a right to disassociate under our national constitution and therefore the idea that there is discussions, student union votes on it and a mandatory insistence on membership breech my constitutional freedoms. And all students constitutional freedoms. I'm not a law student though so I may be missing something somewhere on this. But my understanding is that if a student challenged this through the court system, he/she would win.

isilidur1980

BhoscaCapall wrote: »

What actual purpose would it serve? In all my time at university I don't think I've ever been affected positively or negatively by the SU. Apart from the people involved in it nobody else really cares about it. People vote for their mates at election time and then forget about it.

I can see very good reasons for wanting to disassociate with the Free State. NUIG SU, not so much.

The problem with the student unions in Ireland now are that they are extremely weak. The student body have no real interest in the unions. The upcoming referendum on the abortion issue shows the inherent weakness now in the union. A feminist group can get 500 signatures and insist on a referendum. With only 3000-4000 votes going to be cast, they have huge power going into the referendum. The Unions are really at the mercy of groupings whose doctrines, although i respect, I do not agree with them and don't want to be represented by them either. If I believed in the feminist doctrine, i would join the feminist society.

Eye2Mind

Automatic membership of Students Unions is being questioned at the moment in both Ireland and the UK. What it results in is the SU never getting to explain to students why they should join the SU. Naturally, many students thus ignore the SU and when it comes to issues like rising fees or cuts to grants, they believe that the "SU people" will deal with that as they have never been spoken to about Union participation.

Also, I doubt it's just a feminist stance to be pro-choice?

Ficheall

Eye2Mind wrote: »

Also, I doubt it's just a feminist stance to be pro-choice?

There's a difference between being pro-choice and being pro-"YES in this referendum".
And neither, of course, are necessarily the same as being a feminist.

Eye2Mind

I think pro-Yes means that the Union becomes pro-choice, which is essentially what all pro-choice people would want given the years of being scared to even admit you thought abortion should be an option in the case of rape, let alone as a woman's right to choose.

Ficheall

Eye2Mind wrote: »

I think pro-Yes means that the Union becomes pro-choice, which is essentially what all pro-choice people would want given the years of being scared to even admit you thought abortion should be an option in the case of rape, let alone as a woman's right to choose.

You're not sure what "full reproductive rights" or "every available measure" mean either then? Join the club.

Eye2Mind

I imagine "full reproductive rights" means exactly what it says on the tin, all those rights available to a person who is engaged in sexual activity.

"Every available measure" means that the SU utilise all the platforms it has to realise such rights.

Seems very plain to me, though I have been reading explanations of these sentences on social media where questions have been raised.

BhoscaCapall

isilidur1980 wrote: »

The problem with the student unions in Ireland now are that they are extremely weak. The student body have no real interest in the unions.

Are you blurring the line between SU and actual proper Unions? SU is just student stuff, it only relates to people who bother with the SU. It's not real politics no more than students are real humans.

Eye2Mind

BhoscaCapall wrote: »

Are you blurring the line between SU and actual proper Unions? SU is just student stuff, it only relates to people who bother with the SU. It's not real politics no more than students are real humans.

Lol.

Honestly though, Students Unions were once one of the greatest agents of social change.

Fully agree it isn't 'real politics'...though a similar question could be raised about politics in Ireland in general....

Ficheall

Eye2Mind wrote: »

I imagine "full reproductive rights" means exactly what it says on the tin, all those rights available to a person who is engaged in sexual activity.

"Every available measure" means that the SU utilise all the platforms it has to realise such rights.

Seems very plain to me, though I have been reading explanations of these sentences on social media where questions have been raised.

Does that include, for example, the biological father's opt-out right, do you know?
And what ought the State to cover one for, according to these rights?

What the platforms available to the SU are, is not entirely plain to me.
Perhaps you could elaborate?
Is the role of the student health unit affected? I'd guess it's as easy to hand out the abortion pills as the MAP, no?
I've seen it claimed on "social media" elsewhere that all the SU would be doing would be providing more information on campus. They already provide information if it is requested of them.

I'm pro-choice in any case - just not pro- this poorly worded referendum.

