Talk:Voluntary student unionism/Archive 1

Bias
Hrmm, 3 paragraphs for VSU, 7 against. This seems a little biased. I'll try and beef up the pro side if I know the zealots won't delete it.

Impact
how many universities would be effected by Federal enactment of VSU? PMA 10:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All of the publicly owned ones (ie. not Bond or ACU;): to my knowledge, there's not a single public uni in Australia where student organisation membership is currently optional. Lacrimosus 11:12, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Motivations of the ALSF
The article states (or should state):


 * Liberal Students argue strongly for VSU on the basis of freedom of association and other grounds;
 * They deny the charge that they are arguing for VSU on the basis of political disadvantage for their opponents;
 * VSU advocates on the other hand consistently and routinely accuse Liberals of supporting the change for political motivations.

I will undo any changes to the article that do not substantially agree with this situation, as it is simply a matter of objective fact, favouring no particular side. Lacrimosus 05:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

=
I don't know why you are bringing so much politics into this.

"Liberal Students argue strongly for VSU on the basis of freedom of association and other grounds"

Thats a very big blanket statement. So you are saying Liberal Students, as a whole, fit your reasoning? You can't possibly know that unless you have questioned every one. Thats what I'm objecting to. FYI I'm not a liberal, and wish Latham had won. I do support freedom of choice.

By the way, I apoligize for the 'commie' remark.


 * That's perfectly alright. Politics plays a very large part in this: it is a point of conflict over the government's legislation after all, and was debated by both sides in the House of Representatives and the Senate when it came up, with the Liberals arguing in favour of VSU and Labor arguing in favour of USU. At the last election, the ALP's policy supported USU and the Coalition supported VSU.


 * Yes, but you are missing my point. I objected to the blanket language that implied that _all_ students who identified as X thought Y.


 * And the "freedom of choice" argument really only appears because some students argue that they should be free to choose not to support the politics of their student organisation.


 * Hang on, I don't follow you here. Personally I think that Student Unions should stay out of politics not directly relating to education. Even if the unions didn't play politican, I still would support VSU. If some students want bands, clubs, so-called subsidised food etc, they should pay for it themselves. The "Freedom of Choice" argument still applies even if you ignore the political side of things.

By contrast, if a Liberal group gained control of a USU supporter's student organisation, that USU supporter would still not argue in favour of VSU because they still support USU philosophically (as indeed has happened at a few campuses). So the "freedom of choice" argument is underlined by differences in political opinion. If there was no objection to the political content, the advocates wouldn't be arguing the need to make the choice.


 * I disagree. See above.


 * The point is, I'm not taking a stand one way or the other over whether Liberals *are* supporting it for political motivations, I'm saying that USU supporters *say* that Liberals are supporting it for political motivations (Many sources for this: virtually every NUS press release argues this point). If, as you say, you're not a Liberal, this clearly doesn't apply to you. The article mentions that VSU supporters deny this claim. NPOV policy simply requires that we detail the substance of both sides' arguments without putting a judgement on their validity. Lacrimosus 21:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(. . .)


 * Hi, Anon. In future, please use headings and sign your posts, otherwise this talk page just gets messy. Slac  speak up!  01:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Well it appears that any time I try and support the pro-VSU viewpoint, my edits are instantly reverted.

In the event that any of you are reading this, I'd like to ask: what exactly is the problem?

"Compulsory Student Unionism" vs "Universal Student Unionism"?
Yes, it IS more commonly called Compulsory Student Unionism. Do a google search.

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22Compulsory+Student+Unionism%22&word2=%22Universal+Student+Unionism%22

3756 vs 266 Results. (Opinion ahead) USU may be a new PR term introduced by the NUS. I can start a seafood takeout, sell mullet but call it sweetlip - that doesn't mean the real name for mullet is sweetlip.


 * Google's not necessarily a valid reference here - I'd estimate that there are probably more pro-VSU websites around than anti-VSU websites, but that doesn't necessarily mean that VSU is more popular than USU.


 * More pro-VSU websites? No way. I tried searching the web for pro-VSU websites. I found a fair few pro-VSU discussion forums but very few true "I support VSU" type web pages. On the other hand, virtually every student union in the country has an anti-VSU section on their webiste.


