Talk:Voluntary student unionism/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title: Protest Images

message: 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)
thread_title: Moving forward with the terminology debate

message: 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)
thread_title:  Put the Liberals last" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reorganisation and expansion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Question about VSU 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Starting move to [[student unionism in Australia]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  Naming names, rather than "Some people say", of course. Andjam 09:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Passed in the Senate

message: 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)
thread_title:  Other models 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Queensland branch of NUS 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Majority 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New Zealand contribution/terminology 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Democratic and accountable

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Australasian focus 

message: Why was the page renamed? 203.206.75.149 11:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't, AFAIK? El T 12:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Name