Talk:Voluntary student unionism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Protest Images

Rather than removing both anti-VSU protest images, I think that it is better to have one anti and one pro VSU rally image each. Made changes to reflect this. Augment 11:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward with the terminology debate

I'm glad my previous (reverted) addition has spurred debate about a terminology section; all the talk above clearly demonstrates its need. I know people are getting antsy about how to describe the various terms in use, so in an attempt to take it forward a little I'm going to add a terminology section which does nothing except list the various terms in use. Perhaps we can then move forward in a less hostile way...

PS: Can someone with the technical know-how, perhaps Ambi, put the older part of the discussion into archive? The discussion has largely moved on from the stuff prior to the "Terminology" section. El T 17:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think there's been any hostility thus far. The new terminology seems fair enough - it's a good starting point. Terminology sections are usually minor and short in length, so perhaps all that is really needed is a way to express what's there a little better. Oh, and I've archived this page - it was just long enough to justify doing so.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 18:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Put the Liberals last"

I've reverted an edit by 129.96.142.10 which suggests that "Student organisations would suggest that the interest of these Liberal organistaion in VSU is revenge for a political campagin run by the National Union Of Students (NUS) entitled "Put the Liberals Last". " The liberals have pursued the VSU agenda since before they entered Government and to suggest that the prime motive for introduce VSU is 'revenge' for a recent campaign is simplistic and ill-informed. The desire to introduce VSU is to some extent ideologically driven. (it could also be argued that the Liberals are interested in introducing VSU because doing so would weaken NUS - which has been dominated by Labor aligned groups since its inception, that would however be a political argument which shouldn't go into an encyclopedia unless it can be attributed and referenced) Adz 01:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Balance in photos

I'm not going to say the two photos included are irrelevant, but it seems odd to me to have two photos of student protests against VSU. It suggests a hegemony of opinion from students, which is clearly not correct.

It might be hard to find a striking pro-VSU image so I'm not going to say one needs to be included, but there shouldn't be two anti-VSU photos and nothing representing the other side.

I'd also suggest that the photo(s) should be moved to the "Other groups' positions" section, since they are more about student unions' responses than the issue per se. El T 00:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

This is just plain nit-picking. It suggests nothing other than that students have protested. If you want to provide images of a pro-VSU rally, feel free. If there were such things, and if they were covered in the media, I would have provided them. However, if it bothers you so, I might be able to provide an image of Dr Nelson. As to their positioning, it is quite a common format. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

A photo of Nelson would be good to represent the other side. I suspect adding a picture of a pro-VSU rally wouldn't overly neutral, as putting it next to picture of an anti-VSU rally would make very clear just how little support the former has. Ambi 06:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Lets be fair here Ambi. Remember that in virtually every uni in the country, there are well-funded (through compulsory payments) organizations whose income depends on compulsory fees. Of course they have the funds to set up protests. They can offer so-called 'free' BBQ's and other incentives to attend. On the other hand, there are NO pro-VSU groups that have been funded by students. In addition it would be very hard to inform students about a pro-VSU rally. I can't speak for other universities but at mine, any pro-VSU posters have been torn down within a day. Unions have a monopoly on campus billboards.

I'd love to see an honest and fair vote at each university, to see if students support VSU. And by 'fair', the pro-VSU people should be allowed to have a say. Since you're so convinced that students oppose VSU, why not ask them (in your position as a 'student politician') about it? 131.181.251.66 09:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hah. Incentives? We had no incentives to turn out to our protests in Canberra at all, apart from a couple of speakers who donated their time, and yet 25 times more students braved snow to turn out and listen than turned up to the miniscule pro-VSU protest in the sun in Sydney. I would also not mind an honest and fair vote at each university on VSU (it would fail in places where there is a good union, and succeed in places where students receive nothing), but alas, that is not what is being proposed. Ambi 10:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

