By Angelina Zhao and Alex Candon.
As the Students’ Elections ended yesterday, it is worth asking a simple question: who keeps DCUSU’s day-to-day democracy moving, and what does it cost them?
Beyond the five paid sabbatical officers, the Union relies on Part-Time Officers (PTOs): Faculty Reps, Clubs and Societies Officers, the Postgraduate Officer, Class Representative Council Chairperson, and Oifigeach na Gaeilge. These roles sit at the heart of representation. They are currently unpaid.
Across two recent surveys with a sample size of 362, nearly four in five respondents supported paying PTOs, with fewer than one in ten opposed.
Yet the same data revealed a visibility gap: dozens of students reported being unfamiliar with PTO roles or were unclear about their responsibilities. Representation is difficult to sustain if students do not know who represents them.
The lived experience behind the numbers is consistent. Robert Maloney, Engineering and Computing Faculty Rep (2024–25), describes the work as far beyond meetings: “It’s not just rocking up… It’s constant emails, student issues, and trying to represent hundreds (sometimes thousands) of students properly.”
Ninja Olivia Eichel, Clubs Officer points to the cumulative workload, “several meetings weekly” on top of ongoing emails and projects.
Sophie King, Societies Officer (2024–26), describes being “laughed at… and shut down” for raising pay. She links this directly to morale and recognition: “We aren’t listed on the websites at all… It’s very disheartening.”
Piyush Jain, Business School Faculty Rep, frames pay as an access issue, especially for international students. He believes compensation would let him treat the role “with the time and focus it requires, rather than fitting it around financial necessity.”
This matters because unpaid representation shapes who can participate. Survey findings show strong agreement that unpaid PTO roles are less accessible, and a significant proportion of students report that lack of pay discourages them from applying.
Institutional review reinforces that the issue is structural, not personal.
The Office of Student Life (OSL) Peer Review Group report from March 2025 notes that PTOs are not included in some decision-making “despite sitting on the executive,” and may not have the capacity to empower class reps at faculty/school level. It explicitly recommends considering a stipend for part-time officers to strengthen representation and community-building.
The issue is already under discussion internally. At a recent Class Representative Council meeting, it was confirmed that sabbatical officers had submitted a proposal to OSL senior management outlining a model for paid PTO roles beginning in 2026.
The proposal frames payment primarily as a response to cost-of-living pressures and proposes a structured hourly framework.
Several of the accessibility and governance concerns reflected in student feedback do not appear to be central to the proposal’s current framing. Survey findings and institutional review point not only to financial barriers, but also to issues of visibility, inclusion in decision-making, workload sustainability, and structural continuity.
The question is not simply whether PTOs should be compensated, but how representation is valued and sustained within the Union’s democratic structure.
Recent DCUSU Executive meeting minutes add a further dimension. It was noted that fewer students have put themselves forward for PTO positions in this year’s elections compared to the previous year. This follows growing interest in full-time paid sabbatical roles.
While many factors can shape electoral participation, the divergence invites reflection on how role structure, workload and remuneration may influence who chooses to run.
At the same meeting, it was also observed that the current SU budget contains capacity for expanded PTO-led initiatives, yet does not provide for their remuneration.
That distinction between funding for activity and funding for labour sharpens the underlying question about how representation is prioritised within existing resources.
The budget context raises questions of its own. The SU-specific budget for 2025–26 allocates over €168,000 to sabbatical wages, plus substantial funding for campaigns/events, and training, with no equivalent allocation for PTOs.
Meanwhile, the wider OSL budget lists wages and salaries as a single large line, without a public breakdown. Greater transparency on staffing and wage allocation would not magically create funding, but it would make conversations about resourcing PTO roles easier to model and debate honestly.
When DCU is placed beside other Irish unions, the same pressure points reappear. Lindiwe Mpofu, Postgraduate Research Officer at Trinity College Dublin’s Students’ Union calls PTOs “the cement of the Students’ Union”, arguing pay supports continuity and accountability.
Also in Trinity College, Amy Jennifer Kennedy, LGBT+ Rights Officer, describes a workload competing directly with college and paid work, stating they work “over twenty hours most weeks.”
At the University of Galway (CMLOG), RaisuL Sourav, Ethnic Minorities Officer, argues, “Our time shouldn’t depend on a postcode lottery.”
But not all former officers agree. Glen Scanlon, Humanities and Social Sciences Faculty Rep (DCUSU, 2022–23), argues, “I don’t think part-time officers should be paid because volunteering is the heart of what the SU is”.
The concern is that compensation could shift the culture from service toward employment. But the evidence presented, including survey data, lived experience, institutional review, and cross-union comparison, points to a narrower conclusion: pay is not a reward for enthusiasm.
It is a mechanism that determines who can participate, how sustainable the work is, and whether representation has continuity.
The question is not whether PTOs should be paid “like sabbaticals.” It is whether DCU’s student democracy should continue relying on essential labour being treated as free.