Read on Twitter
Thread: I sigh when so many who work in the creation of knowledge uncritically welcome declarations by Vice Chancellors that they will not sign the Jobs Protection Framework (JPF). Even the most militant are surprisingly ready to embrace the bosses’ claims. Let’s unpack ...1/13
those claims: In a touching chorus, VCs have said they don’t need or want to reduce wages or time fractions, find the JPF too complex, and will not delegate university autonomy to a national panel of experts that includes union nominees. Almost in the same breath, they warn 2/13
that things are bad, there will have to be cuts, and redundancies are inevitable. They have already been sacking casual staff and not renewing fixed term staff, even where the work is still needed. They have been pushing people to take leave, to go part time, to “donate” 3/13
wages back to the university’s coffers. Cuts are being made. More cuts are coming. The uni bosses are happy to use the armoury they already have to make those cuts, without signing the JPF. This does not reflect some benevolent care for staff welfare, but pure managerialist 4/13
resistance to the *protections* that give the Job Protections Framework its name. True, they would be able to impose limited wage and fraction cuts under the JPF, but their capacity to use redundancies would be significantly constrained, and they would have to RE-EMPLOY ... 5/13
many of the casual and fixed term workers who have already been sacked, and to keep others in work. They want unfettered managerial control over sackings. The JPF would impose significant fetters. That’s what they mean when they say they don’t want to reduce rates of pay. 6/13
As for the JPF being too complicated, unis have EBAs that run to hundreds of pages and employer policies that could fill a wheelbarrow. The ‘complication’ is the requirement to use other measures rather than sacking people. It is not the complexity that offends them, but 7/13
the JPF’s limits on managerial power. Their claim about delegating power to a national panel are ludicrous. The JPF does not require any uni to submit its finances to the national panel of experts. They only need to do so if they want to be approved to use wage cuts and 8/13
fraction reductions. Since they promise they have no intention of doing so, they would have no reason to ever deal with the national panel. But even if they do, the panel only makes a decision about which category (A or B) they are in, and therefore how the JPF would work 9/13
in their case. It does not direct them to DO anything, merely opens up some options that they would not otherwise have. There is no constraint on institutional autonomy in the JPF and those VCs that spout this argument are just having a lend of us. What they really don’t 10/13
like about the national panel is that before they could impose any wage reductions or fraction cuts, they would have to be fully transparent about their finances and demonstrate that those measures were proportionate to their real financial situation. They’ll do anything 11/13
to avoid scrutiny of the money. The VC statements are reminiscent of that point in enterprise bargaining when the VC swears on a stack of bibles that the world would end were they to agree to any of the union’s claims. We don’t treat their assertions seriously then 12/13
and we shouldn’t now. They are just posturing for effect. It is sad to see so many people who would usually see straight through such bluster lapping it up. Whatever you think about the JPF (I think it is a good thing) don’t fall into the trap of cheering on the bosses. 13/13
Of course it’s not the pay cuts in the JPF that the bosses object to: It is the real, enforceable job protections, the requirement for financial transparency, and the fact that it puts our union at the table. @NTEUNational
And today it starts: Deakin announces 3-400 jobs to go. UniMelb wants 2.2% permanent pay cut plus expanded power to impose redundancies. Who& #39;s next?