At my university (QUT) we had free BBQs & bands and people were handing out T-shirts. The protest here was still pretty poor though. Other universities went further 'Student cash for protest denounced as rent-a-crowd'. I don't know the details of the pro-VSU protest. However I'll bet that they had no budget to bribe students, and were probably just a few young libs trying to stir up trouble. If they were like my university they wouldn't even have been able to advertise the protest. 213.230.203.80 13:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I am actually a member of the student society at UNSW that won that so called "bribe" that you refer to. Contrary to the hype, it was not rent-a-crowd but a award for the affiliated university club with the most members turning up at the event. There was only one award and it was for $200. It was not an open cheque either - it had to be used for a club event and would be handed over only *after* the event had taken place. We used the money for our end of year party and have not yet recieved the reimbursement. Rent-a-crowd my foot! The protest that took place on that day was the largest student protest since Vietnam (at least in Sydney). Witty lama 10:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting rebuttal. The usage of the word "award" is particularly relevant. An award is given to the organization that manages to get the largest number of students to attend. I was of the impression that the student union was to allow the students opinions to be heard, rather than try to manipulate the students opinions ith “awards”. With enough fliers, interrupted lectures, and pushy people handing out anti-Howard propaganda you can get students to do anything. It is a shame, when I brought up this massive spending of money on political propaganda, a student union leader did not dispute that it was political propaganda. Rather, she just confirmed what I thought, going on a 5 minute rant on how Howard was ruining this country. This is going off topic, but my point is, $200 may have been given out as an award, but how much money was spent on bin-lining fliers and a ridiculously large number of posters. Furthermore, the size of the rally in no way influences the validity of the actions of the student union. I am glad that my money will no longer be used to push the student unions point of view. Gregory.currie 16:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not for ranting on about points of view. Discuss only the article in question. Let's cease this thread here. enochlau (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the first word of Ambi's response is adequate. Hah.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 11:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Very mature Cyberjunkie. If VSU comes into play, I'm going to come back here just to laugh at you. 213.230.203.80 13:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC).

And this is somehow mature? Rather, it seems malicious.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the image of the Howard-embellished anti-VSU poster. Before anyone goes into revert-mode, let me explain why.

The issue of balance is very important. A lot of work has gone into creating NPOV - remember the article's tone before that big modification a few months back? Having two anti-VSU images and no opposing image is questionable from a goal of impartiality. Whether more students support or oppose VSU is impossible to know, and even if we did it's still a bit on the nose to so heavily weight material to one side of the debate. It's important to remember that this article is about VSU, not student opposition to VSU.

The second point also relates to some of the body text (and to arguments that have gone before). It is inaccurate to associate too heavily pro-VSU sentiment with pro-Liberal feelings. The persistent implicit suggestion is that VSU is a policy drawn from, and supported pretty much exclusively by, Liberal hacks. The Howard-featuring anti-VSU poster, when combined with the text about "The most vocal proponent of VSU in Australia", is a long way from NPOV. El T 15:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh, Cyberjunkie? I'm not going to get into a bout of reversions, but I think the points I've made above are pretty strong arguments for removal of that 1st image.El T 15:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

This is entirely disingenuous. You know perfectly well you removed the image before you garnered support, and that my revert came well before you posted here - some good half hour in fact.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The reversion came between my starting to type the above paras and hitting the save button. There was nothing disingenuous about it. I think having those two images creates serious NPOV problems. Having one is okay, even if its current position and form are less than ideal. But having two should be out of the question. The article should be discussing VSU, its proponents and opponents, not acting as a rallying call for one side or the other.

Which is all to say that for the image to stay in we need to explain why its benefits exceed the damage to the neutrality of the article. Personal arguments about whether VSU is a good thing, who gets better rally turnouts, what the government should do, etc. etc. are all totally beside the point. The article is the point. Making a neutral, mutually acceptable article is the point. At the moment the article is not neutral or mutually acceptable. I've put forward a suggestion: remove the Howard placard image. Now Ambi and Cyberjunkie, as proponents of keeping both images, need to say why that idea fails to create a more neutral, mutually acceptable article. El T 03:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with ELT. We all have bias but we need to keep it in check. Robotic Monkey Head 05:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

How about I take a photo of one of the pro-VSU posters at my university? Robotic Monkey Head 05:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

