On November 6 at 12:01am, the York University community could experience its third strike (pun intended) in just over a decade. All three Unit Members represented by CUPE 3903, which include approximately 950 contract faculty, 1850 teaching assistants and 550 graduate members will be legally allowed to picket around the campus first thing Thursday morning.
The Union remains steadfast in its unrealistic demand of 30% wage increases and full tuition fee waiver (for a complete description of the terms see here). These outlandish demands couldn’t come at a more inopportune time.
The University’s Board of Governors just this past June called for a 2% budget cut in each year of the three year plan. Coupled with widespread effects of the global financial crisis, the financial situation of the university is less than prosperous.
So how does this impact Osgoode Hall Law School?
Unfortunately, like nearly every other program and faculty at York (with the exception of Schulich School of Business’s MBA program), Osgoode Hall will have to suspend classes.
Administration, faculty and student government are hurriedly brainstorming contingency plans in light of a protracted halt to law school classes. Although no line has been drawn, in the event of a lengthy strike, third year students could potentially be detrimentally impacted if they have to complete their studies well into the month of May; the period perennially allotted for the fulfillment and preparation of licensing requirements mandated by the Law Society of Upper Canada, including Bar Admissions.
Unlike the majority of my peers, I am in the unique position which allows me to be a member of CUPE 3903 as a teaching or graduate assistant. I enjoy full-time graduate status as a student of the joint LL.B and Masters of Environmental Studies program. And although I am currently unemployed, I have been a member of the Union.
Through my previous experience I have this to say
During my first full year as a graduate student, if you tally my entrance scholarship, GA position and external funding, I made well over $15,000 as a student of higher education (after paying for 3 semesters of tuition). I had great flexibility with my working hours and a health care plan that rivaled government employees. An additionally perk was that my position fostered networking and socializing with faculty and professors and looked purddy (sic) on my resume.
It had to be my most comfortable employment position and if you reduced it to an hourly wage my most financially friendly. I was more than grateful for the work, yet I accepted it for what it was, a source of internal funding.
Now for what really irks me
I am a supporter of unions (in most instances) and freedom of association, but in this instance 45,000 students are being used as a bargaining chip in the bad faith negotiation strategy of CUPE 3903. I make this claim with insider information coupled with the Union’s persistent refusal to enter into binding arbitration.
The support staff of York University is already the highest paid in the province yet they still feel it appropriate to use their Charter right of association to press for increased wages. Unions weren’t established to be used as a sword of these sorts; they were formulated to shield workers from managerial and corporate exploitation. Alternatively, they should not be allowed to ransack the careers of 45,000 students for their avaricious desires.
On a serendipitous conversation with a fellow graduate student and member of the Union, I asked: How come the other graduate students aren’t concerned about the interests of the majority of students? The response: they simply don’t care. Interesting that the very employees that are paid to teach have no consideration for their pupils and fellow peers.
They counter that they have broad support for student groups and organizations, yet I was never asked for my thoughts. Moreover, much of their student support is merely an instinctual and thoughtless show of student solidarity. When subjected to make up classes, the proposition of being held back a year, and inconvenience of rearranging substantial plans, many will likely cross the aisle after an intelligent and rational assessment of the Union’s demands.
Unlike the normal undergraduate student who anxiously entertains the idea of time off without any serious repercussions, law students are required to look beyond the school year and foresee the potential adverse effects to their legal careers as a result of the actions of this ‘militant union’.
A York U media release is your source for 3903’s demands? If you look here, you’ll see that the Union has lowered the demand in order to try to spark some movement on the part of the University. The University has yet to move. If you go to the third page, you’ll see the full tuition waiver has a similar status. Generally, it’s not a good idea to get your information regarding the status of bargaining from either side exclusively, as both have agendas driving what they will release.
Your claim that $15,000 per year was sufficient for you to live on is really not relevant. Many 3903 members, especially in Unit 2, are primary income earners and are asking for increased job security and wage increases in order to actually live in Toronto. Is it unreasonable to expect that an employer provides a decent wage and working conditions to employees (contract instructors) that it increasingly relies upon?
There is no bad faith on the part of the Union unless it is apparent that negotiations are being undertaken with no seriousness. The Union has been making changes to proposals at the bargaining table, as has the University. Crucial issues remain unresolved, but others have been dealt with. See, for example, here, which indicates that both sides are trying to make some sort of progress.
