There are many different professional groups and fields of activity at a university. Even if we all ultimately want to ensure the success of the mission and function of a university, not all employees are naturally exposed to the same demands or problems to the same extent. Unfortunately, this does not mean that some groups or areas have it easier than others - it just means that the problems occur with different frequency/intensity in different groups.

Depending on the occupational group, the requirements, the stresses and also the problems take on different guises, so that a solution for some often also means more problems or stresses for others:

- New or more buildings and space are important and good for teaching, students and many
employees - but bring additional workloads for the colleagues among us,
who are responsible for management, technical and material infrastructure, maintenance etc. pp.
or have to ensure these - with constant or sometimes even
decreasing budgets and job shares.

- In the conflict between budget and
employee health protection (regardless of whether this is mandatory by law or a matter of common
sense), reducing the workload or limiting the duration of services may be a compromise solution, but it also often makes working
conditions more difficult for those who are used to or absolutely need these services.

We all experience further examples of this kind on a daily basis - every reduction in workload in one place very often leads to increased pressure and consolidation in other places.

At the same time, expectations are rising to new heights everywhere, unfortunately sometimes with contradictory requirements, such as technical comfort at no cost, which must not be harmful to the environment or health.
There should be no construction noise or dirt, and of course no other restrictions such as the temporary closure of rooms, squares, car parks or other facilities
- because there are actually no longer any periods in which it would affect "a few", and there is no longer any "reserve" of rooms or places that could compensate for the (temporary) loss of individual rooms or places without any noticeable impairment.

With this in mind, we believe that effective solutions can only be found if they are arrived at jointly by ALL those involved in an appreciative, respectful and open dialogue. We do not want to compete or work AGAINST other lists/groups/stakeholders, but WITH them - albeit focussing on the interests of the employees of the University of Oldenburg. However, we are of the opinion that this can also be done with open ears for the concerns of the other interest groups.

We find it difficult to draw up lists of targets that can be ticked off, as we are convinced that the facts about "corridor radio" are often only incompletely presented, as it is human and understandable to see and reflect one's own concerns above all.

That's why we always want to find out more and hear different views and approaches before we decide whether we are in favour or against.

For this reason alone, we welcome it when employees from all areas of the university and all "status groups" talk to us and share not only their trust, but also their knowledge and experiences with us.

We believe that so-called "dominant knowledge" is the cause rather than the solution to many problems and therefore reject it just as much as the arbitrary categorisation/evaluation of knowledge and experience based on origin, academic or personal background, age, years of service or other "hierarchies".

We all find trade union work irreplaceable, be it in the representation of interests, politically or socially, and would like to see much more support and commitment in every form in all employee groups. However, not everyone feels equally well and intensively represented, whether in the large DGB trade unions or in the many small subject unions of the DBB, which are more specialised and interest-oriented. Sometimes our own academic appointments and views do not always coincide with the main positions or issues represented, and sometimes something that is or seems good for many is not good for everyone.

Many of us are union members but would like to feel more independent and free in our day-to-day PR work. However, we are just as happy to welcome colleagues who have decided not to join the available trade unions, because we believe that this alone should not be decisive for the weight of a vote.

Some of us feel that multiple lists/parties/possibilities can often be a great help to democracy and fairness. For these members, elections with only one "party" raise fundamental questions about the understanding of democracy.

Others fear that with less and less selection, some colleagues will be less motivated to vote at all.

And we see the disadvantages of a personality vote, which clearly outweigh the advantage of a possible "popularity vote" - namely the danger that one or two decisions or topic choices could perhaps be influenced by being penalised for uncomfortable questions or topics at the next election. Apart from that, this would be a major disadvantage for all colleagues who are not so "present" or networked due to their nature or their way of working, but who can and want to do good and objective staff council work.

All of this could be used to form another list of objectives, which summarises that our main goal is to achieve MORE:

- MORE transparency

- MORE appreciation and fairness

- MORE involvement of all those affected by a decision

- MORE understanding for each other, which may require

• MORE knowledge about each other, which in turn requires
• MORE communication with each other is important.

We think this is more ambitious than it looks at a time when, under the pressure of tight budgets, increasing work intensification and ever higher demands, benchmarks, target achievement and efficiency calculations sometimes tempt us to neglect precisely these things because they can only show profits in the longer term - and sometimes these are not necessarily marked in euros and cents.