That might solve a whole bunch of problems, RMH. Objections, anyone? El T 05:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll try and snap one over the next few days. Robotic Monkey Head 09:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I have never been opposed to having images showing VSU proponents or posters, or even rallies. I even offered to provide one myself (which is difficult, because the issue has died down in the media). What I reject is the idea that there is some kind of bias inherent in depiction of an issue, and their removal before support had been garnered. I am not opposed to repostioning the images, if they offend El T so. But on stylistic grounds, I prefer the present format. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a systemic bias in presenting images of protests as representative of opinion. The people who take part in protests are generally not going to be the same people who support VSU. An example would be using workers' protests as the image for an article on industrial relations. Employers, and employer-favouring workers, aren't noted for joining strikes and protests. So presenting images of workers' protests would be a grossly POV depiction. There is no difference between that example and the images currently in the article. Including the pro-VSU poster will be a sub-optimal resolution from a neutrality perspective, but it's worth it to bring the disagreement to a close. El T 11:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

All the people trying to balance this article....

Give it up. There is no point trying to reason with Ambi and Cyberjunkie because they are approaching this from an ideological viewpoint of "truth" and balance rather than from the one that exists for us in the rest of the world.

When I first came to this entry I thought "great. Wikipedia is a community where we put aside petty political differences to work together for balance and fairness", but with regard to this issue the anti VSU brigade are about as willing to listen here as they are on campus. There's no hope for any balance in this article.

Oh perhaps for an alternate photo showing the other side of the story you could include a photograph of a piece of paper showing the percent of the student body that actually cares enough to vote in student union elections. (It gets up to around 5% at my uni).

The article is unbalanced - it has a pro-VSU slant at the moment, but not one bad enough that I can be bothered doing another round of battles to change it. If you have concerns with the actual content of the article, you're welcome to express them here, else you can rant and be ignored. Have it either way. Ambi 11:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not certain I've ever seen you express a point that wasn't ideologically motivated. I know I've tried to approach this from a stand of objectivism, as I do all articles. And, as Ambi stated above, and as I stated after the rewrite was conducted, there is a slight pro-VSU slant. Why don't you set about fixing that? --Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this bit was 203.166.235.178's sole contribution to Wikipedia...

More constructively, what are the pro-VSU elements of the article? El T 15:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

It begins with the two main points of the pro-VSU crusaders (which are comparatively minor in the scheme of things - if it was just these that were going to be affected, VSU would not be much of an issue), and discusses them in depth, relegating social issues - the item of most controversy - to last and skimming over it in the least detail (and still giving the pro-VSU side more than equal time). It also gives the Young Liberal perspective far more time than it should get considering the amount of people who hold it, and relegates the view of the universities to practically a footnote. Ambi 07:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Reorganisation and expansion

In light of Ambi's concern about the ordering of the arguments, I've moved the economic one to below social. I wasn't totally sure, but I thought the civil rights argument was probably more central than the economics one (although the latter is longer because it has more detail).

Also, because of concerns that the universities' position wasn't adequately highlighted, I created a new section after "arguments" on groups' positions on VSU. I felt that was a more logical ordering than chucking universities' and other groups' positions into a little bit at the end.

The other benefit of doing it that way is that student unions' positions can be more explicitly stated (at the moment it's just presumed to correspond to the anti-VSU argument, which isn't a complete or accurate portrayal).

Also, it meant that the stuff about the Liberals could be explicitly placed into a logical section based on their involvement. I had issues with the liberal students stuff being placed right at the top; it seemed a little odd to me given that it's not a critical component of the VSU discussion per se, which is really about students, student unions, and the federal government, with some other groups having opinions on it. I've left the description of the ALSF as the "most vocal proponent", which sounds a little dodgy to me (I've never actually heard anything from the ALSF on campus), but I thought it would be better to leave it in and have that fight another day. ;) El T 13:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

This is quite a bit better. However, it still gives the civil rights section undue prominence - as I said before, if it wasn't for the social consequences, VSU would be near-entirely uncontroversial - and the civil rights and economic sections are still very one-sided. Ambi 15:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Question about VSU

I know this should probably be on the reference desk or something, but....

Is the government suggesting that union fees be abolished, or simply re-allocated to universities instead of unions? I am sure I read something about the approach being the later, which makes a lot of this argument null-and-void.

