Latest news with #NTEU
ABC News
02-07-2025
- Business
- ABC News
One third of UTS staff suffer psychological distress as hundreds of jobs set to be axed
Staff at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) are experiencing high levels of psychological distress as they brace for 400 redundancies as part of a broader cull of Australian university workers, according to a leaked survey. The survey of 380 workers by the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU), obtained by ABC News, found 35 per cent were experiencing very high levels of psychological distress. "There's a lot of helplessness and uncertainty and the thing that I want to draw out of here is people have this notion that's natural with change management," said Dr Hossai Gul, a UTS expert in change in complex systems. Dr Gul is risking her employment to speak out due to rules governing public comment by university staff. She said the redundancies would result in the downgrading of important areas of scholarship and teaching at the university. "That's at the core of helplessness and uncertainty. What do you say to something like that? When people are imposing that onto you?" she said. "The area you've worked with for your whole life, to teach, is for no reason at all, no longer going to be taught and therefore you might be redundant and have your job cut." It comes as university management undertakes a $100 million restructure dubbed the Operational Sustainability Initiative (OSI). "The need to reduce expenditure is necessary because our revenue does not cover our ongoing operating costs. In 2024, revenue was $1.3 billion against expenditure of $1.4 billion," a UTS spokesperson said. "We cannot continue to absorb these losses — we need to reduce spending and maintain it to protect our core teaching and research." Documents released under freedom of information laws showed UTS would spend about $5 million seeking advice from consultants KPMG on OSI which the university said was "standard practice". "KPMG has been engaged to provide advice and expertise to support the sustainability initiative under the direction of the university leadership who are responsible for all decisions," the spokesperson said. The university estimated in a town hall meeting that OSI could result in 400 job losses and courses being cut for students. "We are devastated that we are in the position of needing to cease or reorganise work which will ultimately result in job losses. These are not easy decisions and are not taken lightly," the UTS spokesperson said. SafeWork NSW is investigating the risk of psychological harm and the ABC understands the NTEU will provide the workplace watchdog with the survey. "What I've noticed around the office is that people are afraid. There is a real sense of fear of being able to openly speak about what's going on and to ask questions," said a UTS staff member, speaking anonymously to protect their employment. "When I talk about this with people it's you know, 'Come in and close the door'. Staff have set up WhatsApp groups just because they don't feel safe talking about it in other forums." The university said it was aware of risks to staff during the consultation period and was "fully cooperating" with SafeWork NSW. "UTS representatives have met with SafeWork NSW following receipt by SafeWork NSW of some complaints, particularly related to matters of workload and consultation," the spokesperson said. When the ABC took the leaked survey to the NTEU to verify its authenticity, the NTEU confirmed they undertook the staff survey. National President Dr Alison Barnes said many of the staff were at risk of losing their livelihoods. "These short-sighted job cuts are having a devastating impact on the wellbeing of staff at UTS, which can be directly linked to management's cruel failure to do proper consultation about this terrible plan," she said. "There's also been a shocking lack of consultation on the risk assessment for the change – and that's something the health and safety inspector is looking into at the moment." The survey also found 60 per cent of academic staff reported being unable to complete their workloads during paid hours. "I'm a mental health professional and very aware of the early signs of deteriorating mental health and for myself I've had to take stress leave a couple of times through this process," the anonymous staff member said. Do you have a story to share? Email The row at UTS comes after universities nationally were forced to repay hundreds of millions of dollars to staff after years of wage theft and a scathing senate inquiry into university governance. It's not yet known if senate hearings will resume later this year but an interim report alleged "systemic… non-compliance with workplace laws". Chair of the Senate Committee, Labor Senator Tony Sheldon, was highly critical of UTS in a statement to ABC News. "Decisions seem to be made behind closed doors, with staff shut out of key decisions while outside accountants are brought in to crunch numbers and make calls about people's jobs." Mr Sheldon said the government would move to "fix broken governance" as part of wider university reforms. "It's also telling that SafeWork NSW is now involved. When staff have to rely on the workplace safety regulator to be heard, that speaks volumes about the failure of leadership," he said. UTS is far from the only institution laying off workers with many universities announcing job losses. The NTEU said the cuts were causing anxiety among staff across the university sector. "This is not an isolated case. The lack of transparency and accountability in Australia's broken university governance system allows overpaid vice-chancellors and executives to make decisions that tear at the fabric of our public universities," Ms Barnes said. "Right across the country, vice-chancellors are instinctively pursuing job cuts that will cause long-term damage to public universities." University management have said the cuts are necessary because of their financial position. The sector is currently lobbying government for extra research and teaching funding.