 * You can call mullet sweetlip if you want, and so long as at least some other people do, then that can be its "real name". (What defines a "real name"? Is it GST or New Tax System?).  VSU is just as much a PR term as USU is, but since its advocates like using it so much, so do we.  Cf. the abortion debate: it's "pro-choice" vs. "pro-life" usually, because those are the self-descriptors. Slac  speak up!  01:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I might call it sweetlip, but ten times as many people (according to google) call it mullet. I don't think its fair to reject the 'mullet' name but accept sweetlip. Probably the fairist thing to do is mention what both sides call it, either USU or CSU.

Utility of voluntary membership
The words "This fee is often equal to the union membership fee - in this case, the benefit of 'voluntary membership' is questionable."?

What part of this do you disagree with?

Student Unions do often make a big deal that under the current system you may object and lose membership. However _many_ unis make you pay a fee equal to the guild fee. What do you see as the benefit of 'voluntary membership' under this system? Sure, if you are rabidly opposed to the idealogy of unions you might prefer this. From what I've seen VSU supporters are more opposed to the fee. Making the new fee equal to the guild fee removes the financial incentive to be an objector.


 * Specifically, now the article itself is describing it as "questionable". If someone else notable calls it "questionable", they can be cited as such in the relevant section.  Value judgements should be avoided unless they are attributed.


 * Fair enough, I will try and edit that.


 * In response to your arguments about the utility or otherwise of voluntary membership, the point made by the anti-VSU crew is that membership is currently voluntary, regardless of whether that's "beneficial" or not. Thus, "VSU" is something of a misnomer. Pro-VSU arguments based on freedom of association and so forth thus are not valid, in this view. VSU proposals are more technically anti-service fee proposals than anti-compulsory membership proposals.


 * The reasons people opt out of student union membership usually include religious or ideological motivations. That's for them to decide and justify.  Likewise, the reason that VSU advocates wish to abolish upfront student amenity fees is for them to justify.  Slac  speak up!  01:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Support for VSU paragraphs
I added three paragraphs under the "Support for VSU" header. These were also deleted as 'biased'. Hello? If you disagree with VSU, they seem biased. Thats why they are under 'support' page. The 'against' arguments seem biased to me but I didn't revert them when they were added. NPOV says that BOTH sides should be represented fairly, not just one. The old article had 3 pro paragraphs, 7 against.


 * All arguments both for and against VSU should be properly cited. The primary problem with your edits was that they weren't attributed to anyone in particular (IMHO, the "pro" and "anti" paragraphs should really be "what various groups think" - what the universities think, what the student organisations think, what the ALSF thinks).  Slac  speak up!  01:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * A good argument should stand on its own, no matter who says it. The problem is I've encountered many of these arguments on forums and the like, bu there is no 'offical VSU supporters' group to attribute them to. I don't see the point of referencing Joe Bloggs whome no-one knows.


 * Brendan Nelson? Sophie Panopolous? Samantha Aber? (the president of UNESA) Julian Barendse? (the president of the national Liberal Students Association) I don't object so much to your recent bunch of changes, but arguments don't "stand on their own" on Wikipedia - they need to be cited. Ambi 23:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I ask that no matter what your viewpoint is, you PLEASE respond to these points before doing a blanket revert. I have a lot of time on my hands now; if you want to revert changes with no explanation then so I will I.


 * Thanks for taking the time to reply.

[Quote]Generally, a student, upon enrolling in University, will automatically become a member of their campus student organisation. In order to avoid membership, they must specifically opt out on conscientious grounds. A fee for student services or amenities will be charged to students, typically once a semester or in a lump sum upon enrollment. This fee is generally (although in not all circumstances), collected by the university itself, which takes a portion in collection fees and allocates a portion (typically about half) to university sporting programmes. The remainder is passed on to the campus student organisation(s). This fee is often equal to the union membership fee - in this case, there is no financial incentive to become a conscientious objector.[/quote]

This is false, you must pay the GSF (general service fee) to go to uni, if you refuse you cannot enroll in any classes!

Please see the ANU SEAP Guide for proof http://www.anu.edu.au/sas/studentadmin/seapguide/

"2.1   Enrolment – New Students (commencing students)

All students, both undergraduate and postgraduate coursework, should familiarise themselves with the Student Enrolment Guidelines at the following website:

www.anu.edu.au/sas/studentadmin/studentguide/

Commencing students are required to enrol as specified in the enrolment instructions included with their offer.

