LATEST:
£11,000 Per Year for NUS Membership – is it worth being part of an organisation that morally evaluates Coke?
Ask any Durham student about the NUS, and they will most likely tell you that it appears on their student card and gets them a discount at Topshop.
What they won’t tell you is about all the campaigns the NUS currently supports, the enormous bureaucracy behind it, and indeed most importantly, that the DSU currently pays them £11,000 a year just to be a member. For a union that has very little money (the DSU was making a huge loss until only a few years ago), do we genuinely feel that this is money well spent?
Right from the very start I would like to make clear that I do not consider the NUS to be a useless organisation in terms of principles and aims, and although I will express my concerns on the way it handles itself, I do still believe the NUS has a lot to give to many universities and colleges; just not Durham.
Let me give an example; the NUS is brilliant if you are a member of a new university or college and want help setting up a strong and effective student union. Their experience and skills are invaluable for these organisations. However, the Durham Student Union is one of the oldest in the country. We have strong structures and procedures in place with professionals and sabbatical officers working together and with council meetings every other week to discuss student policy. We are clearly a student union that has established itself over the years into an effective body of student representation. Clearly we don’t need the NUS to help us with that.
So what else can the NUS help us with? Their main aim is to represent student views from right across the country on wide-reaching topics from tuition fees (something that will be addressed separately later) to banning the consumption of Coke at university (apparently it’s unethical). Again, this goes back to my previous point; we have a union that is strong enough to make decisions on its own. Look at the Coke argument; why can’t the DSU decide if Coke is unethical?
We can clearly make decisions on similar topics; after all, the Israel boycott debate attracted huge publicity within the university, and students had a real, direct say on what they wanted. By giving decision-making to the NUS, Durham students are putting their trust in delegates from many institutions, most of which are very different from Durham.
So indeed it is time for my first of many moans about the NUS. Having attended the NUS annual conference a few weeks ago, I can genuinely say that so many of the delegates there are egotistical, self-righteous, and simply living on another planet. The obsession with morality and ethics is so inhibiting to the effectiveness of the union. Every time a good motion was proposed, the conference would get bogged down by politically correct measures that simply aren’t necessary. The problems get worse with the motions themselves. Not only are some of them simply vague and inconsequential, but they only affect a minority of the unions represented.
This is perhaps the fundamental problem with the NUS; it is simply too convoluted in the types of institutions it represents. Over 6 million students are represented by the NUS from higher education (universities like Durham), further education (e.g. vocational colleges), apprentices, and even 6th formers. Do we really think an organisation can effectively represent so many people from such a large diversity of backgrounds? For example, huge swathes of time are taken up with motions that only affect apprentices and FE institutions; we are paying for all of this time-wasting.
The NUS also tries not just to represent students, but quite literally, it seems at times, to save the world. Let’s discuss something controversial: one of the motions (that was passed) was to ban beauty pageants at universities as it objectified women. Whatever you feel on this subject, surely the university in question has to make the moral decision themselves, not an overly-arrogant organisation. Perhaps on a more moderate platform, shouldn’t Durham colleges decide what fits them best on policies like this? What about the BNP (to which the NUS has a no platform policy)? Despite my dislike for the organisation, I still think it would be a shame if the Durham Union Society were not allowed to invite BNP members; wouldn’t this be detrimental to academic debate generally?
Let me end on a more positive note for the NUS. The subject of tuition fees is the only real issue that will have a direct and important impact on Durham students in the next few years. Undoubtedly having a large organisation like the NUS petitioning the government to keep the cap is a good thing, and perhaps for that reason alone we should stay within the NUS. Still, there are other possibilities; Durham might fare better in a smaller union that only represents universities similar to ourselves.
I am certainly not advocating an instant withdrawal from the NUS, but at least ask yourselves if you feel that the £11,000 is being put to good use. Personally, I’m not so sure.
10 Comments »
Leave a Reply
Latest Edition
Erm… how does the DSU actually get its money? Through tuition fees? It’s hard to get worked up about how much it spends, when it doesn’t affect how much I personally will have to pay out.