The Guardian
10-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Australian universities hesitate on antisemitism definition amid academic freedom concerns
Months after the release of a new definition of antisemitism, a string of Australian universities are yet to adopt it amid concerns it may contravene academic freedom. The academic board at the Australian National University (ANU) has declined to adopt the definition, paving the way for the university to become the first to reject the policy, while at least 11 other institutions have not yet made a decision. Peak Jewish groups last week accused the ANU of allowing an 'unsafe and unwelcoming campus' over the board's decision not to adopt the definition endorsed by Universities Australia (UA) in February that closely aligns with the contentious International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, after a parliamentary inquiry into antisemitism on campuses. The UA definition has faced some criticism since its release. The National Union of Students (NUS) and National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) rejected the definition over free speech and academic freedom concerns. University of Sydney students overwhelmingly voted to reject university management's adoption of the definition, over similar concerns, at a meeting convened by the Student Representative Council. UNSW, Deakin University, Victoria University, University of Technology Sydney and RMIT University were waiting for the outcome of consultation between the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency and the Higher Education Standards Panel, which were tasked by UA to ensure the definition upholds higher education standards and freedom of expression. James Cook University will examine the definition when it reviews its discrimination policy later this year, as will the University of Adelaide at the request of its council, while Charles Darwin University is considering the 'best positioning' of the definition within its policy framework to 'ensure that academic freedom and expression is honoured'. The University of the Sunshine Coast's academic board will consider the definition in coming months, while the University of Newcastle is 'actively engaging' with stakeholders to consider 'different perspectives' on the matter. The University of Queensland senate endorsed the definition, which was later discussed by the academic board in March, and is working to 'finalise' its decision. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email On Friday 23 May, the last day of term, ANU's academic board chair, Prof Tony Connolly, informed the ACT Australasian Union of Jewish Students (AUJS) the board would recommend against adopting the definition and instead intended to adopt a broader anti-racism definition based on a 2023 report released by the university's anti-racism taskforce. An ANU spokesperson confirmed the board had recommended a definition of racism be adopted and 'anti-racism culture' be developed in accordance with the taskforce's recommendations. The academic board holds significant authority in developing and approving university policies but it is ultimately up to the executive to decide whether to endorse its decision. The spokesperson said the university had not rejected the UA definition and was 'continuing to work with our community to determine the best approach and consider the matter through the appropriate governance processes'. Last Friday, the heads of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) and the Australian Academic Alliance Against Antisemitism (5A) wrote to the ANU vice-chancellor, Prof Genevieve Bell, expressing their 'dismay' at the board's decision. 'By reason of many examples of antisemitic behaviour at ANU, your campus has become unsafe and unwelcoming for Jewish students,' the letter read. 'Absent a credible definition of antisemitism at ANU, we do not see how the university intends to identify antisemitic conduct and respond appropriately to it.' The working UA definition, first developed by Group of Eight institutions, was unanimously endorsed by 39 vice-chancellors in February, based on work with Jillian Segal, the special envoy to combat antisemitism. The definition says criticism of Israel can be antisemitic 'when it is grounded in harmful tropes, stereotypes or assumptions and when it calls for the elimination of the state of Israel or all Jews or when it holds Jewish individuals or communities responsible for Israel's actions'. 'Substituting the word 'Zionist' for 'Jew' does not eliminate the possibility of speech being antisemitic,' the definition states. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Liat Granot, a co-president of the AUJS, addressed ANU's academic board last month, encouraging it to adopt the definition. Granot said rejecting the definition made Jewish students feel 'incredibly exposed, unsupported and disillusioned'. 