Apologies if I'm ignorant of the current legislation, I haven't been a uni student for a couple of years (gives you an idea how long VSU has been on the cards!).

Ranglin 01:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The current legislation, as being pushed by the Liberals, would entirely abolish university fees (Western Australian model). Both the National Party and ALP (to the chagrin of much of their student supporters) are currently advocating for the latter option; this is looking more likely considering that Barnaby Joyce is maintaining his opposition to the legislation as it stands, causing it to be delayed until next year. Ambi 08:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Status of various unions

If I recall correctly, opponents of VSU legislation (within Sydney Uni) say that one of the unions at Usyd has the option of not paying due to hardship, and the option of giving money to a scholarship fund if a person has philosophical objections to joining a union.

Is there a page listing this kind of information? Andjam 01:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything on either matters. I would certainly take up the offer if they had it at ANU, so I imagine it would be presented as a middle road if it really existed - which is why I suspect it probably doesn't. You might be getting confused with emergency loans rather than outright waiving of the fee.

Actually, this reminds me to get cracking on the work over at universal student unionism. El T 07:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you might be surprised to find out that it actually does. I'm not sure quite where the money does go, but there is an option to not join the money and pay the money to something else the university does (though whether it is a scholarship fund, as I said, I'm not sure). Ambi 07:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

At Melbourne Uni it's currently compulsory to pay the fee (collected by the university), but optional to join the union. Only about 20% of the compulsory fee goes to the union anyway. --bainer (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

If that's what Andjam meant, s/he's right - at a lot of unis you can opt out of membership, but the funds then are simply kept by the uni to pay for another ivory backscratcher for the Vice Chancellor. ;) But I've never heard of it being put towards a scholarship. El T 15:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Quoting from http://www.usuonline.com/membership/fees/: "Students who believe that they are suffering from 'extenuating circumstances' may apply in writing to the General Manager of the Union for special consideration for an exemption of Union fees. However financial hardship of itself is NOT sufficient grounds for the General Manager to exercise discretion and allow an exemption or a refund." So no, hardship isn't a way to get out of paying union fees. Enochlau 23:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Starting move to student unionism in Australia

As discussed over at the universal student unionism talk page, there is a new article entitled student unionism in Australia which will be covering the present state and history of the same. Parts of this article will hence need to be cannibalised, both to provide a decent level of detail in the new article and to avoid repetition.

Since that might be a little controversial in places, it's probably a good idea if those interested in the last few months' VSU/CSU/USU disputes actively edit to influence the direction of the new article. El T 16:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Have now moved USU to VSU. El T 15:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll watch the developments in the new article for NPOV etc, but I don't think I can contribute much to the facts of the article :) Enochlau 23:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Passed in the Senate

VSU will probably become law. Ambi, Cyberjunkie: sorry guys. You tried hard, but the people have spoken. I'm going to write an email thanking senator Fielding right now. I'm so happy right now. 209.247.158.37 10:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"the people have spoken"? It would be silly to play mandate politics, especially in the Australian context.--cj | talk 11:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

209.247.158.37, I think you are very misguided :) You and I could probably have a very long chat... anyway, *sobs*, at least Barnaby kept his word. Enochlau 13:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I, for one (probably the only registered australian user) am happy. However, I will refrain from gloating or arguing the toss as this is an encyclopaedia, not a soap box. Xtra 13:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the people did speak. Which is why, even when IR and Telstra passed, this legislation was set to fail, until Howard bought the vote of the otherwise-sympathetic Fielding with what appears to be a deal regarding RU486. Shame, Senator Fielding, shame. Ambi 15:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You're not the only happy Australian uni student today, Xtra. But you're right, let's not let this become a soap box. We're trying to create good quality articles, after all. El T 15:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

