If your workload feels heavier than it used to, there are reasons for that.

Recent institutional decisions have reshaped how work is distributed across the university.

Professional staff: The post-COVID P25 / 10% EBITDA strategy effectively built a vacancy factor into staffing. When roles remain unfilled for longer, the work shifts to the staff who remain.

Academic staff: The 2024 revision of academic workload models introduced mechanisms that increase teaching load in practice in many areas — including separating supervision from teaching and capping supervision points.

These decisions have gradually increased workloads across the university.

This is why in this round of Enterprise Bargaining, workload is a key issue. Join the relevant Issue Group to have your say.

Many staff recognise a familiar pattern when concerns are raised.

Workload pressure can be framed as time-management.
Budget cuts become “strategic realignment”.
Experiences of burnout or excessive work may be countered with institutional metrics suggesting the problem is not widespread.

When staff experience is repeatedly reinterpreted in this way, it discourages open discussion and makes problems harder to address.

The collective action of colleagues working together, through your Union, is proven to be an effective way to improving your workplace.

Formal grievance processes exist, but many staff report they are difficult to pursue.

Making a complaint often requires extensive documentation, mediation processes and lengthy investigations. For staff already under pressure, this can be a significant barrier.

When processes feel slow, opaque or exhausting, staff can lose confidence that raising concerns will lead to meaningful outcomes.

The power of multiple people, who exercise their right, shapes how leaders view complaints. Backing each other in Union works.

Leadership in universities is increasingly evaluated through managerial performance measures — including budget delivery, organisational change and performance management.

These incentives can reward leaders who deliver institutional targets. But they can also leave less space for the forms of leadership universities have traditionally valued: collegiality, mentorship, intellectual leadership and care for staff and students.

Incentive structures shape culture — and staff experience their effects every day.

Working with Union colleagues, we can shape our workplace culture for the better, together.

Governance arrangements also shape how decisions are made.

UQ Senate, the university’s governing body, has 22 members, but only four are directly elected representatives of staff and students. The majority are external members appointed by government or by Senate itself.

This structure limits the direct representation of the university community in decision-making and raises ongoing questions about transparency and accountability.

For a detailed analysis, see the NTEU UQ submission (No. 102) to the 2025 Senate Standing Committee inquiry into governance in Australian higher education.

University governance is not part of the scope of Enterprise Bargaining, but as we grow our Union strength, we can aim to improve how our University makes its decisions and push for more democratic and inclusive structures. Join us.