While not disagreeing with the main point of your article, I can’t help but think that you should have given some indication of the DSU’s annual budget, or how much £11,000 works out to be per capita. It’s hard to visualize otherwise.
“For example, huge swathes of time are taken up with motions that only affect apprentices and FE institutions; we are paying for all of this time-wasting.”
Meanwhile, in a different SU newspaper, at an FE college, someone is writing “huge swathes of time are taken up with motions that only affect universities; we are paying for all of this time-wasting”. If you want NUS to be the National Union of Students-exactly-like-me then that’s understandable, but the other 5 million students it represents (who are majority FE, incidentally) might disagree.
NUS policy – despite what national journalists believe – isn’t binding on its members (in the same way that DSU policy isn’t binding on JCRs). “No platform” is a good example: DSU is not the only Union that doesn’t have this as policy.
Other things that NUS provides but aren’t always noticed: cheap but reasonable quality campaign materials that help DSU run some of its campaigns; legal advice on some matters; support for DSU’s elections; some discounts are NUS discounts rather than general student discounts; training for sabbatical officers; NUSSL.
There’s certainly room for discussion as to whether all of that is worth £11,000, of course, but then you have to consider NUSSL. NUS Services Limited is a purchasing consortium that allows DSU (and the JCRs) to buy drinks, food, stationery, etc. at a significant discount. It’s able to negotiate these deals because it supplies millions of students. The savings made by DSU alone on this add up to significantly more than £11,000. I’m not sure how much the savings made by the JCRs (who don’t currently contribute to the NUS membership fee) add up to, but it’s probably a similar amount.
You’re not – as you can guess – the first person to come back from NUS Conference wondering why DSU bothers being affiliated. So far, the fact that NUS effectively pays DSU to be affiliated has meant that no disaffiliation discussions have gone anywhere for decades.
Mark: DSU’s annual usable income (2/3 profit from commercial services plus 1/3 funding from the University) was around £400,000 in 2006/7 – I can’t find anything more recent. Per member, £11,000 is roughly 70p per student. Of the University funding, some proportion will come from tuition fees, of course, but on the other hand, when tuition fees increased from 1000 to 3000, DSU’s funding from the University did not triple!
You said that if the NUS passed a motion banning BNP members from speaking then that would affect our Union Society. How? the Union Society isn’t affiliated with the DSU or bound by its commitements. Its not even part of the University aside from the fact that the University owns many of it assets. It is an independant society that has a policy of letting University members join. That whole statement is just wrong and misleading because it is not true that the NUS can bind the Union Society in that way. Or am I wrong? I’m not a hundred percent sure on this but that’s what the Union Society ppl all seem to think. If the Union Soc was bound by all the random rubbish passed by the NUS it propably would have folded a long while ago. Well done however on managing to sit through the whole conference. I know I certainly couldn’t.
The money that DSU receives does not come from tuition fees, it comes directly from the money that they University receives from HEFCE.
NUS can not mandate DSU or the Union Society to do anything.
If you want to know more about DSU budgets go to the Annual General Meeting.
Having recently had a partner who was at Northumbria University and who was extremely involved in student politics there, I certainly see Andrew’s point about the NUS being more useful for “New Universities”. I also personally have a lot of faith in DSU’s ability to make its own decisions and in the individual students who have been elected to keep this democratic process ticking over.
It seems there’s a difference between the practical things which NUS offer (legal advice, NUSSL, training for sabbatical officers) and the the representation it offers. I would obviously like to see Durham continually benefiting from the things on the practical side, as they are things which improve student experience and help our elected representatives to do their jobs more effectively. On the other hand, why would we want to belong to a Union of Students which fails to represent us properly on so many issues?
A good example of NUS overstepping the mark — i.e. not representing but perpetuating the views of individual delegates — is the vote on minimum drinks pricing (a Facebook group has been set up by a student from Cambridge about the matter: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=68552003785&ref=nf).
The NUS President, Wes Streeting, recently said to The Times:
“Students’ unions work hard to inform their members of the dangers of excessive drinking. But more can be done. ‘All you can drink’ and ‘three for the price of one’ offers encourage students to drink to dangerous levels.”