until Howard bought the vote of the otherwise-sympathetic Fielding with what appears to be a deal regarding RU486. Hyperlinks please? (The article Abortion in Australia could do with a little work) Andjam 04:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure something more concrete will emerge in the days to come. When Fielding's vote was not required, he had repeatedly and consistently made clear his intention to vote against the bill its current form. All of sudden it becomes clear that his vote will be required, and he does a sudden about-face and backs the bill. Every press article I've read yet is assuming there must've been some deal, and Fielding has conspicuously refused to deny having at least had discussions with the PM about RU486 in relation to his support for this bill. Ambi 05:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what deal do you think was done, given that the coalition members already have a conscience vote on RU486 and no amendments were made to the VSU bill? Xtra 06:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Time will tell. Minor party Senators rarely do a complete about-face for no reason, and that's definitely the implication I'm getting from the press reports. Ambi 06:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Fielding has neither confirmed nor denied talking to the PM about RU486, but he has denied doing a deal: eg ABC online: Family First senator denies Govt deal over VSU vote. Of course he could be lying, but what'd be the chances of a politician doing that? By the way, you suggest there have been other cases of minor party senators cross-trading. Apart from Harradine tightening up tv regulation in response for digital tv being allowed (I think, I'm not certain), what other cases can you think of? (Should this conversation be taken to the noticeboard?) Andjam 06:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I think we could legitimately have a convo here - this is stuff that should be reported in the article if we can substantiate it; we're not that off on a tangent. Of course, it would be not unreasonable for him to deny any form of a deal, for his own political sake; all it would do is add to the allegations that he "sold out" students. Enochlau 08:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Naming names, rather than "Some people say", of course. Andjam 09:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Other models

I was thinking of adding a little section on alternative models to VSU and what is described here as "status quo", that is, things like the optional union model (compulsory to pay fee to university, optional to join union) currently in place at University of Melbourne among other places, and the university provided services system (fee collected and spent entirely by the university) mooted by, among others, Gavin Brown from the University of Sydney. Would anyone like to work on this? --bainer (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Going back to the House

User:Ambi changed:

From July 1 2006, assuming that the Higher Education Support Amendment (Abolition of Compulsory Up-front Student Union Fees) Bill 2005 will be passed by the House of Representatives and receive Royal Assent, the universities will not be able to compel union membership or fees.

into

On 9th December, 2005 the Higher Education Support Amendment (Abolition of Compulsory Up-front Student Union Fees) Bill 2005 was passed in the Senate. From July 1 2006, the universities will not be able to compel union membership or fees.

User:Dysprosia's first hand report on Wikinews (n:Australian Senate agrees to "urgent" ban on tertiary-sector mandatory student unions) suggests that it needs to go back to the House for concurrence. Although without a doubt it will pass due to the Government majority, is it strictly more correct to use the former wording? Enochlau 09:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

What source is there for that conclusion? I may well be wrong, but I'd like to see some evidence of it. Ambi 09:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I checked the hansard and none of the proposed amendments were passed, so I don't see any reason why it should go back to the House. I'll ask Dysprosia to see if that can be clarified. Enochlau 09:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

(For reference, I quote the text from the Wikinews article:

The bill must re-enter the House of Representatives again for concurrence, which had already risen the day earlier, and sits again February 2006, next year.

Enochlau 09:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC))

I believe the bill was ammended to allow it to take effect from july 1. That is why it needs concurrence. Xtra 09:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Quoting from the Hansard:

"After amendment in the House, the punitive sections of the bill will not apply until 1 July 2006, unless you are a new student enrolling in a new course of study commencing after that date."

which somewhat suggests that the change to July 1 was effected in the House, not the Senate. But I may be wrong. Enochlau 10:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you're exactly right. I'd forgotten about the date amendment. Ambi 12:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Queensland branch of NUS

In Fielding target of student protests , the article says

Robert Nicholas, education officer for the Queensland branch of the National Student Union, said the vandalism of Senator Fielding's office was a legitimate expression of students' anger at the bill.

"He has made himself a political target by voting for the legislation so he'll have to live with the consequences," he said.

Is the Queensland branch really called "National Student Union", or was it a typo (eg someone adding capital letters to "national student union"? Andjam 00:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I suspect it's meant to say the "National Union of Students", which is the peak student representative organisation. Reporters are sometimes (worryingly) lax with their terms. I guess it's like how some people say Sydney University Union to mean the University of Sydney Union. Enochlau 01:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Majority

Although the majority was 2, you could kind of say that Fielding's vote "cancelled" Joyce's vote. If Fielding had voted against the bill, it would be one less for the bill, and one more against the bill, thus giving equal numbers of support/oppose, which means the legislation would have been defeated. Enochlau 01:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It still doesn't sound correct to me. Perhaps we can retain the essence of what happened without using such words? Dysprosia 01:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

New Zealand contribution/terminology

Good work, Joestella, for bringing in the New Zealand information.