Furthermore, the “bargaining chip” line is not worth taking seriously. What would you have the Union do in lieu of a strike? The Union is already engaged in a work-to-rule campaign. What is the next step if not a strike? Or are university employees somehow not entitled to withdraw their labour? While it is true that a strike would impact on undergraduate students, it would also impact on graduate students and their ability to complete their programs on time, and thus move into their own professional endeavours. Why is that not worthy of consideration?
You state that the Union should enter into binding arbitration, but say nothing as to why. Why should a third party be given the authority to impose a contract on workers? If the idea is to stop students from being inconvenienced (and, for most students, extending the term is an inconvenience), then why aren’t you also requesting, as an alternate, that the University simply accede to the Union’s proposals? That would similarly solve the problem, wouldn’t it? In essence, binding arbitration is antithetical to collective bargaining. It should be a last resort when other avenues have been exhausted. As far as I know, the negotiations aren’t even being mediated as yet; why leap to arbitration before that?
The remainder of your post is generally abusive (“avaricious”, “ransack”, “sword”, etc. — evocative, but nothing more) rather than argumentative. You’re right that law students are potentially in a bad situation, and this is genuinely unfortunate, as is the situation of international students. I am quite perplexed, though, as to why the interests of graduate students should be traded off against the interests of law students in the way you seem to be advising. While I see that you are concerned about law students particularly, why is it exclusively graduate students’ fault what happens to them? Why should graduate students care about what happens to law students when law students, such as yourself, don’t seem to care about graduate students?
Thank you for your comment. I have been a frequent visitor of CUPE’s site, and have noted the document you cited, but since it provides no new numbers I don’t think it is appropriate to report on mere claims of a lowered demand without any concrete numbers. Even if taken to be true, this statement could mean that they amended their demand to 29.9%. The same principle applies for the point with respect to tuition reduction.
I never stated that $15,000 was sufficient, I simply noted how much income I made as a graduate student. My point was that the amount I received was substantial for 8 months as a student (as I didn’t include any summer funding, nor did I include bursaries) and therefore is relevant.
One problem with CUPE 3903 is that the interests of the non-graduate students who make up Unit 2 are distinct from graduate students who comprise Units 1 and 3. The graduate students make up more than half of the members of the Union and without their support this strike would not take place. With that in mind, I felt the need to detail my more than comfortable experience as a graduate student as the lowest paid member of Unit 3 (with the exception of research assistants).
Anchoring with a demand for a 30% increase is, in my view, bad faith bargaining. This wage increase is not feasible nor is it remotely realistic. It is understandable that in a negotiation an initial demand will be higher than what is actually expected, however, asking for half of that would more than adequately fulfill that objective. Further, having nearly 50,000 students’ academic year at stake, the Union should be a little more mindful with their outrageous demands.
“Is it unreasonable to expect that an employer provides a decent wage and working conditions to employees (contract instructors) that it increasingly relies upon?â€
I don’t know what you consider a decent wage, but they make more than double the poverty line if you tie it to hours worked. Further, nobody is preventing them from obtaining further work to supplement their income.
“Then why aren’t you also requesting, as an alternate, that the University simply accede to the Union’s proposals?â€
That would be absurd since union members themselves have admitted their proposals are unreasonable.
Finally, I am a graduate student and have their interests in mind. Unfortunately the interests of 45,000 other students trumps any outlandish demands for a wage increase for a unit that is already the highest paid in Ontario (if not Canada).
This is a timely piece with likely one of the most balanced perspectives on the issue (both a York student and a previous member of CUPE 3903).
I agree that the Union is employing bad faith bargaining techniques in order to have their demands met. Their website has been organizing picketing shifts and training, while they claim to still be willing to come to a ‘reasonable’ agreement with the York administration.
While reading through many of CUPE’s negotiation updates it is clear that the 50,000 York students are being used as a bargaining chip. Throughout their discussion it appears they are concerned mainly with the lockout of Union employees which would subsequently result in a ‘default’ disruption of academic studies of 50,000 York students.
As a socially aware student at Osgoode, I am appalled at the use of the term ‘poverty’ when describing the financial situation of CUPE 3903 members.