The University will not consider you to be enrolled until you have:

n    accepted the offer of admission to a specified program according to the prescribed instructions; n    paid the General Services Fee (GSF); n    registered enrolment and completed the required statistical information on the website; n    (if eligible) completed the relevant Request for Commonwealth Support and HECS-HELP form (undergraduate students in an award program) or a Request for FEE-HELP Assistance form if appropriate; n    completed any other enrolment procedures required by the University. "

GSF: General Services Fee is payable by all students. Moneys raised by the fees are for the provision to students of services and amenities not of an academic nature. The annual General Services Fee, includes a recurrent fee and amounts determined each year, for allocation to the capital project levy and the Endowment for Excellence Accommodation Bursaries. Students who enrol for only one semester pay half of the annual General Services Fee from http://ecocomm.anu.edu.au/glossary.asp
 * Next time, read the article, then complain. The article does not claim that people have the option not to pay the GSF at present. The article does note that people have the option to pay an alternate fee that doesn't go to the students association. Indeed, the article notes a specific criticism of this (This fee is often equal to the union membership fee - in this case, there is no financial incentive to become a conscientious objector.) In ANU's case, everyone has to pay the GSF - but you can choose to pay the alternative fee, in which case none of your GSF money goes to ANUSA. Ambi 13:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Not very even handed.
Can't say I am too impressed with this article, seems heavily focused on the anti VSU side of arguments. Not only is there a lot more on the "against" side of the argument here, if you look at the "support" arguments each and every one of them is qualified with an opposition comment in the support section!

Then we move on to the against section and suddenly we move from a third person reporting of other opinions to what sounds like stuff typed right out of a Student Union flyer. Gone are the "opponents claim" and "it has been advanced that" and suddently its a list of things that apparently WILL happen - the language changes and instead of it being put out like a list of claims it comes out like a list of stuff that will inevitibly come to pass.

I also feel the "most vocal proponent" listing various conservative groups isn't very even handed either, especially the way it is currently worded. I wouldn't even think about adding a "the most vocally against the changes are "the NUS, Trade Unions and various Labor party clubs around Australia" - It just brings political partisanship into the argument and all form of neutrality goes out the window. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandurahmike (talk • contribs) 15:21, 3 August 2005


 * The reality is that almost every secor of the community has opposed VSU, including Coalition Partners, the National Party. Only the Liberal Party and the ALSF are pushing for VSU. This should be reported. It is not breaching the NPOV to state that there is substantial opposition to the legislation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theusualsuspect (talk • contribs) 22:01, 3 August 2005


 * I'm a member of the Liberal Party / ALSF? Thats news to me. I support VSU with a passion yet I am not a member of these groups. Just one person is enough to prove your blanket statement incorrect. I also agree that this article is very 'anti-VSU'. The opposition section is very long winded compared to the supporters section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.56.36 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 3 August 2005


 * Of course it isn't Neutral. Just about everyone I know is also passionately in favour of VSU and as for "The community" - most people don't really give a stuff. Of course, Im not going to use this as a basis for writing an article either. My initial complaints remain. It isn't even handed. The Pro VSU section is laced with disclaimers from the anti side of the argument and read like they have been written by someone with only a basic understanding of the arguments against VSU.  The rest of the article reads like well practiced spiel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandurahmike (talk • contribs) 23:43, 3 August 2005

There is no violation of the NPOV policy in this article. Certainly, it is not a great article, but this is largely a consequence of poor writing. One cannot place an NPOV banner on an article simply because they are not "too impressed". You must cite specific examples of bias, and we can work from there. If you take issue with the fact that a particular area is more extensively discussed than the other, all we can say is sofixit! But you must consider, of course, that perhaps there is simply more to say about one aspect. I have removed the tag accordingly.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought I did cite specific examples? In case I wasnt clear enough i'll more specifically cite them.

Exerpt from the In favour of VSU bit.

"Thirdly, following the realignment of priorities which VSU is likely to entail, it is believed by some that political activities, particularly off-campus activities, will be severely or even completely curtailed. Those supporting VSU argue that student organisations are unrepresentative of students' views, and do not have the right to levy funding for political campaigns and activities from students who may not support them. Since historically Australia's student organisations have been dominated either by left-wing student bodies, or student political groups affiliated with the Australian Labor Party, the introduction of VSU is likely to politically disadvantage these groups by removing the advantages of encumbency. This would also presumably work to the advantage of their right-wing political opponents. Some anti-VSU advocates claim that this is the ALSF's primary motivation in championing VSU."