In keeping with current article structure, and to avoid the heated debates of the past, I moved the stuff about terminology to the appropriate section near the end. El T 13:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This entry wreaks of one-sidedness (of which is obviously anti-VSU).

There is little to no mention of the benefits of VSU, and the proponents are viewed in a way in which I would consider hostile.

Emotion and self-opinion shouldnt be evident in any entry (or so a 'particular' contr. says around here.) Orbitalwow 05:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice try, but no cigar, as most of the current version of this article was written by pro-VSU editors. Had you actually read the article, it contains quite a bit of explanation of the benefits of VSU - and at least equals, if not outweighs, the explanation of the downsides, as a consequence of a large group of people from both sides having worked on this over some months. We all have strong opinions on many things, but one of the first things most people learn when they come to Wikipedia is that they simply cannot try to make an article take on their particular ideological bias. I'm sure you'll either learn the same thing in time, or else get used to being ignored/reverted. Ambi 05:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If you had learned to control your obvious bias in this regard, then maybe this entry wouldn't need to have a NPOV tag added constantly (which is, funnily enough, frequently removed by you)

And it was written by pro-VSU editors? I would suppose you need another trip over to the Wikitionary to learn about the difference between 'pro' and 'anti', or are you just struggling to reinforce your stance on what could be loosely called propaganda?

Now, onto the actual entry:

• Convenient omission of criticisms of student unions and the misappropriation of funds rife within them - surprising seeing as though this is a major vocal point in the VSU argument. Yet criticisms of pro-VSU groups are clearly portrayed.
• Constant reiteration of arguments from one side of the 'debate' (guess which side) which effectively drowns out any other conflicting views - but I suppose that was the intention.
• Gives the illusion that the SU's can do no wrong (except for a minor mentioning of rogue political activities and opposition to certain programs) - Which on the basis of neutrality, is laughable and downright contradictatory; I bet a journalist (or,more likely, som poor sod studying it) carefully chose the words in which to soften this aura.
• Unbalanced visual representations - I noticed you even supported the idea of a picture of Dr. Nelson be displayed as the image representing the 'other side'. I suppose if it were/was done, you would remove it anyway.

But then again, none of it matters as long as you are on the prowl to have your opinion clearly stated - so who really cares about neutrality? Well WF does, but I suppose they don't even matter to ideological sysop's. Orbitalwow 09:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, open your eyes. Yes, I removed the NPOV tag. The previous time, however, it was removed by Xtra, fervent Liberal and supporter of VSU. El T has also done a lot of work on this article (in fact, he's been largely responsible for its current form), and he's very pro-VSU. I know it may hard to believe, but both groups here have been working towards a neutral article for months.

Now, on to your points. 1) As for your claims about misappropriation of funds - firstly, cite a source for your claim, and secondly, cite a source as to how this fits in with VSU. I'm skeptical, as it sounds like propaganda to me, but if you can come up with a decent enough source, I won't object to its inclusion. 2) Nonsense. This lays out all the conflicting views on the subject, and there are a lot of them. 3) Who's giving the idea that student unions can do no wrong? How would you change this (and do you have any sources to back up whatever you're claiming?) 4) What image would you have representing the "other side"? The demonstrations are an obvious image for the anti-VSU side, but there isn't an obvious image for the pro-VSU side. Ambi 09:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Orbitalwow, what would be ideal as a source would be a statement from someone using information about misappropriation of funds in order to advocate VSU. I think Nelson did at one point in parliament, you could search for it in the Hansard. Regarding your other points, if you have concerns then please identify particular sentences which you think have problems, otherwise people won't know what you are talking about. --bainer (talk) 09:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hansard? That's as POV as you can get, unfortunately. Although I wouldn't be surprised if there was some form of misappropriation going on somewhere, it would be a pretty long shot to say that it happens at all the unions. Enochlau 11:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