Last I checked, most students fall well below the poverty line while attending post-secondary institutions. As a law student, I truly wish that I had some internal funding in the form of being a research or teaching assistant to offset my large tuition fees. I would understand however, that a position of this kind is just that, a form of internal funding for my education. This is what one would logically conclude as I would only be able to attain a position of this kind by virtue of pursuing a professional degree.
Also, I don’t believe that much of CUPE 3903 works full-time hours at York. Even if these positions were considered ’employment’ in the traditional sense, can any one reasonably expect a part-time job to provide them with full time pay and benefits?
While flexing their bargaining unit muscle, CUPE 3903 should be aware of their social responsibility to the York student community as they are already turning the people they are meant to serve against them.
I am a third year student at Osgoode and have been keeping a close watch on the CUPE 3903 v. York University saga. I will not comment on the merits of a strike or the positions advocated by each party. I would however like to respond to certain statements made by ADHR in the post above.
Bargaining Chip
ADHR stated “Furthermore, the “bargaining chip†line is not worth taking seriously. What would you have the Union do in lieu of a strike? The Union is already engaged in a work-to-rule campaign. What is the next step if not a strike? Or are university employees somehow not entitled to withdraw their labour?â€
My friend, I completely support the right of university employees to withdraw their labour. No one denies the important role that you play in the lives of many undergraduate students. It is doubtful that the university would be able to continue its undergraduate programs with academic integrity if CUPE 3903 members strike, since 60% of teaching at the undergraduate level is done by TAs. HOWEVER, withdrawal of your labour is the least invasive means of making your point. I think preventing students from entering the university by picketing is a sign of weakness on your part. You are implying “We do not have much faith in our contribution to undergraduate programs. We do not have faith that these programs will fail without us. Therefore, let’s stop students from even finding out how important we are.†In addition, you are demonstrating that you do not have much faith in student support. Instead of keeping the faith, you would rather take away the choice from students – the choice being “attend school/ use school facilities†v. “support CUPE 3903â€.
Professional Endeavours
ADHR further said “While it is true that a strike would impact on undergraduate students, it would also impact on graduate students and their ability to complete their programs on time, and thus move into their own professional endeavours. Why is that not worthy of consideration?â€
The plight of graduate students is certainly worthy of consideration. All this however must be balanced against a very unique situation that law students are in. We CANNOT write the bar exam in June if we do not graduate. My contract for articling next August states that I must pass the bar exam to begin articling. A prolonged strike at York University may lead to me failing to write the bar exam, losing my articling position, and delaying my career by a year or more.
Trading interests of Graduate Students against Law Students
ADHR said “I am quite perplexed, though, as to why the interests of graduate students should be traded off against the interests of law students in the way you seem to be advising. While I see that you are concerned about law students particularly, why is it exclusively graduate students’ fault what happens to them? Why should graduate students care about what happens to law students when law students, such as yourself, don’t seem to care about graduate students?â€
Law students do care about gradate students. We know how expensive school can be. There are law students in the joint MES and MBA programs that are members of CUPE 3903. We support the right of CUPE 3903 to strike. What irks most of us is being held hostage by such a strike.
In summary, strike all you want. Just don’t impede our careers.
Daniel,
It’s irrelevant what the concrete number is. The fact is that if the number is lowered, then it’s not 30% any more. Which means the university is simply lying. And they know it. 30% is no longer the demand, even if it is 29.9%. FWIW, I tend to hope it is 29.9%, as the University’s offer doesn’t even keep pace with projected inflation and cost-of-living changes; 3903 members would be losing money on accepting the University’s offer, which makes it obviously ridiculous.
I concede that Unit 2 has separate interests from Unit 1 and 3 (indeed, I’m not sure why they’re even in the same union). That said, though, Unit 2’s also voted in a majority in favour of the strike. So, your contention that the strike is only going ahead at the behest of graduate students is false.
Unfortunately, you have still failed to establish your claim as to bad faith bargaining (if there was legitimacy to it, I would expect that the University would have officially complained to the Ontario LRB, which they have not). A 30% increase was the initial offer. This was rejected, countered with 2, 2, and 2.5, IIRC. This is a clearly absurd offer, as noted above, but so was 30%. The Union altered its offer and, to date, has not received a counter-offer. That’s how bargaining works: one side makes a demand that’s outside reality (in terms of what can be achieved), the other makes a demand that’s outside reality (in terms of what will be accepted), and they work towards the middle. If the University won’t counter-offer, what exactly is the Union supposed to do? If the University won’t counter-offer, then exactly who is not trying to reach a negotiated settlement and provoke a strike?