Now let's sit back and have a look at this argument "in favour" of VSU. This reads to me more like a "Here is what the evil conservatives are trying to do and why". Theres also a lot of "Those supporting it argue", making it sound like a claim rather than a fact, which is of course fine... until you get to the radical chance of tune for the second half of the article.

Now in the second section we have bits like

"Voluntary student unionism would also have an impact on Australia's elite sports, with the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) expressing dissatisfaction with the legislation, arguing that it would negatively influence the future success of Australia's olympic medal chances. One third of Australia's Olympic Team were university graduates or students, and benefited from the $30 million in funding collected from compulsory fees. The AOC worries that without funding from student organisation fees, many athletes would never have been able to compete."

Just compare the tone and flow of the two paragraphs I have pasted, most importantly the "Voluntary student unionism would also have" - Oh it will will it? Where's the proof of this? There's no bit saying "VSU would enable students not wishing to fund what they view as a partisan political body the option to choose not to do so" instead of that bit of ramble we currently have. Who is the writer of this to say what WOULD happen? this isn't a neutral point of view - this is OPINION. It happens again with "Australian universities' competative edge on the international student market will also be greatly diminished under voluntary student unionism". You can't just throw this out there - even if some body has claimed this, this sort of wording of it as canon, especially when you look at how the pro argument was worded doesnt make for neutrality at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandurahmike (talk • contribs) 00:13, 4 August 2005


 * Firstly, you need to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Preferably, use four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;), which produces your name and the current date. This is necessary for coherent discussion, and saves other editors' having to attribute comments.


 * To the issue at hand, I still don't think that there is any intrinsic bias. What we are dealing with, or what your objections largely pertain to, is weasel terms and incorrect tense. You are right, "would" and "will" are incorrectly used. To use them is to be too matter-of-fact. But this is a consequence of poor writing and can be rectified by changing to "could" and/or a considerable rewrite. Same goes for the rest of the article. It would be best if facts/arguments were referenced/sourced, but this is not always possible nor absolutely necessary. Your concern about "arguments for" being immediately disqualified by "arguments against" in the same breath (if this is so) is not necessarily an example of bias. It may be that the sections are simply inappropriate. Perhaps arguments identified as being "against" just need to relocated to the relevant section. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * JPD has made some changes that largely resolve the raised concerns. There may still be other instances you have issues with, but there is no cause for invoking POV, and I encourage you to be bold and fix it - so long as your own bias is checked at the door.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Much better than it was.
Whoever edited this, good job, you have gone a long way towards tightening this up and bringing it closer to true neutrality.

Id suggest, if you have the inclination, a couple of further changes:

Firstly, the bit near the beginning speaking of the most vocal pro's being a bunch of Liberal groups - id remove that altogether and change it to something like "The introduction of VSU generally recieves it's strongest support from conservative groups who are ideologically opposed to compulsory membership of collective organisations, while the strongest opposition comes from blah blah blah - you get the idea"

Then, id tack all the groups mentioned at the start as supporting VSU down the bottom with the other group's positions, so in one fell swoop we have removed the slightly clumsy and unbalanced bit at the start and balanced up the "other groups" section which is currently all about Anti VSU groups. Perhaps we could have a counter to the NUS position down there?

Good effort on the last edit though :)

Mandurahmike


 * I actually don't think the article has improved much. The new sections do make for a more interesting analysis. However, I am concerned that there is in a few places (I stress, few) a smidgen of pro-VSU bias. In particular, the beer example bears little relevance, and could be replaced by another. At the very least, it needs rewording for neutrality. However, I wish not to be involved in any controversy, and I haven't the time to both improve the article and fend off attacks.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cyberjunkie; the style is much improved, but it has introduced some cases of pro-VSU bias. Ambi 07:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

VSU in the Media
It looks like the majority of the links are pretty anti-VSU

"Labor slams uni change as ideology gone mad", "Student union bill in peril as Nats defy PM", "Anti-VSU protesters hit parliament" etc.

