Vice Chancellor Duncan Maskell sets out his savings strategy

the good news for now: Is that the bad news is not as awful as expected. Professor Maskell tells staff that the expected 2020 revenue shortfall of $400m is now estimated to be between $260m-$320m. The estimate for 2021 is $335-$385m.  The university will cover the loss in earnings this year, by deferring $330m in capex, drawing down on debt and using borrowings.

but next year, not so much: With all the one-offs used in ’20 operating expenditure will have to but cut – and that means, “it is inevitable that some jobs will be lost.”

“My priority now is for the university to minimise these job losses … a high priority is to avoid involuntary redundancies to the maximum extent possible,” Professor Maskell says.

here’s one way how: The vice chancellor proposes staff give up the 2.2 per cent pay-rise that kicked-in this month. Casuals would be exempt and the pay rise due May next year “is guaranteed,” although the per centage increase then would be based on pay levels before this year’s rise.

“If you agree to this proposal, it will deliver savings of $30 million to our base operating costs in 2021, reducing the need to cut jobs. In effect, I am asking you to put jobs before pay rises,” he says. The VC also reminds staff the university executive has accepted a 20 per cent pay cut.

in return: the university will offer; voluntary separations before redundancies, commit to no standowns and establish a “joint working group” with the National Tertiary Education Union, “on the implementation of changes arising from this crisis.”

what’s next: The VC says discussions are underway with the union. A vote to vary the university’s enterprise agreement is scheduled for June 9.

reaction: The campus branch of the NTEU calls for a no vote against changes to the enterprise agreement alleging . The union sets-out objections, including the absence of “enforceable protections” against stand-downs or increased workloads, “unfettered use of forced redundancies” and VRs “enabling individuals to be targeted.”

The union is angry that management wants a vote on changes, “that have not been negotiated with, nor agreed upon by the union.”