Originally Posted by hummeld

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.

A couple of things, the section in the picket manual is from CUPE National and makes a lot more sense in industrial settings. In the academic setting, we actually say our members can cross the picket lines so taking pictures of people crossing is somewhat preposterous.

That being said, if we go on strike it will be quite apparent who is scabbing through the various information we get from the University Administration. How exactly that gets dealt with is really up to the membership with input from the executive. Its certainly outside the scope of the bargaining team to make a call on that.

Originally Posted by dsahota

A couple of things, the section in the picket manual is from CUPE National and makes a lot more sense in industrial settings. In the academic setting, we actually say our members can cross the picket lines so taking pictures of people crossing is somewhat preposterous.

That being said, if we go on strike it will be quite apparent who is scabbing through the various information we get from the University Administration. How exactly that gets dealt with is really up to the membership with input from the executive. Its certainly outside the scope of the bargaining team to make a call on that.

So why would you hand out a manual that tells people to do the exact opposite? Was this just a lapse in judgement? Or is this a message to the membership to scare strike-breakers?

Originally Posted by dsahota

That being said, if we go on strike it will be quite apparent who is scabbing through the various information we get from the University Administration. How exactly that gets dealt with is really up to the membership with input from the executive. Its certainly outside the scope of the bargaining team to make a call on that.

that sounds like a threat.

I don't need to be "dealt with" for doing my job. I am an undergrad TA for a course in which students spend ONE hour a week in lecture and FIVE hours in labs and tutorials. If this strike occurs, you are robbing them of 5/6 of their course and of the basic foundations which they require in similar upper year courses.

This is unacceptable.

It's nice to see the dark side of unions finally being exposed here. It took long enough...

I wish I was a TA right now so I could be one of the people who gets to cross the line.

Originally Posted by nila*

that sounds like a threat.

I don't need to be "dealt with" for doing my job. I am an undergrad TA for a course in which students spend ONE hour a week in lecture and FIVE hours in labs and tutorials. If this strike occurs, you are robbing them of 5/6 of their course and of the basic foundations which they require in similar upper year courses.

This is unacceptable.

Its not meant to be a threat, but people should be aware the membership has the power to institute various measures through the constitution.

There will be an impact on students if we do have to go on strike. Its up to the university to sort out how they meet those learning outcomes for the course once a strike is over. I think we would all expect that labs and tutorials would be made up through some sort of modified semester. It would be an inconvenience for students, but McMaster has a responsibility to provide the education students and taxpayers are paying for. If students are "robb[ed]" of their education, it will be because McMaster refused to find a solution before or after a strike, not because we choose to withdraw our labour.

One of the problems with scabbing is that it tends to prolong strikes my reducing the impact and pressure on the employer to find a solution. The best thing you can do to try and avert a strike and make all of these worries a moot point is to send a message to the McMaster Administration to get to the bargaining table. For the record, they still haven't responded to us or said anything to us yet today and we've been waiting for HOURS. Here's the link where you can send a message:
http://cupe.ca/takeAction.php?action...actionID= 191

Originally Posted by dsahota

Its not meant to be a threat, but people should be aware the membership has the power to institute various measures through the constitution.

I hope the membership is smart enough not to persecute their own members for "thought-crimes" and differences of opinion.

Originally Posted by dsahota

If students are "robb[ed]" of their education, it will be because McMaster refused to find a solution before or after a strike, not because we choose to withdraw our labour.

Says the union. I beg to differ.

PS: Your constiution holds no power over people who don't want to be members. I hope that this strike does result in legal action, because it's far more likely that a ruling would favour the strike breaker over the union (since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees our freedom from association).

Originally Posted by dsahota

One of the problems with scabbing is that it tends to prolong strikes my reducing the impact and pressure on the employer to find a solution. The best thing you can do to try and avert a strike and make all of these worries a moot point is to send a message to the McMaster Administration to get to the bargaining table. For the record, they still haven't responded to us or said anything to us yet today and we've been waiting for HOURS. Here's the link where you can send a message:
http://cupe.ca/takeAction.php?action...actionID= 191

There's something I'm not clear about with this argument. If there were sufficient strike-breakers to alleviate pressure on the employer during strike action, then wouldn't the union have to consider that their own membership is not sufficiently supportive of this action? This would make more sense to me than the union blaming the strike-breakers for prolonging the strike.

This is total crap.

Clearly some TAs don't agree with the Union and don't wish to strike and feel they have a responsibility to continue teaching their students despite what the Union they are FORCED to be a part of wants to do.

Calling them scabs and threatening legal action against them is beyond wrong.

Stupid CUPE.

We can make so many pro-scab posters for our counter protest!!

"CUPE PERSECUTES STUDENTS WHO WANT TO HELP EACH OTHER!!!"

ITT: People who know nothing about unions.

Originally Posted by FireDragoonX

ITT: People who know nothing about unions.

I disagree. Everyone in this thread has shown to know quite a bit about how unions work.

There used to be legislation in Ontario concerning "scabs." The NDP passed a bill saying it was illegal but once the conservatives came into power they scrapped it entirely so, to the best of my knowledge, a TA should be entitled to cross the picket line without persecution.

They (TA's/RA's) all pay dues and it is their right to choose whether or not they want to support the union and any sort of intimidation should be against the law.

I can see why the union wants to portray solidarity among a majority of people but not everyone wants to support it and I'm sure there's a fine line among students who want to support the union and others who value getting their education and not wanting to miss class.

Originally Posted by Furgs

There used to be legislation in Ontario concerning "scabs." The NDP passed a bill saying it was illegal but once the conservatives came into power they scrapped it entirely so, to the best of my knowledge, a TA should be entitled to cross the picket line without persecution.

They (TA's/RA's) all pay dues and it is their right to choose whether or not they want to support the union and any sort of intimidation should be against the law.

I can see why the union wants to portray solidarity among a majority of people but not everyone wants to support it and I'm sure there's a fine line among students who want to support the union and others who value getting their education and not wanting to miss class.

There's actually a piece of legislation that is used across Canada called the Rand Formula which, along with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows workers to not join a union and work, so long as they pay dues... essentially protecting both the worker and the union.

As long as the employer doesn't allow a "union shop" to be negotiated into the contract (which is often the case unfortunately), you don't need to be a union member to work in a unionized environment, as long as you agree to pay dues anyways.

This is why we need right-to-work legislation, since it's unfair that people who are not interested in unions or being members to have to pay the dues.

Originally Posted by FireDragoonX

ITT: People who know nothing about unions.

We *just* saw words right out of CUPE's mouth about all this! It's not like we're making anything up, here!