I'm trying to add a link to http://smh.com.au/news/National/Unis-need-to-prove-VSU-impact-Vaile/2005/08/14/1123957935368.html

"Unis need to prove VSU impact: Vaile"

Ambi keeps removing it. Quoth Ambi:

"I removed the link because it was misleading and unhelpful. There are arguments against VSU, but they are ideological - freedom of choice and user-pays. Every university that has implemented Western Australian model-VSU has lost a lot of services, which is on the public record. This is why no one, with the exception of Vaile (who was apparently just being hopeful) is seriously making this argument - and why, as an extreme minority view, it does not belong in the article. Ambi 05:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)"

This is blatent POV. See the Senate report, sections 1.33 onwards. Clearly it is not an "extreme minority view".

To quote the Senate report

"A note on rural universities

1.33        There appears to be a general view that universities in non-metropolitan areas are more vulnerable to the effects of VSU than are universities in the city. The committee majority believes this view to be based on unfounded assumptions. Despite repeated questioning of witnesses, there was no substantive evidence to support the repeated claim that regional campuses would be affected in a way materially different to metropolitan campuses..."

I'd quote the whole thing but it's too big to fit on the page.

I'm putting the link back, along with some more recent quotes from Mr Joyce.

203.206.18.154 06:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If you want to write a paragraph on the government Senate report - including the appalled response from Labor, the Democrats and the Greens, then go right ahead - it certainly needs writing about.


 * How about since we are on opposite sides of the fence, I write a few paragraphs summarising the pro position, and you the anti? Let me know if you agree, if so we can put our drafts here until we're both happy.


 * Feel free to go ahead - it is a key part of writing neutrally to be able to "write for the opposition".


 * Sure. Give me a day or two.

I'll make changes if it isn't neutral. Just note that if you insist on making a big thing of the Vaile comment that I'll go through and dig up the NUS's list of everything that was lost at each WA university, and that some of them (i.e. UWA's rape crisis centre being turned into a hairdresser) don't reflect well on proponents of VSU. Ambi 12:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This is the type of thing I really don't understand. I bet a hairdresser is used by many, many more students than a 'rape crisis centre'. Why does a university need it's own centre in such a specific thing? What's wrong with the professional services already provided to the population at large? Money has been saved by not duplicating services that already exist.


 * However, to put the link in uncontested is misleading. With the exception of this one article, this is not an argument the government have been using, precisely because it is so easily rebutted.


 * If the government has not been taking this position, why have they mentioned it in the senate report?


 * I've been reading every single story placed on the internet about this issue for months.


 * Ditto. I have a google news search for 'VSU' bookmarked.


 * The two arguments used to support VSU in the hundreds of news articles on this topic have been user-pays and freedom of choice. The "it won't hurt anyone" argument is something that I have never seen them dare to raise apart from Vaile there


 * Well for better or for worse, it's in the senate report.


 * (because it isn't defensible - the NUS and ACTU are fond of reeling off a very long list of the services that were lost at each university) - and I challenge you to find another example. Ambi 12:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There might be a million services lost. The average student has clearly thought that they don't need them and would rather keep their money in their own pocket.


 * Placing it in the external links section is a devious way of getting around having to place the comments in a neutral context. Ambi 07:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hrmm. This sounds a little paranoid to me - the featured news reports have been mostly anti-vsu. Every time someone tries to make the article balanced there are cries of 'Bias!' and instant reverts. 203.206.18.154 07:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The news reports take no stance. I'm happy for more pro-VSU links to be added, but this is just a misleading one-off comment from a hopeful frontbencher, and thus not particularly suitable for addition. Ambi 12:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * My position is that while you may consider his arguments baseless (as you undoubtably do for the majority of pro-VSU arguments), they have been mentioned in the senate report, and are therefore noteworthy. Please feel free to add a news article that gives the unions response to this issue. I think it'd be a little redundant myself; The other articles make the NUS's position clear.203.206.18.154 21:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Now I'm the confused one. You say there might be a million services lost, but that the average student doesn't need them. This is what the Liberal Party has been claiming - and for this reason, I have absolutely no problem with it being in the article, indeed, it is only neutral for this to be the case. What I have a problem with is making a big thing of a one-off statement from Vaile claiming - despite all evidence (and not even trying to cite any) - that no services would be lost at all. For this reason, if you want to make a big thing of it, be prepared for a (rather long) list of what was actually lost at UWA, ECU, Murdoch and Curtin in the article. Ambi 23:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Terminology
I have reverted again because I believe my revised version has the support of at least one other editor. I accept that it is perhaps not the best it could be, but I prefer it to the version "anonymous" seeks to include. (comparison on version). Firstly, this is an article on VSU. The anon - assuming s/he is the same who raised concerns over terminology at Talk:Universal Student Unionism - is trying to validate an objection to USU here. (In that sense, it is POV. However, let's avoid accusations of such). In particular, I object to paragraphs two and three of the anon's version: no citations are provided, and they are/border on irrelevance. I think that my initial edit largely maintained what the anon had written, but in précis and without irrelevance.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for taking the time to explain your position. OK, I will accept that the CSU/USU discussion should take place on the CSU page. Btw: What do you think of merging these 2 pages, and redirecting to 'Student Unionism in Australia' or something?