I would ask that if (when) it passes, that the marchers/SU have a little more integrity when organising marches to support Choice, than might have been displayed during the anti-fee protests.
I'd greatly welcome a promise, for example, that we won't see any posters with:
"Get a FREE goodie bag & t-shirt if you come to the march for Choice - yes, that's right it's FREE!"

Eye2Mind

I think the debate over "full reproductive rights" misses the point that the phrase was used to cover abortion as a right that is currently ignored by the SU. The SU do not currently give advice on how to get an abortion. Yes, this is largely due to the law and the fact you can't legally procure such a medical procedure on this island, but given the fact that legislation liberalising our current draconian law is on its way, information can then be provided in accordance with law.

Musing that the Student Health Unit might be "doing abortions" reminds me of a Russell Howard sketch where he talks about people who say things like "prisoners living in comfort in prison?! what next?! elephants driving buses?!"....or something like that. I very much doubt the services of the Health Unit will be affected by a Union stance, it isn't a hospital. Also, it could only "hand out" such pills if it was legal, which it isn't.

To be honest, unless there is a radical change in the NUIG SU,I can't see it following up on promises of supporting pro-choice marches, though I do think a lot of students will start going on them, the support for the motion is heartening.

laoch na mona

why would you opt out? it makes no sense to not be in a union

laoch na mona

isilidur1980 wrote: »

The problem with the student unions in Ireland now are that they are extremely weak. The student body have no real interest in the unions. The upcoming referendum on the abortion issue shows the inherent weakness now in the union. A feminist group can get 500 signatures and insist on a referendum. With only 3000-4000 votes going to be cast, they have huge power going into the referendum. The Unions are really at the mercy of groupings whose doctrines, although i respect, I do not agree with them and don't want to be represented by them either. If I believed in the feminist doctrine, i would join the feminist society.

surley that shows the strength of the union as it allows students to democratically raise issues

ps being pro choice is not only for feminists

isilidur1980

BhoscaCapall wrote: »

Are you blurring the line between SU and actual proper Unions? SU is just student stuff, it only relates to people who bother with the SU. It's not real politics no more than students are real humans.

I'm pretty sure though that the money I pay to subsidize the union is pretty real!:)

isilidur1980

laoch na mona wrote: »

why would you opt out? it makes no sense to not be in a union

If I felt the union were not representative of my views and beliefs, well then surely I have every right to leave it. I have no real problem with the union. I just don't want to be part of it.

laoch na mona

isilidur1980 wrote: »

If I felt the union were not representative of my views and beliefs, well then surely I have every right to leave it. I have no real problem with the union. I just don't want to be part of it.

ok sorry should have been clear its grand not to agree with the union but surly the solution then is form another union i was proposing the idea that students with no representation is madness

Lockstep

isilidur1980 wrote: »

Why is there no opt-out mechanism for the student unions in Ireland? From what I understand it is the student unions themselves who decided that membership was mandatory. They will argue that this is due to the union being stronger if everyone is a part of them. I disagree with this point. It would benefit both the Unions and the students if the unions had to justify why people should be a part of them and match this with actions.
I am not a law student and so stand corrected on the next point. The constitution of Ireland offers us the right to associate. It implicitly offers the right to disassociate. The Universities Act has nothing stated explicitly regarding mandatory membership of Student Unions. If it did I would be guessing it could be struck down due to being unconstitutional. Why do the student unions feel they can override the constitutional rights of students in this country by not offering an opt-out mechanism?

It's unlikely to be unconstitutional anyway. 'Closed shop' workplaces are permitted under the Constitution. For example, when I worked in Penneys, all staff were members of the union Mandate. Presumably, the SU would come under the same heading: if you wish to attend the university, you have to accept membership of the representative association (the SU) although AFAIK this has never been challenged in court.

Ficheall

Eye2Mind wrote: »

I think the debate over "full reproductive rights" misses the point that the phrase was used to cover abortion as a right that is currently ignored by the SU.

So you don't actually know what they are then?

BhoscaCapall

isilidur1980 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure though that the money I pay to subsidize the union is pretty real!:)

Other than getting my exams marked I haven't really had any return on any of the money I've given the college. They'd just find something else to siphon the funds toward

Eye2Mind

Ficheall wrote: »

So you don't actually know what they are then?

