Showing posts with label neo-liberalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label neo-liberalism. Show all posts

Friday, December 9, 2011

Would you like fries with that diploma?

This is a comic I made for a zine, using my campus map and attempting to turn it into a factory pumping students through on a conveyor belt to McJobs or unemployement.

I have been reading and thinking a lot about privatization within universities lately. Maybe not universities so much as within the particular institution that I currently attend. In the almost 6 years I have been here, I have seen so many changes occur, and like many academics, I am getting increasingly concerned about the future of my program and university educations more generally.

I have done a few presentations lately on the cuts within the university, and the main point that I have been trying to get across is that this is an organized attack on the quality of education and the quality of jobs on campus in the name of profits.

My university, like many others, has been changing from a public institution of knowledge to a private service where students purchase a degree and investors purchase research. Within neoliberalism, an attack on the idea of public goods is rather typical -- whether it be education, health care or social services -- the idea of publicly funded anything is counter to neoliberal ideologies, and for the wealthy to become as rich as possible these ideals must permeate into other areas of our social worlds.

With regards to employment on campus, there have been many changes. The highest paid positions are increasingly becoming even more high paid (our president just recieved a $79,000 wage increase) and the lowest are becoming even lower paid (from full-time to part-time). The combined salaries of the 10 highest paid people in the university are higher than all 240 GTAs combined. This past summer, 25 unionized positions were cut, as they were deemed redundant, and yet they are being replaced by contract workers. There are rumors that there will be another 25 jobs cut this coming summer.

The cuts to services on campus have been terrible. We went from having 6 counsellors to 2, and there is currently a 4 week wait to talk to someone. Tutoring services used to be free for all students; now they only exist for those with special needs and the rest of the work falls to GTAs and professors. There used to be a shuttle to take students around campus, as the parking lot is quite far from some of the buildings and it is sometimes -40 degrees in January and February, but this shuttle was cancelled despite rising parking costs.

My undergraduate program was quite small. When I started, there were about 10 full-time faculty and several sessionals. Last year, there were 6 full-time faculty and many sessional professors. Next year, it looks like we may only have 2-3 full-time faculty as well as fewer sessionals than in previous years. We are also be one of the only sociology programs that I have heard of that does not have a (non-sessional) female professor!

If these were strictly cost-saving measures, as the university claims, cuts would be felt across the board. There would be no raises or bonuses for upper admin, and there certainly would not be more upper administrators right now than there was 3 years ago.

One of the reasons I think this is happening is because of the change from universities being run by academics to them being run by business people. The current president was just named one of Canada's top 40 people under 40, and has a background in business. He does not have a PhD, and has no experience teaching in universities. How can we expect that the needs of educators will be met when those making the big decisions are not educators, but business people trained to make a profit? Our university is not a corporation, and I resent it being run like one.

Another consequence of this is what happens to academics. Academic freedom is lost. Researchers only take up certain types of studies because searching for knowledge is no longer funded. Those that speak out against certain companies or corporatization more generally can be reprimanded as it can affect corporate donations. So, business friendly administrators receive profit and power while employees see eroding wages and working conditions and students see diminished quality and access.

The only way to fight back against an organized attack like this one is with a coordinated response. Students and workers will have to work together across campuses if we expect any kind of meaningful change.

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Wage restraint legislation in Ontario

I want to start by apologizing to any regular readers about the lack of posts over the last few weeks. There has been so much I wanted to write about but I feel like I haven't had a moment to breathe, nevermind write.

I am the president of a student workers union in Ontario, and there has been a threat of wage restraint legislation by the Ontario Government. All non-unionized public employees' wages have been frozen for some time now, and the government is going into "consultations" with unions where they plan to get unions to accept two years of zero compensation on their next collective agreements, with the threat of legislating this freeze if we don't agree to it. This is being presented to us as the only way to protect public services.

According to some recent surveys (both the ones conducted by unions and the ones by the government), people seem to think that workers in the public sector are highly overpaid. This is definitely not the case if you look at front line workers in comparison to University Presidents, for example. My membership last got a raise in 2003. Over that period of time, housing has gone up more than 30%, tuition has increased by 4-8% per year more often than not, and the salary of the university's president has increased by approximately 124%! Yet, it is not the president that is overpaid, it is me... and I am making less than half of what some of my peers at other universities make- and nevermind living below the poverty line, my wage doesn't even cover the cost of my education at the school where I work.

I don't believe that forcing workers to take zeros is good for anyone, even those who do earn a living wage, but my point right now in this particular post is that we also need to be careful not to make sweeping generalizations about public sector employees. One of my union colleagues at a different university spoke about how his membership went from about 100 full time janitorial and maintenance staff to about 10 full-time and about 100 part-time, the majority of whom work between 3 and 12 hours per week... I'm pretty sure they don't feel overpaid. I can make many similar comparisons throughout the sector, and I am rather sure that people in different parts of the public sector have similar stories to tell.

I am getting increasingly frustrated with how quickly some people are buying in to these assumptions. I am baffled by how the government can demonize public employees so fully that even the NDP supports wage restraint legislation because doing otherwise would fail to gain votes at the upcoming election.

This government clearly represents the economic elite in the province. And yet, they try to make us feel guilty because many of us have kept our jobs during the recession; so guilty, that we should accept concessions in order to do our part. What about not cutting $4.6 billion dollars in corporate taxes? What about actually protecting our social services by providing services that help people rather than punishing them?