'This definition was seen as the last straw … to a hope we had in the institution's ability to protect us. That's been crushed,' she said. In March, the NTEU's ACT division secretary, Dr Lachlan Clohesy, wrote to Connolly urging him to oppose the UA definition. Clohesy said the definition was 'inconsistent with fundamental principles of academic freedom and freedom of speech', and risked conflating legitimate criticism of the Israeli state and government with antisemitism. Clohesy said some Jewish NTEU members had taken particular issue with the 'inclusion of Zionism as part of Jewish identity' in the definition, and the 'underlying assumption that a Jewish person is likely to be Zionist'. 'NTEU is also concerned that the adoption of this definition could lead to attempts to initiate disciplinary [action] against ANU staff in future,' he wrote. The ECAJ and 5A urged the board to reconsider its position and to 'recognise that a non-legally binding, working definition of antisemitism that reflects the Jewish lived experience, is essential'. 'The ANU academic board … comprised of academics with no specialised anti-racism mandate, and which has a focus on academic freedom, is not the appropriate body to evaluate whether the UA definition should be adopted.' A UA spokesperson said the body respected the autonomy of universities to make their own decisions, 'including how best to implement policies and principles that support student safety and free expression'. More than 20 universities did not provide a comment.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
US judge nixes Treasury's bid to cancel IRS workers' union contract
By Daniel Wiessner (Reuters) -A federal judge has rejected a bid by the U.S. Treasury Department to cancel a union contract covering tens of thousands of IRS staff, an early blow to President Donald Trump's efforts to eliminate collective bargaining rights for many federal workers. U.S. District Judge Danny Reeves in Lexington, Kentucky, said in a written opinion late Tuesday that the department lacked legal standing to bring a lawsuit against the National Treasury Employees Union. After Trump issued an executive order exempting Treasury and other agencies from union bargaining obligations, the agency sued an affiliate of the NTEU that represents Internal Revenue Service employees, to invalidate a bargaining agreement reached in 2022. Reeves, an appointee of Republican former President George W. Bush, dismissed the case, saying the lawsuit was premature because Treasury had not yet taken any steps to implement Trump's order. "This decision says nothing of the merits of the case," the judge wrote. "Had Treasury filed suit in response to an invasion or threatened invasion of its sovereign right to enforce [Trump's order], a different result likely would have been reached." A U.S. appeals court last week paused a ruling by a judge in Washington, D.C., that had blocked seven agencies including Treasury from implementing Trump's order in a lawsuit by the NTEU. The White House, the Treasury Department and the NTEU did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Trump in the executive order excluded from collective bargaining obligations agencies that he said "have as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work". The order applies to the Justice, State, Defense, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, and Health and Human Services departments, among other agencies. The NTEU has said the order applies to about 100,000 of its 160,000 members. The Treasury Department sued the NTEU affiliate a day after Trump issued the order, seeking a declaration that gave Treasury the authority to end its bargaining relationship with the union. The department said that federal civil service law empowers the president to exempt agencies from bargaining when he deems it necessary to protect national security, and that courts lack the authority to review and second guess those determinations. NTEU and other federal worker unions have accused Trump of issuing the order to punish them for bringing legal challenges to a number of his policies. U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman in Washington, D.C., ruled in the NTEU's lawsuit in April that Trump had not adequately justified reversing decades of practice and exempting large swaths of the federal workforce from bargaining. But an appeals court panel in blocking that ruling said it was likely to be overturned on appeal. Eight federal agencies have filed a separate lawsuit against the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal worker union, seeking to invalidate existing union contracts covering thousands of workers. The union has moved to dismiss that case, with a hearing scheduled for June.