Incidentally, the amount of money required to cover a 30% increase for all 3903 members is less than the contractually mandated salary increases for the YU President and senior administration. If economic times are so tough, wouldn’t it make sense to divert funds from upper level administration (through a voluntary salary freeze), who are already extremely well-paid, in favour of those who are delivering services directly to students? Or at least providing across the board cuts and freezes? Instead, the University is trying to make its budget lines by holding down compensation for those who do the day-to-day work; not only TAs and contract instructors, but also support staff, including janitors. (Seriously, what kind of multi-million dollar organization tries to meet a tighter budget by making janitors take an effective pay cut?)
Your claim that 3903 members make double the poverty line is contingent on calculating an hourly wage; if you consider it a salary, then it is below the poverty line. So, it’s prejudicial to assume the hourly comparison. It’s also likely false, as overwork is a regular problem for TAs. Furthermore, the hourly wage rate is deeply misleading because, contrary to your assertion, most graduate students cannot get further work to supplement their income as they are trying to complete coursework and dissertations, and develop publications in order to further their professional careers. Your argument would be equivalent to arguing that student aid should not be improved for undergraduates because they can go and work full-time at McDonald’s in order to pay their tuition. Clearly, that misses the point of student aid; similarly, your argument misses the point of employment as a TA and GA.
The interests of 45,000 students — and I’m not entirely sure where you got that number, as it seems to include all students, not just undergrads — do not trump “outlandish demands” (a claim you still have not proven). The idea that the majority interests justify trampling the interests of a significant minority is profoundly and obviously unjust. I do not see, in addition, where union members admit their proposals are “unreasonable”. They are probably unachievable, but that’s a different point. It is also irrelevant that York TAs, etc. are amongst the most well-paid in Canada as the job is generally underpaid.
Osgoode2L,
Now it’s 50,000 students? Do I hear 100,000?
You clearly do not understand how unions prepare following a strike vote. I’ve been through the preparation with 2278 (many years ago) and 3903 (the last time the contract came up). It is standard practice to organize for a strike in case one becomes necessary. Similarly, I’m sure you will find that the university administration is preparing for the possibility of a strike, including reorganizing exame schedules and so on. You also don’t seem to understand what “bad faith bargaining” actually is; see above for an explanation.
The salaries of 3903 members put them below the poverty line. Period. This is a fact. You don’t have to like that fact, but to call the claim “appalling” is bizarre. Why is stating the truth appalling? The truth may be appalling — I find it appalling — but stating it?
Your argument is also incoherent. On the one hand, you argue that pay to 3903 members is not work but funding. On the other hand, you argue that 3903 members work part-time and should not receive full-time pay. This is one of the most frustrating aspects of attempting to pursue graduate education in Canada. Either funding is there to provide for the ability to study full-time — in which case it must be adequate — or funding is there as a part-time job — in which case, it is quite reasonable to demand increased compensation through collective bargaining, strike activity, etc, as with any job. It can’t both be funding — in which case using employment-based methods like strikes to increase compensation is not justified — and also a job — in which case it does not have to be adequate to meet the needs of students. One or the other.
I’m perplexed as to your claim that 3903 has a “social responsibility” to the student community. Surely the responsibility to the community lies with those who are directly contracted with the students — the university. I also find it interesting that you comment on the social responsibility of the union members to the students, but say nothing about any responsibility students may have to union members. (Such as, not crossing picket lines.)
Oz-3L,
I don’t think you understand how pickets work. Pickets don’t prevent anyone from doing anything. If you want to cross a picket line, go ahead. Legally, no one can do more than yell at you. If they do more, it’s assault. Pickets are a visible demonstration of labour unrest; that’s their purpose: to make clear that a labour dispute is ongoing. That said, the deans of all faculties except Schulich (and at least one other I can’t recall — health sciences, maybe?) have agreed that if there is a labour disruption (a memo went around to the departmental list-servs; I’m not sure if it’s available generally), then all academic activities will be suspended. So, if you want to blame someone for not giving students the option of attending classes during a labour disruption, then blame the deans.