Jeez, you're pushy....those rights that should be available to a woman (the point of the referendum is to extend womens reproductive rights, hence the focus on abortion) if engaged in sexual activity. Abortion is not currently included so the inclusion of the word "full" is a reference to that.

isilidur1980

Lockstep wrote: »

It's unlikely to be unconstitutional anyway. 'Closed shop' workplaces are permitted under the Constitution. For example, when I worked in Penneys, all staff were members of the union Mandate. Presumably, the SU would come under the same heading: if you wish to attend the university, you have to accept membership of the representative association (the SU) although AFAIK this has never been challenged in court.

From my understanding of closed shops, they are split into pre-entry and post entry closed shops. I didn't have to be part of the student union before I started college so it is not a pre-entry closed shop. An interesting case I have found Educational Company of Ireland v Fitzpatrick which seems to suggest that post-entry closed shops are unconstitutional. Not sure about this though. Articles 9 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights also seem to be breached by this mandatory union clause.
Again my knowledge of law is pretty basic so am probably reading these wrong.

Ficheall

Eye2Mind wrote: »

Jeez, you're pushy....those rights that should be available to a woman (the point of the referendum is to extend womens reproductive rights, hence the focus on abortion) if engaged in sexual activity. Abortion is not currently included so the inclusion of the word "full" is a reference to that.

Oh, so it's only women's rights? Bit ****ing sexist that, innit?
I know the referendum has passed, but it's a bit disappointing that not a single person knows what exactly the full reproductive rights are or what anyone was actually voting on.

I wonder if one ought to start a petition for a referendum to change the constitution to empower someone* in the SU to insist that any referenda held be written with some modicum of intelligence.


*I realise that the challenge would then be to find the intelligent person in the SU...

Eye2Mind

Ficheall wrote: »

Oh, so it's only women's rights? Bit ****ing sexist that, innit?
I know the referendum has passed, but it's a bit disappointing that not a single person knows what exactly the full reproductive rights are or what anyone was actually voting on.

I wonder if one ought to start a petition for a referendum to change the constitution to empower someone* in the SU to insist that any referenda held be written with some modicum of intelligence.


*I realise that the challenge would then be to find the intelligent person in the SU...

Women's rights...sexist. Yeah.

I think the vast majority knew what they were voting for, what the sentiment of the proposal was, that the Union include abortion as one of the reproductive rights it fights for. More students voted in the referendum compared to the other 3 elections, as in more students only requested the ballot for the referendum upon presenting themselves at a booth.
Honestly just think your splitting hairs, from what I heard from canvassers, that's what a lot of people thought and that was partially demonstrated in the 69% voting Yes.

Lockstep

isilidur1980 wrote: »

From my understanding of closed shops, they are split into pre-entry and post entry closed shops. I didn't have to be part of the student union before I started college so it is not a pre-entry closed shop. An interesting case I have found Educational Company of Ireland v Fitzpatrick which seems to suggest that post-entry closed shops are unconstitutional. Not sure about this though. Articles 9 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights also seem to be breached by this mandatory union clause.
Again my knowledge of law is pretty basic so am probably reading these wrong.

It was pretty much the same thing with Mandate/Penneys. You become a member as soon as you start working there which is pretty much the same thing as NUIG.
Fair enough if you have a problem with this but it's not unconstitutional.

Ficheall

Eye2Mind wrote: »

Women's rights...sexist. Yeah.

I think the vast majority knew what they were voting for, what the sentiment of the proposal was, that the Union include abortion as one of the reproductive rights it fights for. More students voted in the referendum compared to the other 3 elections, as in more students only requested the ballot for the referendum upon presenting themselves at a booth.
Honestly just think your splitting hairs, from what I heard from canvassers, that's what a lot of people thought and that was partially demonstrated in the 69% voting Yes.

Saying "full reproductive rights" but only including the women's rights is sexist. Unless one is of the school of thought that one can only be sexist against women, of course.

