4 ms·

At least in my country (Australia), this is way more an issue with student unionism than unionism generally. Both because student unions are even more powerless

At least in my country (Australia), this is way more an issue with student unionism than unionism generally. Both because student unions are even more powerless to affect widespread change, and because they tend to focus on it more than traditional unions. I say this as someone that is quite pro-union, and someone that was quite involved in my student union when I was studying. We were one of if not the most powerful student unions in the country, with tens of millions of dollars of annual revenue. It was very much a launchpad for those aspiring to be career politicians. “Stupol” is a legitimate entrypoint into “real” politics and a large percentage of our elected representatives cut their politician teeth being involved in their student union. Thus, you end up with a bunch of naive wannabe politicians that quite easily get lost in showboating and “the bigger picture”, often taking away time, attention, or resources that could be put toward more directly helping the members.

selimthegrim 4y ago
These are not undergrads unionizing. In USA what you are talking about is “student government”
jltsiren 4y ago
I have a similar background in Finland, but my view of student unions is less cynical. We had all major services separated from the student union. Restaurants were run by a company with a mix of professionals and student representatives in the board. Student housing was mostly owned by a foundation controlled by the student unions in the area. This helped to insulate them from day-to-day politics. There were only a few direct member services. When you have tens of thousands of members, there are not many things you can do in a centralized way without a field organization. Most of the time, it was better to support the work of actual student-run organizations than to try to provide the services yourself. Then there was the political mission. We had two largely separate groups: one focused on coordinating the work of student representatives in university administration, while the other tried to influence local and national politics with varying degrees of success. The most controversial part was the legal mandate to participate "in the implementation of the educational mission of the university [..] by preparing students for an active, informed and critical citizenship." Some factions used that to justify involving the student union in general politics. Regardless of what one thinks of that, student unions certainly help to train more competent career politicians. Finnish student unions, as well as the youth/student organizations of political parties, are structured to mimic national and local politics. In a few years, you reach the top, and you get to see how the system works from the perspective of top decisionmakers. That's the kind of experience you don't get in a decade of actual politics. Similarly, people who were interested in student politics quickly learned to have effective meetings. This was most obvious in the lower levels of university administration which often involved professors outside the administrative track. The average professor (or the average software engineer) has little idea what to do in a meeting, and even less idea how to run one. The result is a lot of incoherent rambling that wastes everyone's time.

selimthegrim 4y ago

These are not undergrads unionizing. In USA what you are talking about is “student government”

jltsiren 4y ago

I have a similar background in Finland, but my view of student unions is less cynical. We had all major services separated from the student union. Restaurants were run by a company with a mix of professionals and student representatives in the board. Student housing was mostly owned by a foundation controlled by the student unions in the area. This helped to insulate them from day-to-day politics. There were only a few direct member services. When you have tens of thousands of members, there are not many things you can do in a centralized way without a field organization. Most of the time, it was better to support the work of actual student-run organizations than to try to provide the services yourself. Then there was the political mission. We had two largely separate groups: one focused on coordinating the work of student representatives in university administration, while the other tried to influence local and national politics with varying degrees of success. The most controversial part was the legal mandate to participate "in the implementation of the educational mission of the university [..] by preparing students for an active, informed and critical citizenship." Some factions used that to justify involving the student union in general politics. Regardless of what one thinks of that, student unions certainly help to train more competent career politicians. Finnish student unions, as well as the youth/student organizations of political parties, are structured to mimic national and local politics. In a few years, you reach the top, and you get to see how the system works from the perspective of top decisionmakers. That's the kind of experience you don't get in a decade of actual politics. Similarly, people who were interested in student politics quickly learned to have effective meetings. This was most obvious in the lower levels of university administration which often involved professors outside the administrative track. The average professor (or the average software engineer) has little idea what to do in a meeting, and even less idea how to run one. The result is a lot of incoherent rambling that wastes everyone's time.