I concede the point about law students; I already did in my previous comment. However, you must also concede that graduate students, many of whom are looking to finish in order to attain academic positions, are in a similar time-crunch. In my field, philosophy, for example, the vast and overwhelming number of positions are made available in the spring. When graduating at other times of the year it is theoretically possible that there are jobs available, but practically there are very, very few. This would lead to a guaranteed semester or more of contract teaching. It’s well-known that new PhDs have an expiry date of about three years, so losing a semester is a significant mark against the professional aspirations of academics. Law students have the option of working elsewhere and then taking the bar in a year; it’s a problem, but not career suicide. Academics who lose a semester of job-hunting may end up doomed to perennial contract teaching.
I generally object to the claim that anyone is being “held hostage” by 3903 members. Again, what else are 3903 members supposed to do? If they withdraw labour, the deans have indicated that academic activities will be suspended. The University is not responding, as yet, to the most recent counter-offers from the Union. Who is really holding who hostage here? 3903 has no power to make classes go on during a labour disruption, and no power to make the University bargain seriously.
Thanks for your response ADHR.
Perhaps I am misinformed about how pickets work. Are you saying that when CUPE 3903 pickets (if a strike occurs) students, faculty, and staff will be free to come and go as they please? If so, then I very much applaud you and CUPE 3903. If not, that is, if traffic flow to and from York University is prohibited or delayed by pickets then I revert to my earlier position and understanding about how pickets work.
I concede that the careers of graduate students wishing to obtain employment are also inhibited by a prolonged strike. However, what you suggest is not an option – “Law students have the option of working elsewhere and then taking the bar in a year; it’s a problem, but not career suicide.†It is not about money or a job to law graduates. It’s about fulfilling STRICT licensing requirements, applicable in all jurisdictions in Canada to become a lawyer. We cannot do this without writing the bar exam and articling for 10 months!
With respect to my “holding hostage†remark – I will wholeheartedly apologize if you and CUPE 3903 confirm that traffic flow to and from York University will not be impeded. The primary reason why the Deans have suspended classes if a strike occurs (the email you speak of was widely distributed at Osgoode) is because of the fear that students, faculty and staff will not be able to commute through picket lines.
Once again, thank you for your comments.
My point with distinguishing between the various units was that there would be less interests involved and a better opportunity for a resolution. Further, these “outlandish” demands of unit 1 and 3 members make it nearly impossible to come to an agreement. Contract faculty may have voted in the majority, but they are the only group with demands that (may) need to be addressed; something that may be possible without the interjection of graduate students’ demands for more money.
You still have not convinced me that it is appropriate to accept, without numbers, CUPE’s claim that they reduced their initial demands from a vague statement saying so.
I also don’t see how you can compare an offer of 2, 2, and 2.5, which is at most 1% off the higher end for a raise for the nature of this industry, with a demand for 30%. My definition of bad faith is that an absurd demand like that is clearly out of the ballpark and not conducive to cooperative bargaining.
Assumingly, we will never agree on what is a decent wage, but as a past GA I can say that the university goes out of their way to create jobs simply to fund the students. Jobs that are not necessary. As a TA, getting paid nearly $15,000 for working 10 hours a week is more than generous. That is the job, 10 hours for a fixed compensation; comparing it salary wise to people under the poverty belt is insensitive and unrealistic. Especially with benefits that last 4 months after the position has ended. You forget to include the potential to claim for over-time if these students are, as you say, “overworked”.
By the way, I have no problem working outside of the university while maintaining a GA position. Especially since it is a form of internal funding and not a regular term of employment
I dont see why ANYONE–particularly folks whose wages are paid for by taxpayers and students–should be demanding new money in a time when the provinces economy is contracting, or on the verge of contracting.
Oz-3L,
I didn’t say “free to come and go as they please”. Please don’t put words in my mouth. Traffic flow will be disrupted by the presence of people on major routes into campus. However, anyone who wants to cross and is bound and determined to do it will not be physically stopped (and if they are, this is an illegal action). You will probably have great difficulty getting a car through the lines (it’s not impossible, but you will be impeded), but on foot you can cross picket lines fairly simply. When I picketed at UBC several years back, we were specifically instructed to let people through — for doing otherwise was potentially putting ourselves at risk — but to reprimand them for doing so.