 * I would like to add that I personally feel (just to reveal my opinion) that the VSU debate is not really just about compulsory fees. Whilst it is possible to opt out of union membership, students who do so are often penalized. They lose services that the union would otherwise provide them. They also must pay the fee anyway. See the Senate report for references. I personally feel the last paragraph should be modified as it doesn't do this argument justice.Robotic Monkey Head 10:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Am I reading you right and you're arguing that people should have the right not to join a union and pay its fee...and still receive all the services that union provides? Ambi 14:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course not! If they don't get the services, they should not pay the fee. The current system may 'technically' not be compulsory, but it penalises those who opt out. They lose services but must still pay. Typically they have to jump through a heap of hoops to do so. And according to the senate report, the unions often still get the money anyway. That is why I feel the current system is truly not voluntary. Robotic Monkey Head 03:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If a student elects to opt-out of union membership, then of course some of the services provided by that union will no longer be available to that student. The bad thing here is to generalise. Each and every university have different structures and processes. But you assume that a student who has “opted-out” is barred completely from union services. This isn’t so. A student not in the union may still avail themselves of union-provided services, particularly those retail. However, they typically will no longer have access to the welfare and support services that are provided to members by members. That’s hardly penalisation, especially considering that most unions are now largely self-funded. The Adelaide University Union, for example, earns over $11 million each year from its UniBooks enterprise (which, btw, is provided for all). A student's SSF (yet another term in-the-mix) still gives them access to all other non-union services as per usual, as well.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * In a nutshell: If a student opts out, they will typically lose some services. How many exactly depends on the university. However they must still pay the fee. See sections 1.27 to 1.29 of the Senate Report. "Government senators are concerned that a number of universities offer only a ‘technical’ opt out of union membership....The fees paid, in most cases, still go towards union services...As one submission noted, the compulsory levy on a student who opts out of membership is equal to the union membership fee, making it a net loss. Such students lose what few benefits the guild gives them, but the fee must still be paid" Robotic Monkey Head 05:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * (You're right, in a sense, about VSU. It's not about compulsory fees. Nor is it about student or individual rights. It's about ideology and a desire by the present Government to quash all forms of dissent and opposition. Much like the industrial relations "reform" is not about productivity or sustaining economic growth. It's about (in relation to this discussion) ending the labour movement, and by proxy, the Labor Party. Which is ironic, if you know Australian political history. But that's my view.)
 * I still don't see any reason to maintain your version. You've admitted its largely irrelevant, so why don't you restore it to my version and work from there.
 * As for a article on the student movement in Australia, my position really depends on what it would entail. What would one write about? I can't think of anything that would justify a separate article. Is there any precedent on Wikipedia for such an article? --Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok. You're entitled to your opinion. Personally I don't think the government is out to get me. Will VSU _really_ stop students having protests? It doesn't outlaw them. It just prevents unions forcing all students to pay for them. By the way: I've never voted liberal in my life.
 * For all I know, the governments true motivation is not compulsory fees or students rights. Personally I don't care. It doesn't invalidate other arguments about freedom of association.
 * Your version has parts like "Voluntary Student Unionism is also known - increasingly - by alternatives such as "Anti-Student Organisation Legislation" (ASOL) or some variant thereof. This term is particularly popular within the student movement."
 * 'particulary popular'? I've never heard anyone in my university call it that. None. Not even on notice boards. A google search gives 322 hits for web sites (mostly student union websites with NUS material by the look of it) and zero hits on google news. It also gets two hits on google groups.
 * ""Voluntary Student Unionism" on the other hand gets 25,800 google hits, 457 google news hits, and 98 google groups hits. I think the numbers speak for themselves.
 * I'm not sure I'm completely happy with the first paragraph. Strictly speaking, union member is not compulsory. However you are very often penalized for opting out. I'd be happy with a slight modification of some sort, perhaps quoting the senate report.
 * It seems to me that the VSU/USU pages overlap an awful lot. Many arguments apply to both pages.  Quite a few other pages have done this. 'Bottom Post' redirects to 'Top Post' for instance because they are different sides of the same coin. Robotic Monkey Head 03:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Firstly, can ask you to please refrain from splitting up my comments? I really dislike it. (Secondly, I really only stated my opinion as an aside (hence, parenthetical). I don't want us to go off at a tangent. However, I realise it wasn't well-expressed. I meant to imply 'forms of representation'. It just so happens that the interests of students conflict with the present Government - just as they have with governments-past. Students should have a right and means to representation. Oh, and you say you've never voted liberal? Not that I care (amen, secret ballot) but would this be because you've never actually voted ;-)?)
 * Ah, the infamous "Google test". Please don't try and use it as evidence. It is inherently flawed. As the oldest and most prominent term, one would expect VSU to have exponentially more hits. Nobody is denying that VSU is the most common term.
 * And I am struggling to see just what you're trying to say anyway. My version was simply a compressed version of yours. You, yourself, mentioned ASOL. Now you wish it not mentioned at all? Notice I wrote "particularly popular within the student movement". This would imply that, yes, it is used mostly by those active within student unions or other forms of student representation, but not exclusively so. And I don't really believe that you, as someone who obviously follows the debate, would be so oblivious as not to notice the term about campus. You've not even seen chalk-scrawlings on steps and such? Be honest.
 * I think it would be best to cover the two terms/issues in separate articles, but that doesn't mean I am not open to hearing ideas of an amalgamation of the articles into one over-arching topic. You've yet to really offer any ideas, other than to protest a perceived overlap.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll stop splitting your comments. I do feel that it helps to respond to each point in turn, instead of having to reiterate your points.