I fully take on board that binge drinking is not healthy. I am more than aware of what it does to my liver. I do not, however, require Wes Streeting, or anybody else in the NUS or DSU for that matter, to set limits ‘for my own good.’ I am more than appreciative of alcohol awareness posters and publicity which Emma Carter and this years’ JCR Welfare Officers have been producing; it means I can make an informed decision about how alcohol is affecting my health. Maybe Wes doesn’t believe we know how to make an informed decision? The majority of delegates at the conference clearly follow his line of thinking also, as the consultation on minimum drinks pricing was passed.
Yet, despite the fact that this decision is believed by the conference to be representative, I have not spoken to a single person in Durham who believes it is a good idea. What will it do? If the government take NUS’ advice and pass a minimum pricing policy it will raise the prices of drinks so that those who can still afford vast amounts of alcohol — and at a University like Durham, there are plenty of them! — will continue to drink excessively, and those who cannot will be marginalised by it and priced out of the Unions. What will happen? They’ll go to bars in town or drink in their rooms. The DSU will lose money as will the college bars.
This seems like an excellent prospect all round for students, so a big thank you to NUS for supporting it!
Seriously, though, we do need to consider whether the advantages of sabbatical training, NUSSL (there are other cheap suppliers to students as not all the college bars use NUSSL) and legal advice actually outweigh the fact that, as a University, the interests of our students are being lost amongst those of the hundreds of New Universities and FE Institutions. The NUS is trying to be too representative; there is a limit to how broadly you can set policies to please everyone. From a selfish point of view, NUS will continue to fight against removing the cap, whether Durham belongs to it or not. Furthermore, we are more than capable of campaigning ourselves on such a matter.
With this in mind, the only sensible conclusion seems to be that we cut our losses, de-affiliate now and put that extra £11,000 to some really good use within the Union so students can directly benefit from it.
As a side point, I would like to point out that many of Coca Cola’s actions are morally questionable, and I entirely understand why the issue has been raised within an NUS Forum. Although I totally agree with you that we as our own union are completely capable of deciding ourselves whether it is unethical to continue supplying it, the sentiment behind the motion which has gone to NUS is not actually as ludicrous as it was portrayed to be in this article: “banning the consumption of Coke at university (apparently it’s unethical)”.
Minimum alcoholic drinks pricing has been required by the University for all DSU and JCR bars since 1994. There’s also a maximum allowed price for soft drinks. The college bars and Kingsgate are still well-attended and profitable, however. If NUS were successful in asking the government to set a minimum alcohol price – which would be for all sales, not just Students’ Union sales! – then Durham’s student bars would become more competitive, rather than less.
There are indeed other cheap suppliers. Three years ago, when this was last looked at, NUSSL was over £11,000 better annually than the next best supplier. Obviously it’s worth checking periodically to see if this has changed, but it’s been consistently true for a long time.
“[...] actually outweigh the fact that, as a University, the interests of our students are being lost amongst those of the hundreds of New Universities and FE Institutions.”
If DSU disaffiliates from NUS, then it will be able to make its own statements on issues. NUS will continue to make its own statements on the same issues without any input from DSU.
If DSU stays affiliated to NUS, then it will still be able to make its own statements on issues. NUS will also continue to make its own statements on the same issues with minimal input from DSU.
NUS’s political representation is virtually irrelevant to a cost-benefit analysis of affiliation since both DSU and NUS will do (almost) the same thing whether DSU affiliates or not. On that basis, the question is “are the net costs of affiliation (currently negative) worth the services provided”.
This assumes that DSU isn’t joined by a significant number of other politically similar Unions in disaffiliation, of course, but this didn’t happen when Unions like DSU were far more dissatisfied with NUS’s representation, so it’s unlikely to happen now.
“If NUS were successful in asking the government to set a minimum alcohol price – which would be for all sales, not just Students’ Union sales! – then Durham’s student bars would become more competitive, rather than less.”