I should also point out that, per their contracts, GO, TTC, YRT and VIVA drivers will probably not cross lines. If you’re on transit, you will be walking. Again, that’s not 3903’s choice. And I still don’t follow how you’re being “held hostage” if traffic flow is “impeded”. By that reasoning, the construction of the Ontario Archives is holding everyone hostage right now.
I understood the point about law graduates and that you were talking about licensing requirements. As I see it, what we’re talking about is a delay in fulfilling requirements. The requirements are not impossible to fulfill, but will be deferred. If that understanding is wrong, enlighten me.
Daniel,
I’m not persuaded that distinguishing the units would lead to a faster resolution. It might lead to worse problems as the various locals would tend to ally together in order to apply greater pressure to the University — in effect, acting as one local.
It’s simply prejudicial to claim that graduate students have no reasonable claim to more money. You may disagree with the 30% figure, but that’s a long way from establishing that only contract faculty have legitimate grievances.
Incidentally, you consider this a vague statement? “The union has amended this proposal to lower the initial demand”. It’s imprecise, true, but it says, point blank, that the demand has been lowered.
When it comes to GAships, they exist because the university refuses to provide funding without getting some sort of work out of it. These “useless” jobs could be eliminated in favour of a partial tuition waiver, something the university consistently refuses to take seriously.
Generally, your replies are becoming increasingly disengaged from the arguments I am making. I have said already why I hold 2, 2, 2.5 to be an offer that is not serious. The minimum to offer has no relation to the “industry”, however defined, but to at least keep real-dollar pay at the level it currently is. Anything else is a de facto pay cut. You insist again on citing the hourly wage rate, and ignore my arguments against this as a metric. I have also already addressed the bizarre tactic (preferred by university administrators) which treats TA, GA, etc. work as funding or as employment, whichever is convenient to their interests. Finally, as I have said, most students (your example, in my experience, is exceptional, likely because your tasks as a GA were minimal, and your tasks as a law and master’s student differ from those of a doctoral student) need to take the time when they are not grading, running tutorials, etc. to work on papers, travel to conferences, take courses and prepare dissertations. You are not engaging with any of these arguments.
KC,
Really? So do you support a salary freeze for university administrators across the province?
Do you actually think that the university’s only sources of funding come from taxpayers and students?
And isn’t that just a convenient excuse for reducing people’s pay? If it’s not the economy, there’d be some other broad social condition which would be trotted out to justify beating up on union members.
“Really? So do you support a salary freeze for university administrators across the province?”
Absolutely. Public sector pay should be roughly tied to economic growth. They shouldnt be taking a bigger chunk of the pie while the pie is shrinking.
“Do you actually think that the university’s only sources of funding come from taxpayers and students?”
No. But those are two of the largest sources.
“And isn’t that just a convenient excuse for reducing people’s pay?”
Its not an “excuse”, its a reason. There is less money to go around and these folks are demanding MORE? How does that make any sense? How is it fair for students and taxpayers to pay higher tuition and taxes respectively when their hours are being cut, they’re getting laid off and their own wages are stagnant?
“If it’s not the economy, there’d be some other broad social condition which would be trotted out to justify beating up on union members.”
None of those are convincing as a contracting economy.
ADHR:
– Thank you clarifying how disruptive CUPE 3903 pickets will be
– Thank you for explaining why the Deans were forced by CUPE 3903 into suspending classes if a strike occurs
– Most especially, thank you for kidnapping my career, holding it hostage and promising to exchange it in return for your demands
ADHR,
If your arguments are so rational and apparent, why is your position not receiving any support?
The 50,000 number comes directly from the CUPE 3903 website. Here’s the link in case you wanted to take a look: http://www.cupe3903.tao.ca/
My point on the poverty argument is simply this:
Pursuing a graduate degree is a choice that many would consider a privilege. One must sacrifice their time and finances for such an undertaking.
This likely explains why some undergraduate students are unable to pursue further studies; it simply is not affordable.
This is a grim reality, however, universities do attempt to cushion the financial blow through the availability of internal funding in the form of stipends, bursaries and teaching positions.