The vast majority may have known that they were voting for the union to be pro-choice, yes, but no one seems to be anything other than incredibly vague when it comes to "full-reproductive rights" or "every available measure".

PauricTheLodger

Eye2Mind wrote: »

*snip* I think the vast majority knew what they were voting for

*snip* what the sentiment of the proposal was,

*snip* that the Union include abortion as one of the reproductive rights it fights for.

*snip* from what I heard from canvassers, that's what a lot of people thought

I think it's quite the problem with a proposal for a referendum where people have to guess at the sentiment of what the proposal contains.. it's supposed to be spelt out as plain as day.. wasn't this the drama of the Childrens Referendum?

Eye2Mind

PauricTheLodger wrote: »

I think it's quite the problem with a proposal for a referendum where people have to guess at the sentiment of what the proposal contains.. it's supposed to be spelt out as plain as day.. wasn't this the drama of the Childrens Referendum?

Keep splitting hairs lads, if you're not willing to accept that people did understand what they were voting on then there isn't really much more I can say to you.

Pro-Choice campaigners made a point of asking people what they thought "every available measure" meant and the majority were of the opinion that it meant all the facilities and platforms the SU utilises in the carrying out of its operations with regards to a campaign, e.g. fighting fees campaign etc. That is exactly what it meant. As for "full reproductive rights", it was pointed out to me that when a canvasser asked a person if they knew what it meant, they were slightly offended. They promptly explained that it meant all those rights which should be available to a woman including abortion. Emphasis on women because there isn't currently a massive struggle over autonomy men have over their own bodies.

Any more questions are really just designed to derail the fact it passed and to try and prove that even those who drafted it didn't know what it meant which is just not true.

TheBikeGuy

I'd certainly prefer to have the 40 euro they automatically charge as part of my fees every year. They keep that very quiet though

isilidur1980

Lockstep wrote: »

It was pretty much the same thing with Mandate/Penneys. You become a member as soon as you start working there which is pretty much the same thing as NUIG.
Fair enough if you have a problem with this but it's not unconstitutional.

It is a grey area alright but to say it's not unconstitutional is probably going to far. The Supreme Court listed three separate sources for the right to disassociate in the case I mentioned. 1. The right of freedom of expression would be violated if a person was forced to join a union with values inconsistent of their own. 2. The right to disassociate was founded in the right to personal property which would be violated if an individual is is forced to join a union with the power to deduct membership fees and 3. the right to association is qualified only if there is a right to dissociate and as there is an explicit right to associate well then there is also a right to disassociate.
So saying that it is not unconstitutional is going too far, in my opinion.
The closed shop idea that you brought up is interesting though. It is unconstitutional not to afford "existing" employees the right to disassociate however there has been no ruling on whether this right to disassociate exists for prospective employees. It is questionable whether a condition of employment can be that you must join a particular union. I fail to see how this effects me though because I was never given this condition when signing up to my course in NUI Galway.
I did bring up Article 11 of the ECHR and the mandatory membership of the SU is in clear violation of my rights regarding this. How this affects our domestic law is something I can't be sure of either. Once we ratified this however, it seems we have to tow the line in regards to this. The ABC case which will lead to abortion legislation/guidelines here is an example of this.

isilidur1980

TheBikeGuy wrote: »

I'd certainly prefer to have the 40 euro they automatically charge as part of my fees every year. They keep that very quiet though

Which seems to be unconstitutional!!!:)

Ficheall

TheBikeGuy wrote: »

I'd certainly prefer to have the 40 euro they automatically charge as part of my fees every year. They keep that very quiet though

Where are you taking that figure from?

TheBikeGuy

Ficheall wrote: »

Where are you taking that figure from?

It was listed on my fee's receipt one year. That's for DIT could be different for other colleges

isilidur1980

While we are talking about the SU fees, I was wondering does anyone know if it is true whether the SU pays the UCI 8 euro per student per year to be part of that body? And if they do then what do the UCI do with approximately 136000 euro of NUI Galway students money?

Ficheall

isilidur1980 wrote: »

While we are talking about the SU fees, I was wondering does anyone know if it is true whether the SU pays the UCI 8 euro per student per year to be part of that body? And if they do then what do the UCI do with approximately 136000 euro of NUI Galway students money?