 * For the record I have voted. Not that it matters, but I wanted to make it clear I don't support VSU because I think it will help the Liberals. I support it because I want Freedom of Choice. Of course students have a right to representation. I think unions should not force students to join them, and make 'opting-out' more trouble than its worth.


 * As for the 'flawed' google test, we can use the nifty 'search by date' feature to help get around that. Let's search Google News from the 5th of August to today. "Voluntary student unionism" gets 456 hits. "Anti-Student Organisation Legislation" gets none. It looks like the Australian NUS (ANUS) and some student unions are the probably only ones using this term. No-one in the media has used it recently at all. I do not object to mentioning the tern ASOL; I just don't think it is "particularly popular within the student movement" Google may be flawed but at least I'm trying to get some numbers.


 * Just for the record, I have to support Robotic Monkey Head here. The term ASOL may be used at some campuses, but I've seen no sign of it here - it was discussed at the start of the year when some NUS hacks came down, but we decided to simply refer to it as VSU. In a year of anti-VSU activism, that's the only I've heard ASOL used. Ambi 06:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, so perhaps it's not as popular as I thought it was. (Or at least, there is a difference between our respective campuses). It seems to be used pften where I am - although VSU is still the more frequent. So then how to rephrase? How about "used by some segments of the student movement"?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That sounds OK to me. As for the other paragraph, can I suggest a minor modification? "rather, in some cases, membership of a union is automatic upon enrolment at a university". I think this should say "in the majority of cases". Robotic Monkey Head 13:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * ("waffle cones and fish fingers"?) I think just changing "some" to "most" would work.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I am being completely honest. I have not seen this term used at my university. And I've looked. I don't really care much about merging USU/VSU. I just thought that there was little sense in repeating arguments on both pages. Robotic Monkey Head 05:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * (In response to edit summary) And so I have here stated. You should have responded here instead of reverting yet again.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't realize you'd spoken here. Robotic Monkey Head 10:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for creating an account. It makes it much easier for others to keep track of discussion. Also, it shows respect for Wikipedia as project. I hope you keep it.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)