I have yet to figure out how legislation that goes against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the Labour Relation's Act is supposed to protect Canadians. To me, it is just another example of the Ontario government picking and choosing which Rights Canadians are entitled to, not unlike what happened at the G20... they just spin it the right way in the media and they come off as protecting us. The only thing that we need protection from right now are these neoliberal politicians.

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

New childcare subsidy regulations

Dear whichever neoliberal policy maker is currently in charge of childcare subsidy,

I know that your intent is to save "taxpayers" money by cutting "unnecessary" programs, and that is why you decided to change subsidy this year. You have succeeded. I might be forced to spend the summer (maybe longer) on welfare because of your cuts, but, hey, with our abysmal rates, that is actually cheaper for you than paying my childcare expenses while I get a minimum wage job.

Last April, when I finished my exams, you gave me 90 days to find a job before I lost my childcare funding. You understood that jobs do not appear out of thin air, they take work to aquire. This year, you decided that I am to lose my childcare space the day the exam period is over.

Now I ask you, Mr. Neo-liberal Policy Maker, how am I supposed to find a job without daycare? You say I can look for work while my children are in school. I accept that premise, but what you don't answer is what I am supposed to do when I find a job and have already lost my daycare spots? I will have to turn down the job because I won't be able to go to work without daycare- especially because my son is in kindergarten, and, as such, is not yet in school full-time. It took me 3 years to get through the waiting list at the daycare my children need to be in for me to attend grad school in September because it is the only childcare center in the city that is open later than 6:00 and my classes will run in the evening. That means that if I lose this daycare spot, I may not be able to go to grad school in September. But I'm glad you saved a few dollars.

I am not asking for you to pay for this "uneccesary" childcare indefinitely; just give me a month or two to find a job. I am currently finishing a placement, which also involves preparing a 30 minute presentation and 20 page paper, my fourth year honours essay is due by the end of the month, which also includes a 30 minute presentation, and I have an exam in fourth year statistics. As much as I would love to begin my job search right now, that is not feasible because I am a full-time student which is why you are providing me with daycare in the first place.

So, because you want to save a few dollars by not covering daycare any longer than necessary (necessary as defined by you, Mr. Neo-liberal Policy Maker), I may lose my daycare and not be able to attend graduate school. Thank you. I am glad that you are doing your job and saving a few dollars.

By the way, I'm sure Ontario businesses really appreciate the cut to their electrical costs in the recent budget. And I'm sure Canadian businesses appreciate having the lowest tax rates in the "developed" world. But 30 days to find a job is asking for too much I guess.

Sincerely,
former grad student candidate

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Censorship at University of Ottawa

Ann Coulter, a very controversial conservative speaker, was supposed to talk at the University of Ottawa yesterday, but the talk was cancelled due to apparent threats of violence from people who were opposed to her support of certain acts, such as the murder of specific racial/ethnic groups and abortion providers (an interesting stance for a "pro-life" advocate).

On the CTV morning news, Ezra Levant, a conservative analyst speaking on her behalf, called it censorship. He said that Canada was strong and free, freedom that was being denied by this censorship.

He questioned how they could allow an "anti-Semitic hatefest" for Israeli apartheid week, but not let Coulter speak. I am appalled that he could call apartheid week anti-Semitic or a "hatefest." Granted, I have never been to U of O, but I did participate in anti-apartheid week at my school and found that it was anything but hateful- actually, it advocated for ending an illegal occupancy of Palestinians in Israel. However, I am no expert on this topic and am not able to really discuss this occupancy in any detail.

Speaking of censorship, our school censored emails about Israeli apartheid week, first deleting previously sent emails from the server, then putting out a letter saying that "these announcements do not reflect the views of the department, or the university."

They also refused to send out an email telling students about a book launch for an amazing book written by a former student that criticizes workfare because they do not endorse events that critique the government's welfare system.

But I guess it is only called censorship when it quiets conservative opinions... even those that advocate for murder of people who do not agree.

Lost and neo-liberal ideologies

I love the show Lost. I have only been watching it for 3 seasons, but I've started watching season 1 to see all the old episodes too. It is likely one of my favorite shows- actually, I even read blog posts about episode recaps and speculation as to what all the crazy stuff that goes on actually means...

But, last night I was not happy with where the show went. It seems that the island is like a gateway for 'hell', protecting the world from all the 'evils'... the only thing keeping the 'devil' away from the rest of the world... ok, weird, but it kind of works in with the story line and I was super happy that they were finally answering some of the many questions they've posed.

However, the 'devil' is right there whispering in your ear and making deals with you. Jacob, the 'good' one, who keeps the gates of 'hell' closed, says that he does not talk to people because he is letting them make their own choices. For people to be proven 'good' they need to step up and make the right decisions even with the 'devil' in their ear.

Maybe it is just me, but the way it was presented reminds me of the rhetoric surrounding neo-liberal welfare cuts. The phrase about giving the poor "a hand up not a hand out" seems to fit this. Like, it is easy to sit on welfare all day, but you should have to work really hard to pick yourself up and make a good life for yourself. This hides all of the barriers that exist that make it nearly impossible for many people to "pick themselves up" in this way.

I'm told that I look too far into things, but I worry that when this type of discourse, even when in a different context, will continue to uphold neo-liberal regimes.