I think it's more like 600,000. It was over half a million in 05/06 anyway.

isilidur1980

Ficheall wrote: »

I think it's more like 600,000. It was over half a million in 05/06 anyway.

I think with them figures the least that should be put forward is an opt out of the UCI. How can our union justify this kind of figure at a time like this? Imagine what 500,000+ would mean to some of the students in our college who struggle to buy books and food, etc. The union will bang on about these things and at the same time transfer out this kind of money to a body which must be questioned on what it actually has and will achieve!!:mad:

Ficheall

Apologies - on second thoughts, those figures don't make sense.
I was looking at the figures listed here:http://www.su.nuigalway.ie/site/view/115/
but that would suggest over 5k from each student. I'm not sure what the given figures mean now...

BuilderPlumber

I think students should have the choice to be in it or not. I am unsure if it costs them anything to be in them (do fees cover membership and would fees be lower if SU membership was optional?) but am well aware of how poor they can be. I have found with Waterford IT Student Union that the service has gone from quite good to poor in just a few short years. Now, over that short space of time my fees and general costs have gone up. Are student unions all just into publicity, fundraising and politics and show a nastiness and arrogance when confronted about poor decisions they make? Or is it just here in Waterford? For me, I would very much not like to be a member of WIT Student Union. The elections are coming up next week but will this make a difference? My vote did not count before so I probably won't be bothered voting. Fresh faces may emerge but am sceptical if this can truly change what is a poor outfit. Are there even a need for student unions? Are all student unions as poor? Any views?

isilidur1980

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I think students should have the choice to be in it or not. I am unsure if it costs them anything to be in them (do fees cover membership and would fees be lower if SU membership was optional?) but am well aware of how poor they can be. I have found with Waterford IT Student Union that the service has gone from quite good to poor in just a few short years. Now, over that short space of time my fees and general costs have gone up. Are student unions all just into publicity, fundraising and politics and show a nastiness and arrogance when confronted about poor decisions they make? Or is it just here in Waterford? For me, I would very much not like to be a member of WIT Student Union. The elections are coming up next week but will this make a difference? My vote did not count before so I probably won't be bothered voting. Fresh faces may emerge but am sceptical if this can truly change what is a poor outfit. Are there even a need for student unions? Are all student unions as poor? Any views?

I can see the huge need for strong student unions but the ones we have in 2013 around the country are generally poor. On a national scale, they have completely failed students. But every year without fail, their funding from students remains or even increases! The NUI Galway SU is pretty poor. Having said that, I am sure there is people who are class rep's and officers of the union who really are trying their best for students. However the majority see it as a CV enhancer is all!

isilidur1980

Student Union organising a march tomorrow in relation to the student levy and in particular how it is used for the Kingfisher! It will be interesting to see how it goes. Hoping against hope that people will actually get up and go!!

BuilderPlumber

isilidur1980 wrote: »

I can see the huge need for strong student unions but the ones we have in 2013 around the country are generally poor. On a national scale, they have completely failed students. But every year without fail, their funding from students remains or even increases! The NUI Galway SU is pretty poor. Having said that, I am sure there is people who are class rep's and officers of the union who really are trying their best for students. However the majority see it as a CV enhancer is all!

True. Strong SUs are needed now more than ever but all too often the wrong people get elected. In WITSU, I see a trend that this years education officer will be next years president. Despite a poor performance as education officer, the current president was elected to that office last year. This year, we will see the same happen I am sure! Another gripe I have in WITSU is the influence a past president (who also was no good) still has over the current president.

There are good people in WIT's union and class reps but they never get to where they should. It is a shame that poor performing individuals who are wellknown in clubs and societies can gain power.

Unfortunately, the CV enhancement is all most see it for. Up until the 2010 academic year, WITSU was a good union but has been destroyed by the last 3 presidents and their governance. Egos are huge and an arrogance and nastiness has set in. An end to these ways is what is needed but we will wait and see what emerges from the election on Wednesday. Hopefully, some decent people can get elected and cleanse all the poison out of the union.