What I meant was that it would be useful to show that Nelson used (alleged) misappropriation as an argument to support VSU. It would also better than just citing a source talking about misappropriation, without connecting it to the debate in any way. --bainer (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Outright misappropriation of funds and resources is, in the experience of the student unions of which I was a member, usually very small-scale - with a few notable exceptions. Waste and misuse of funds is more prevalent, and a little better documented. The problem is that student newspapers are usually the only media outlets who bother to cover the problem, and they rarely have the inclination to bite the hand that feeds them. For the purposes of Wikipedia, Dr Nelson's allegations should be published, but qualified as such. Joestella 01:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Voluntary student unionism (VSU) is a policy under which membership of – and payment of membership fees to – university student organisations is not compulsory. VSU is therefore at variance with established practice at most universities, where payment of student service fees is compulsory for almost all students.

Surely we can have a more NPOV entry paragraph than that? 'VSU is therefore at variance with established practice at most universities', where? References? What other countries have forced unionism? "where payment of student service fees" amounts to weasel words also, to an international audience it sounds like you guys are complaining that people aren't paying school fee's that are due, which most people would think wrong; when in actual fact you're talking about forced student union membership fee's. I'll attempt to NPOV that paragraph out a little. Trying to view it from the opposing side of the spectrum sucks, but it's too POV to stand as it is at present. Jachin 22:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Democratic and accountable

Someone added, then deleted, then added the text "Funding for student organisations is contingent on their having democratic constitutions and being financially accountable." Since this is not a requirement of all student organisations, and since compelling counterexamples exist, it serves no useful purpose in this article save - I venture to guess - to play into soon-to-be-voluntary unions' sense of grievance. Let's leave it out. Joestella 11:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I was the one who reverted the deletion by an anon since it was without explanation. However, if you think it fit, please remove it. Enochlau 11:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with this. While it is true in most cases, there have been some prominent exemptions, and the point cannot be explained without going too far off-topic. Ambi 12:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Possible picture.

I think most of us can agree that we need balance in the pictures used for this entry. At the moment this comes across with images which make this look like it is an entry about "student opposition to VSU". Rather than two obviously anti VSU pictures we need one from both camps.

Id suggest this image from The Age as a possible option http://www.theage.com.au/news/education-news/the-right-stuff/2005/09/30/1127804655980.html

Now before anyone comes on with the "Well it's the Young Liberals, this isn't reprasentative", it should be pointed out that much of the protesting is done by the unions and their close supporters who are pretty much the opposite. This photo may not be perfect but it is a thousand times more appropriate than the "fight the liberals" one. - M

I'm plenty pro-VSU and I don't see any particular need for there to be a "pro-VSU" picture. Perhaps this is because it doesn't matter, perhaps because screaming students in red t-shirts do not and have never convinced anyone of anything, or perhaps because the few pro-VSU campaigns run by students have been unhelpfully obnoxious. One remembers the picture of the UNE Liberal stall, complete with John Howard posters and the slogan We control your country, we control your campus. Good times. Joestella 01:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to be mindful of copyright here. We can't just lift images from the newspaper and upload them to Wikipedia. About the first image on the page, the tag says "for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents" - I'm not sure that our use qualifies as fair use. This article is about "Voluntary Student Unionism", not the "ABC report on Voluntary Student Unionism". That tag, I think, is meant for articles about movies that need images from the movie under discussion. enochlau (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably controversial solution to two problems

The photos have been a hot topic for a while. I still think it's unrepresentative to have two anti-VSU photos, and have said as much in the past.

Now, Orbitalwow worried about the misuse of student funds. We might be able to kill 2 birds with one stone here. A strong example of questionable student union activity (not necessarily illegal, just fumbling) is the liquidation of the Melbourne University Student Union (MUSU). It's being fought out in the courts at present. The union entered into an exepensive property deal and amongst other things that sent the union broke.

