The post "Strike-Breaking (by continuing to work as a TA/RA) - FAQ" used to contain the following paragraph:

(Note: Members who chose to continue their TA/RA work and receive employer pay while their union is on strike are traditionally called scabs. This derogatory term is used because these members actions greatly hamper the efforts of the union by eleviating pressure placed on the employer during a labour disruption. The choice to continue work is looked upon as a distructive action towards the union and viewed as a selfish act. These few members who work to break their own union’s strike will also gain all the benefits after a new CA is signed – and for this reason scabbing is considered wrong. Cupe 3906 will identify which members have chosen to scab. This identifiaction proicess is simple, as members who scab will pay dues when the strike supporting members will not. It is possible for a union to take legal action against these members who choose to scab. Scabbing is a choice, but a choice that is looked upon in a very negative and in very serious manor by the union.

I tried to leave on comment noting that this had been removed and asking if it was because the threat of legal action against strike-breakers by CUPE was inaccurate, but this comment is perpetually in a state of "moderation" and thus not being posted. After asking around, apparently it's not uncommon for comments like this, or those that are perceived to be anti-CUPE, to simply not appear on the blog.

So, I decided to take my concerns to an open forum.

I think we should identify those who do picket. Rotten tomatoes launchers anyone?

Doesn't surprise me at all. Just another reason why I dislike unions so much...

There's nothing the union can do about people who cross the picket line, so if you're planning on crossing, please don't let this misleading information deter you.

We need right-to-work legislation.

Originally Posted by hummeld

The post "Strike-Breaking (by continuing to work as a TA/RA) - FAQ" used to contain the following paragraph:

(Note: Members who chose to continue their TA/RA work and receive employer pay while their union is on strike are traditionally called scabs. This derogatory term is used because these members actions greatly hamper the efforts of the union by eleviating pressure placed on the employer during a labour disruption. The choice to continue work is looked upon as a distructive action towards the union and viewed as a selfish act. These few members who work to break their own union’s strike will also gain all the benefits after a new CA is signed – and for this reason scabbing is considered wrong. Cupe 3906 will identify which members have chosen to scab. This identifiaction proicess is simple, as members who scab will pay dues when the strike supporting members will not. It is possible for a union to take legal action against these members who choose to scab. Scabbing is a choice, but a choice that is looked upon in a very negative and in very serious manor by the union.

I tried to leave on comment noting that this had been removed and asking if it was because the threat of legal action against strike-breakers by CUPE was inaccurate, but this comment is perpetually in a state of "moderation" and thus not being posted. After asking around, apparently it's not uncommon for comments like this, or those that are perceived to be anti-CUPE, to simply not appear on the blog.

So, I decided to take my concerns to an open forum.

It hasn't been removed. I just have a long list of comments to get through. Yours is next in the cue.

I find it amusing that there are so many spelling errors

Originally Posted by dsahota

It hasn't been removed. I just have a long list of comments to get through. Yours is next in the cue.

How convenient.

Originally Posted by dsahota

It hasn't been removed. I just have a long list of comments to get through. Yours is next in the cue.

Certainly an uncanny coincidence! I feel that the more important thing is an answer to my original question.

I just posted this on the blog. Please understand we're incredibly busy both at the table and trying to organize to avert a strike. I didn't write the FAQ so I had to talk to the people who had written the FAQ and made the changes before I posted.

Here's the response on the blog:
This is more an executive matter than a bargaining team matter, so I’ll try to do my best to respond. Under the CUPE constitution (and indeed most Union constitutions), it is possible to pursue action to penalize members in the bargaining unit who do choose to scab. The reason why this exists is because those members who scab gain all the benefits of a new collective agreement without having to suffer like all of the members who do support the strike.

We strongly encourage members who do not want to picket to withdraw their labour, rather than scabbing. If a TA strike does occur, it is the accepted practise in the academic sector for unions to negotiate a return to work protocol which includes payment of at least 90% of the wages being paid out to employees. Even at York, where the strike lasted 3 months, the members who returned to work after the strike received at least 90% of their regular guaranteed pay, on top of strike pay if they agreed to picket.

Since this whole situation is purely a hypothetical and no decision has been made on doing anything, the statement you mention has been removed. Just to re-state the position, it is possible under the constitution, but the executive and membership haven’t made any decision on this at the moment and the bargaining team certainly hopes we don’t ever have to.

What if you don't want to be a member or have any part of the union... oh wait... we don't have a choice.

Don't talk about being "fair". Forcing people to be union members is unfair.

We need right-to-work legislation.

Originally Posted by dsahota

Under the CUPE constitution (and indeed most Union constitutions), it is possible to pursue action to penalize members in the bargaining unit who do choose to scab.

I was under the impression that this was struck down recently by the Supreme Court.

http://www.labourwatch.com/fines/fines.php

Out of curiosity, what would legal action against the TAs who continue to work constitute? Just fines?

Originally Posted by kleung

I was under the impression that this was struck down recently by the Supreme Court.

http://www.labourwatch.com/fines/fines.php

Thanks, you got to it first!

I completely agree. The union constitution can say whatever it wants... it doesn't mean a thing.

There's nothing the union can do about people who choose to cross the line and work.

Thanks for your speedy reply Derek. Understand that I'd now rather have this conversation on this forum rather than the bargaining blog since new comments on the blog can undergo lengthy periods of moderation before posting.

When I first saw this paragraph I did indeed look at the relevant sections of the CUPE constitution to understand the extent of the punitive action. I found that in addition to suspension or prohibition from membership or holding office, there was also the threat of fines. After some more research I found that there was recent Supreme Court ruling that unions could not force members to pay fines enforced because of strike-breaking.

Understand that with the above (subsequently removed) threat of legal action, the assertions that the union will determine if you break the strike even if your department has a policy of not releasing the names of strike-breakers, and the language in the CUPE picket manual encouraging picketers to take the pictures of suspected strike-breakers crossing the line, that there are people out there that may choose to not break the strike because they fear reprisal from the union, not because they agree.

Frankly, things like this are making me uncomfortable as well.

Originally Posted by kleung

I was under the impression that this was struck down recently by the Supreme Court.

http://www.labourwatch.com/fines/fines.php

I am aware of those decisions, but to the best of my knowledge there is still lots of grey area. I'm not a lawyer, but at the moment this is a non-issue as we're not going down that path. If the situation changes in the future and the membership decides to pursue the issue somehow, then we'd have to deal with all the legal junk then.

If you'd like a more informed opinion about the legal aspects, I can ask our National Representative as he has more knowledge than I. He's out of the room at the moment but will be back soon.

In the CUPE picketer manual, in addition to encouraging picketers to take pictures of strike-breakers, it encourages them to 'post these pictures on a page of the local's web site or in the strike bulletin' and to 'try to secure the name and address' of the strike breaker. This manual was handed out at the CUPE meeting.

So tell me, how is this OK? What are you going to do? Come to my apartment and terrorize my personal life? If it were up to me, CUPE 3906 would be disbanded and charged with extortion. I did not sign up for this union, I vehemently disagree with it, and cannot leave the union.

CUPE's tactics of intimidation and misinformation makes me fuming mad. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves. And stop acting like you care about the undergrads. If you care about the undergrads, you wouldn't jeopardize their education by striking. This is why I chose to break the strike. Derek, do you want a picture of me so you can have your goons terrorize me? Let me know and I'll e-mail you a pic.