JMU does indeed belong to the students and staff. It belongs to everyone else too. It is a publically funded and owned educational establishment. The views of the students and staff are no more or less important than the views of the rest of the public.

As for consultation none is required if no redundancies are made. Staff have a duty to perform any reasonable task an employer asks them to, and if some JMU staff find their course ended they have the choice of doing something else their employer requires of them or resigning. Staff members do not have a right to run the courses they want. They have a duty as employees to do as they are told or quit.

So do I take from those comments that you think it was suitable for The Daily Post to be the first place that students and staff found out about these cuts? ...and that you also think it is right that it was right for these changes to have been made without any student or staff consultation?

As for 'Duty' I don't think any employee should be be required to do as their employer tells them or quit...hey why don't we just give in and let the bosses shut down our unions? We are talking about significant changes that have been made to teaching programmes... programmes that are not taught or recieved by the V-C or the upper-echelons of the University management. These are not decisions that should be made without the participation of either staff or students.

JMU might be a publically funded institution, but it feels increasingly like it is being corporatised. For gods sake, the first communication that students recieved from the University about this came from Corporate Communications, as the V.C behaved in such a way as to cut the student union out of discussions.

In any Organisation with more that 22 Employees. The Employer has a need to either have a consultative staff organisation or to recognise and consult a Trades Union. Consultation is not an optional extra.

The failure to consult is symptomatic of the arrogance of a particular style of management that has no connection with the actual activities of the organisation. These are the people who argue that the workplace is not a democracy, that they are in charge and then demand legislation when "their" Workers do something they find distatesful.

Both Universities have embarked upon a face saving exercise. Both Universities were at the forefront of demanding students pay fees. Yet, the fee level was set too low to pay for the actual tuition. This has created the situation that needs to be managed. Managers felt comfortable that the decision to set the fees too low to pay for tuition was the right decision and would be financially sutainable. It made the Universities competitive in a world market and so on. Both Universities need to save face by closing course they can not manage to present. Manage, not afford. Their ability to manage the presentation of the courses is the central issue.

As Fee Payers, Students have a right to demand that the management of the University present courses that are fit for purpose. This is not only in course content but course presentation. To sign on to any University's scheme of learning is to place trust in the Academic Staff's capacity to deliver the best quality of Course and the Academic Management to ensure that the Course is delivered on time and in budget. Change without consultation is quite arbitrary and would incur financial penalties in the big bad world of business that the University Management point at laudable. Fee Payers invariably claim the right to be consulted.

That is the job of Management. That is what Management is paid to do. The ability to consult effectively is a central and genuine occupational qualification of Management. It is a genuine occupational qualification that ideological management chooses to obscure. The failure to consult is no longer a sign of "arrogance" but of a failure of management to engage with their role. For any employee outside of a management role to fail in their role incurs penalties. What justification do these managers have for taking fees and not delivering courses? Changing Contracts without explanation? Supporting Fees when the Feepayers are not treated as they would in commerce? Supporting Fees when Fees have created the problems they now face and the problems they have failed to manage?

Students generally do oppose fees. A tactic of opposition is to demonstrate. An equally good tactic is to demand all of the right a commercial Fee Payer might demand. Like it or not, Fees are a substantial part of Student Life. They are a wicked imposition and should be abolished. While they continue to exist, Students should also argue for their Rights as Fee Payers.