SO... perhaps the solution is a photo of the building in question. It's a concrete example of what pro-VSUers have been saying, it's provable and documentable (are those real words?), anyone in Melbourne would be able to get a copyright-free photo by taking it themselves, and it neatly ties in arguments about what sorts of services student unions should and shouldn't have been providing. Unlike the Young Liberals photo, it also makes no inference that VSU supporters have been protesting on the streets (because of course for the most part we haven't). El T 03:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

No. It's a classic example of guilt by association. There are two student unions in Australia that had a reputation for being flagrantly corrupt: UNE and Melbourne, both of which have now been wound up. There's no evidence to support that conclusion being drawn about any other organisation. That said, the claim is being made, so feel free to quote Nelson making it - just don't try to claim that financial mismanagement is widespread without providing evidence. Ambi 07:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ambi. I think having a picture of such an item would be too influencial in putting into readers' minds that there is a large-scale problem of rorting of union funds. enochlau (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree it's important not to claim all student unions are corrupt, for ethical reasons as much as anything. The inefficiency and waste which the building in question represents, however, is a prime example of VSU proponents' arguments. The argument over efficiency (and the distortions CSU creates) are already discussed in the VSU article under "The economic argument" (section 2.3). Any caption should be careful to lay out why the building is relevant. In fact, it would be best placed under section 2.3 for clarity in order that readers might understand its relevance - plus there then wouldn't be two anti-VSU images in the introduction.

While I'm at it, Enochlau above says such an image would put "into readers' minds that there is a large-scale problem of rorting of union funds". Most people would not regard it as rorting, and instead would see it as financial incompetence and inefficient attempts to distort the market - exactly a key point many pro-VSU arguments make. An appropriate caption would ensure such an interpretation: "VSU proponents cite the XYZ building, whose construction bankrupted the Melbourne University Student Union, as an epitome of student union incompetence and waste." That would make perfectly clear that (a) rorting's not being alleged, and (b) even VSU supporters recognise it as an unusually severe case. El T 15:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that cuts it. Rorting was being alleged, so that's not accurate - but it also doesn't distinguish it as an unusually severe case. I see where you're going with this, but I think it might need a bit of rewording Ambi 00:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Can we mention that it was the Liberal club and the Labor Right who were running the Union at the time? It might also be worth mentioning the restructuring that went on with the new union body to give the University Council more oversight. Actually, I think I still have to write that part, I'll see if I can work something up. --bainer (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that might be too much detail for this article. While important, it seems like Melbourne University student unions would be the proper place (and that article needs a heck of a lot of help anyway). Ambi 00:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone in Melbourne take it at the moment? Even if we don't use it here, it can go onto the MUSU page. After reading the above comments, I think it might possibly go well onto the economics section (2.3), provided that it is labelled as a rather extreme example, with some text that ends up reminding the reader that it doesn't happen everywhere. But definitely not up the top, that would be too strong. enochlau (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The MUSU article isn't that bad; it's just unreferenced - it reads to me as if it were written from memory, and that can be fixed up. Compared with the University of Sydney Union article, most of the union articles seem a little lacking in history (I'm a little biased here of course); it would be great if people could head off to their university library and dig up some history on their respective unions. enochlau (talk) 05:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It is actually quite out of date, the old union has now been completely liquidated and the replacement one is in place. I've been meaning to update it for a while. --bainer (talk) 11:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Australasian focus

This article is pretty much solely on VSU/M in Australia, with slight mention about New Zealand. I would suggest moving much of the Australasian content to Student unionism in Australia and then making this more focused on the debate and practise throughout the world. I'm sure that the Americans will have something akin to VSU, and what of the Brits, the Europeans and so forth. --LeftyG 04:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If you have info on VSU in other countries, then by all means add it. But don't gut the article first. enochlau (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair call. I'll see what I can find. Pity there isn't a way of getting people from throughout the world to add stuff to each article. --LeftyG 06:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it would probably be a good idea to specify before the "Arguments and issues" section that it will focus on Australasian debate, since this is presumed from then on, as in "Since historically Australia's student organisations have been dominated by..." &c. Leon... 00:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I've tagged it with {{limitedgeographicscope}} to represent this. --Midnighttonight 09:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Page Name

Why was the page renamed? 203.206.75.149 11:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't, AFAIK? El T 12:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)