It’s important to keep this idea in perspective. The pursuit of one’s studies cannot be held accountable for placing one in poverty. I appreciate the fact that many graduate and Phd students would be unable to manage external employment during their studies but this gives them no reason to expect the income they receive to cover all of their living expenses. Student lines of credit and other funding are widely available to bridge the gap during one’s studies.
It is quite insensitive for a member of CUPE 3903 to compare themselves with those who work full time and still fall below the poverty line. While the financial situation of CUPE 3903 members is mostly one of a temporary nature (for TAs, GAs & RAs – it is only during their studies), poverty in Ontario is considered to be something quite different. I think using a contextual approach, even you would agree that the employment conditions of 3903 are not truly reflective of poverty in this province.
If you think this perspective is still bizarre, I urge you to inform yourself of the real and pressing poverty issues that Ontario faces.
The Ontario Coalition Against Poverty is a good place to start: http://www.ocap.ca/
They discuss how the recent economic crisis will impact the truly impoverished, and society in general. Hopefully CUPE 3903 will reconsider their stance in light of the crisis before they return to the bargaining table.
I am hoping that CUPE 3903 is pulling a bluff. In other words, they will either strike at some other time (during Christmas Holidays), or will settle with York’s current offer(2% annual increase for two years and 2.25% for the third year).
Unfortunately, though, it looks like both sides have an axe to grind.
If you look at York’s media release on October 29, it states that CUPE 3903 is still demanding a 30% increase, when this is clearly not the case. On the other hand, CUPE itself started organizing strike training right in the middle of negotiations.
Even so, this is not half as bad as the lack of representation for law students at Osgoode. Those of us who want to continue classes should have the option to do so in an alternate location (of course assuming the professor involved wants to participate).
What really got my attention was when Excalibur published an article on October 29, stating that the York Federation of Students supported CUPE 3903. I was never consulted, no sort of vote or poll was conducted. Therefore, how does Hamid Osman lend his support? It was certainly not based my vote or that of my peers at Osgoode Hall. Indeed, it seems we have an effective dictatorship of the minority (graduate students) over the multitudes of undergraduates at York University. With this in mind, there is no way I can support CUPE 3903.
I just want to ask: how likely do you think there will be a strike?
Caro,
From what I gather, the strike may not be as certain as was once thought. The Union has reduced their wage demands to approximately 7% for the first year (as I have been told) but it doesn’t appear that the University is going to accept that; to be clear, there are many more issues than simply wages. Perhaps CUPE members could be more precise with the current demands.
The Union will be voting tomorrow, and although there will certainly be no agreement on a new contract, I have heard that some of the members are reconsidering the strike and the vote will be very narrow. With that said, I would say that it is still more than likely, but not certain, that there will be a strike.
Here is the latest media release from the university http://www.yorku.ca/mediar/archive/Release.asp?Release=1539.
It discusses the issue of wages in comparison to the poverty line.
Greed is what is going to end up costing the TAs their job. They cannot continue to use the careers and interests of many to obtain something that no other school offers to their contract TA employees.
TAs are students and a TA is a student job not a full time professional position. Quoting the poverty line is a ridiculous argument.
TAs are not being exploited in any way. The union is being used to squeeze more and more benefits out of the system at the expense of the students.
Another thing to note, is that the YFS for some obscure reason decided to endorse this strike. They are not looking after the best interests of the student population. They are acting in the name of students, but not for students. Someone should call them out in public for their hypocritical actions and very possibly wrongly influenced decisions. There is no way in hell that any York Student, if they actually knew whats going on, would be pleased with them.
YFS, not unlike CFS, is so ideological it should be no surprise that it would support the union regardless of how objectively unreasonable its demands are.
URGENT NEED FOR NEW UNION!!!
YOU MAY NOT BE AWARE, but I googled “part-time jobs” and there are SEVERAL nefarious institutions in Canada (besides York) that have been operating under a dark cloak and are currently hiring students to work on a part-time basis too! These institutions include
1) Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, and;
2)Government of Prince Edward Island.
Shame on you Prince Edward Island!!
These terrible money-grabbing businesses carelessly exploit our students because “payment” (as they’d like to call it) is based on derisory capitalist principles such as “hourly wage” and “job performance” which has nothing to do with the fact that everybody has to spend THEIR OWN MONEY to live somewhere and eat food EVERY SINGLE DAY – no exceptions!
