Putting the student back in student union

When most people think of a student union, it seems obvious that it’s run “By Students, For Students”. So obvious in fact, that the imposing declaration that looms on passers by, adorning the front of Teviot makes me somewhat suspicious, as it should for you. If you were to walk down the high street and be confronted with signs such as "WE SELL SHOES!" or "We Sell Food and are a Branch of a Multinational Corporation, Run by Highly Paid Executives with the Aim of Making Profit" you would think it very strange indeed. This begs the question, why, if it’s so obvious what a student union is and what a student union should do, does EUSA feel the need to shout it from the rooftops. The answer is, simply, overcompensation.

EUSA knows that its unions, at least for the most part, are not run by students. For example, the seemingly trivial change of introducing board games in the library bar took over a year of pressure from the executive to actually get it done. In the end, it was only when a student went out and bought the games that they were actually implemented. Managers, supposedly hired to implement the policies of students and run the unions on a day to day basis, often simply ignore student requests, creating in effect, a democratic deficit of those that the union explicitly aims to include.

EUSA also knows that, often, it isn’t for students either. How can it be, when—particularly in terms of services—it repeatedly ignores student input? Food and entertainment, which in my opinion are the bread and butter of a union’s services provided for its members, are offered cheaper and better at commercial competitors. How many times does the average student choose the Mez over a cosy local café, or Potterow as opposed to Opal Lounge, Cabaret Voltaire or Cav?

As a member of the Union Executive and the Committee of Management, I have witnessed at first hand how appalling inefficiency, poor structure and a reluctance to implement student ideas have led to the gross underuse of assets, rising prices and substandard services. I’d like to share with you how the union really works, and how if something isn’t done soon, this will effect the future.
The commercial stability of the union is dependent on a solid entertainments and food provision, and sadly entertainments is where EUSA fails most notably. We all love the occasional foray into the delights of the big cheese, and some would argue that there’s no better way to end a Saturday night than with 'the final countdown’. What is disturbing however, is that a weekly cheese night, and of course, the occasional cheese act such as S Club, is all the union seems able to offer in terms of music. Going Underground acts as little more than an overspill for those who cant get in to Potterow. Efforts by the management to create events such as the Late Late Hogmanay Party and Flirt have proven to be dismal failures, leaving anyone not attracted by the whiff of cheese out in the cold.

It was suggested that in order to increase the profile of the union, diversify its customer base and of course make a bit of money, the union should stage high profile DJs such as Hot Chip, Norman Jay or Erol Alkan. The extra door revenue could be used to invest in better equipment or to stage bigger and better acts. The costs involved are relatively small, and this is a tried and tested strategy used at successful unions up and down the country. The management however, in their infinite wisdom, decided that this was a bad idea. Perhaps they were afraid they might actually make some money. A profit of £30,000 similar to that at Leeds Union when Booka Shade played would probably send them into a state of shock.

This example is emblematic of the union staff’s reluctance to listen to and implement student ideas, even when they’re based on good business sense. The reluctance of staff, however, is not limited to the entertainments department. James Wallace has successfully forced through 99p coffees at all union outlets, but with absolutely no marketing or effort from the management to make it a success, it seems like an initiative that is doomed to fail. Particularly when the management would only agree to implement it on a one-month trial basis, no doubt so that they can turn around and remind us that it was a bad idea all along.
These are just a couple of examples where the union managers either refuse to implement the policies of student representatives, or do so with a great amount of inertia. Naturally, this makes the success of any initiative a student does manage to get through highly doubtful.

For a union that rightfully belongs to its members, a refusal to heed the views of those members seems somewhat perverse, and the results of this approach are clear: inappropriate products, poor marketing and a dire range of services with many students far more motivated to use local competitors than their own union. It seems ridiculous that a privately owned company could understand the student market better than a student union, and only in EUSA could this be the case.

There is, of course, an argument that it’s better to have the commercial side of EUSA run this way, with students playing an indirect role in devising and implementing strategy. But the truth is that the success of this approach should be self-evident, and anyone who visits the union will know that the services it offers are often poor. This is made particularly obvious when comparing Edinburgh University Students' Union to our thriving counterparts in Manchester or Leeds.

What is clear, is that it’s time our union changed. Most importantly, the structure of EUSA needs to be revised so that change can happen quickly and efficiently, and so that the voices of elected student representatives are heard and not silenced. The embarrassing provision of entertainment needs to be revised. Oxford University once had The Rolling Stones play at their graduation ball; we have Scott Mills. Put simply, we need to put back the student in student union.