Whether we’re more competitive with prices in town is actually beside the point. We should be fighting this because if prices on alcohol are raised, then it will not stop those who can afford to buy it from doing so but will mean those who cannot afford to will simply not be able to or will succumb to peer pressure and bankrupt themselves! This might reduce the number of people binge drinking and therefore look good for government statistics, but does not actually solve the problem of a drinking culture. It also creates a drinking “upper-class” within our universities. Is that good? Particularly not at a university like Durham with a considerable contingent of students from rich backgrounds. The contrast between these people and those who cannot afford alcohol will be all the greater. As this is one of the biggest grips a lot of people have about Durham, I don’t see how it can ever be a good think to allow something which would be so divisive.
“If DSU disaffiliates from NUS, then it will be able to make its own statements on issues. NUS will continue to make its own statements on the same issues without any input from DSU.
If DSU stays affiliated to NUS, then it will still be able to make its own statements on issues. NUS will also continue to make its own statements on the same issues with minimal input from DSU.”
Yes of course, but surely that is entirely the point. It’s not about the cost-benefit analysis of representation but also about the principle of it. At the moment, we are a constituent of the National Union of Students which, because of our affiliation to it, claims publicly to be a national representative for our students. However, if the policies of NUS, in fact set by delegates from New Universities and FE Institutions with very different agendas, fail to represent what we as Durham students want nationally, then surely on principle we should back out and make our own statements so that we are not being misrepresented. Our minimal input is being proved to have been ineffective. So why bother to keep paying £11,000 per year for the privilege of our input being ignored?
Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t we due to be spending up to £26,000 on affiliation from now on, as we’ve been moved to a different affiliation fee bracket? Also the University wants to withdraw £11,000 from the money it donates to DSU every year. This money pays for NUS affiliation. With all of this in mind, is it worth remaining affiliated?
“we are a constituent of the National Union of Students which, because of our affiliation to it, claims publicly to be a national representative for our students”
In practice, lazy journalism would claim that anyway. How often do the differing opinions of Southampton, Imperial or Glasgow get into the press, and how often is NUS’s line taken as “students think” without any discussion of the exceptions?
“However, if the policies of NUS, in fact set by delegates from New Universities and FE Institutions with very different agendas”
DSU’s disagreements with NUS are not about an old/new split or an FE/HE split. FE Unions have minimal influence on NUS despite making up most of the membership, because many of them can’t afford to send delegates to Conference. Similarly, many of the student delegations with opinions that DSU would disagree with are from Russell/1994 “Old” universities such as Manchester, Sheffield or Warwick.
The disagreements with NUS have usually been due to NUS delegations in general being considerably more party-poltical (mostly hard-left factions and Labour) than either DSU in general or DSU’s delegation. That said, NUS has moved much closer to DSU and further away from the hard-left factions in the last 5 or so years.
“So why bother to keep paying £11,000 per year for the privilege of our input being ignored?”
With NUSSL the question really is “is it worth having DSU’s opinions misrepresented if NUS+NUSSL pays £X net a year and provides various services?”. This only holds of course if NUS+NUSSL works out as a profit for DSU, which at 26k… that starts to look more doubtful.
“Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t we due to be spending up to £26,000 on affiliation from now on”
Obviously all I’ve said assumes that the affiliation fee remains low enough to be smaller than the financial benefits of NUSSL over another supplier. NUS would have to be extremely stupid to put the affiliation fee up to the extent that was no longer true, since the likely result is that if DSU actually had to *pay* (well, more than a token amount) for NUS’s services it would decide not to bother and NUS gets no money at all. On the other hand, “extremely stupid” is not unknown for NUS…
“Also the University wants to withdraw £11,000 from the money it donates to DSU every year. This money pays for NUS affiliation.”
If the University would withdraw the money – and DSU gets little enough as it is – whether or not DSU stayed affiliated to NUS, then it makes little difference to the affiliation question. If the University is withdrawing the money specifically to encourage DSU to disaffiliate, then if DSU isn’t strong enough to resist that sort of action any claims of being a well-established Union that doesn’t need NUS’s help start to look dubious.