These evil right-wing organizations pay part-time employees based on principle and not fact, and the fact is, people spend money whether they have it or not, so they might as well have it!
This insulting part-time payment scheme is leading to a scary lack of full-time pay for part-time workers, and it’s only a slipper slope away from leading to a world where no one gets paid at all – no matter how little work they do!
These institutions must be stopped before they rob any more students of the opportunity to earn any money at all. No one should be forced into a situation where they have to depend on their education to lead to money later instead of having it all right now.
Join me in fighting this crusade!
-J.S.
Okay, i don’t know all the details about the strike, and i haven’t seen information from just one side but here’s the big picture.
The union is hoping to us the students as a bargaining chip, no doubt, it only makes sense. enough people angry with the school should “resolve” this issue. However, the union is asking for a pay increase and job security in an economy that can offer neither. York will not give anyone of these people job security because if they need to make layoffs to stay afloat, that’s just business. Lets face it, yes these union members are people that have lives that need to be supported, but a business can’t just do that or there would be no economic issues. We are a recession, on the verge of a depression, YOU WONT GET ANYTHING FROM A BUSINESS!
More importantly, the school is not getting some new source of income, schools across North America are having issues with money, and the union wants increased wages. Well, here’s what you can assume, york may increase wages, but will not offer job security. Since they have no new funds to supply this increase, people in the union will be losing their jobs.
Increase in paid + no new income = less people you can pay = lose of work
Job security + increase in pay = York bust
York isn’t about to do something so stupid as give job security in this market, so if there’s a pay increase, union members will lose work. To think that the union actually believes they can get anything in the current state of things brings me to one of two conclusion. They think York is stupid, or they are stupid.
To make the students suffer for this is just down right disgusting, despicable and vile. Stopping 40,000+ people from getting an education so the union can have more in a time where it can’t be offered is just inhuman.
You can disagree with me if you like, however there is nothing that can redeem the members of this union in my eyes. You disgust me, this is a reason people think unions have too much power and examples like this lead me to believe it as well.
And as response to those who would say that the union members have a right to their jobs and their pay, i say to you, open your eyes…if a job market isn’t good, you can’t guarantee anything. All their doing is ensuring that many peoples’ futures are in jeopardy if not lost by this.
You want to fix this problem, don’t make others suffer for it, fix the problem, which is the economy.
sorry that this turned into a rant from a small little statement. The thought of what is going on makes me sick.
To ALL People who wished to STRIKE
The problems that you are having should be solved by yourself.
Creating another problem for the York University students will not help.
Your voice of concerns will only show the cruel of your actions to create this strike.
Your strike will not help your wants to come true.
It will only creates a shadow of our school.
A shadow that downgraded our school.
A shadow that shade YorkU students from white to black.
Your decisions of the strike had caused us to hate you so much.
Apologist for giving the birth of this strike, will still allows the shadows to be cleared from our minds
Your problem will only be solved by yourself and the other TAs in another way
We are not your targets and we are not your hostages
Please release us to the freedom of studies in York University
To John C.
I do agree that in this economic time to ask for more of anything seems selfish, greedy, and as you would put it, “inhumane”. To be honest, I would add apathetic and plain illogical. As with anything in life, unions definitely have their problems, however it is important to know that not all members of CUPE 3903 are as crazed and militant as some would make them out to be.
This sucks for everyone, including the students (undergraduate, graduate and professional), the professors, the vendors on campus, and just about anyone who deals with York in general.
It is very easy to point fingers. The union for having unreasonable demands. York for not providing long time faculty a full time position. I could go on, but I digress.
The point is this: the university needs the union to be at work in order to function properly and I don’t believe wage increases are going to do the trick. Free up more full-time positions, or put a clause into the contracts of part-time faculty enabling them to teach a course for an extended amount of time without them being placed into YUFA.
The Toronto Star just reported today that due to sharply falling energy costs the cost of living (inflation) has dropped a percentage point or greater, nationally, provincially and in Toronto.
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/541018
So will the Union now significantly lower their demands, at the very least wage demands?
Let’s just hope for the Union members’ sake that the cost of living doesn’t drop any lower or perhaps return to the rate 15 years ago or they might be required to pay back the university a percentage of salary based on this salary tied to inflation rate rationale.