Reuters
21-05-2025
- Business
- Reuters
US judge nixes Treasury's bid to cancel IRS workers' union contract
May 21 (Reuters) - A federal judge has rejected a bid by the U.S. Treasury Department to cancel a union contract covering tens of thousands of IRS staff, an early blow to President Donald Trump's efforts to eliminate collective bargaining rights for many federal workers. U.S. District Judge Danny Reeves in Lexington, Kentucky, said in a written opinion late Tuesday that the department lacked legal standing to bring a lawsuit against the National Treasury Employees Union. After Trump issued an executive order exempting Treasury and other agencies from union bargaining obligations, the agency sued an affiliate of the NTEU that represents Internal Revenue Service employees, to invalidate a bargaining agreement reached in 2022. Reeves, an appointee of Republican former President George W. Bush, dismissed the case, saying the lawsuit was premature because Treasury had not yet taken any steps to implement Trump's order. "This decision says nothing of the merits of the case," the judge wrote. "Had Treasury filed suit in response to an invasion or threatened invasion of its sovereign right to enforce [Trump's order], a different result likely would have been reached." A U.S. appeals court last week paused a ruling by a judge in Washington, D.C., that had blocked seven agencies including Treasury from implementing Trump's order in a lawsuit by the NTEU. The White House, the Treasury Department and the NTEU did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Trump in the executive order excluded from collective bargaining obligations agencies that he said "have as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work". The order applies to the Justice, State, Defense, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, and Health and Human Services departments, among other agencies. The NTEU has said the order applies to about 100,000 of its 160,000 members. The Treasury Department sued the NTEU affiliate a day after Trump issued the order, seeking a declaration that gave Treasury the authority to end its bargaining relationship with the union. The department said that federal civil service law empowers the president to exempt agencies from bargaining when he deems it necessary to protect national security, and that courts lack the authority to review and second guess those determinations. NTEU and other federal worker unions have accused Trump of issuing the order to punish them for bringing legal challenges to a number of his policies. U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman in Washington, D.C., ruled in the NTEU's lawsuit in April that Trump had not adequately justified reversing decades of practice and exempting large swaths of the federal workforce from bargaining. But an appeals court panel in blocking that ruling said it was likely to be overturned on appeal. Eight federal agencies have filed a separate lawsuit against the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal worker union, seeking to invalidate existing union contracts covering thousands of workers. The union has moved to dismiss that case, with a hearing scheduled for June.
Newsweek
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Scores Major Legal Win on Blocked Order
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's administration secured a legal win on Friday when a federal appeals court lifted a lower court injunction that had blocked the president's plan to end unionizing rights for hundreds of thousands of federal workers in a case brought by the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU). Newsweek contacted the Department of Justice and the NTEU for comment on Saturday via online inquiry form and email respectively outside of regular office hours. Why It Matters With Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress the courts have emerged as arguably the most significant impediment to Trump administration policy. Since Donald Trump's second inauguration in January courts have blocked a number of his policies including a ban on transgender individuals serving in the military, the freezing of billions in foreign aid and on Friday the Supreme Court ruled against deporting Venezuelan nationals using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. What To Know Friday saw a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit panel put on hold an injunction issued by a lower court blocking the implementation of an executive order issued by Trump in March on union rights in federal government. Trump's executive order removed more than a dozen federal agencies, including the departments of Defense, State, Treasury, Justice, Veterans Affairs and Health and Human Services, from union bargaining obligations regarding their employees. A preliminary injunction blocking the executive order's implementation was then issued by U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman on April 25 in response to an NTEU legal challenge. President Donald Trump raises his fist after arriving on Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, DC, on May 16, 2025, following a trip to the Middle East. President Donald Trump raises his fist after arriving on Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, DC, on May 16, 2025, following a trip to the Middle East. SAUL LOEB/AFP/GETTY The NTEU argued Trump's order was in violation both of federal workers' labor rights and the U.S. Constitution. Friday's decision was made in a 2-1 ruling with the George H.W. Bush appointee Judge Karen Henderson, and first term Trump appointee Judge Justin Walker, ruling against the injunction while President Joe Biden appointee Judge Michelle Childs argued it should remain. According to court documents, around a million federal employees would be impacted by the executive order on union representation, which the NTEU said included around 100,000 of its members. What People Are Saying In their majority decision Judges Henderson and Walker said: "Preserving the President's autonomy under a statute that expressly recognizes his national-security expertise is within the public interest." Judge Childs argued the administration had only provided "vague assertions" about the initial injunction's national security implications. She added: "How can the Government argue that the district court injunction will cause irreparable injury when the Government itself voluntarily imposed that same constraint?" What Happens Next The NTEU has not said whether it plans to appeal Friday's ruling. If the ruling stands, and Trump's executive order goes into effect, hundreds of thousands of federal workers stand to lose union collective bargaining rights.
