Originally Posted by ramirez.a

you've got to be kidding me.
'The dark side of unions'....
I'm open and respecting of opposing perspectives on whatever matter, but this statement just illustrates arrogance and ignorance.

To call someone arrogant and ignorant doesn't really demonstrate your openness to the situation. On the "dark side" of unions, I believe Taunton was addressing the fact that union members are often encouraged to point out scabs and go as far as taking pictures/reporting. Come on now, you were just reading Taunton's comments and skipping over everybody else's.

You are NOT helping your case by simply saying "YOU'RE WRONG" without any kind of basis behind it. The fact that you are so defensive and can't even give us some facts and information is the kind of useless ranting that we can't possibly use to lessen our "ignorance." If you've read over the thread, you may have noticed that user dsahota has actually been helpful in easing the tension and has provided important information (which you have now ruined with your pointless rant).

Originally Posted by ramirez.a

you're rhetoric are all the same kinds of statements i hear from the typical reactionry ultra conservative think tanks that pump these ideas to students and society.

YOUR reaction to our moderated discussion are akin to the statements I hear from the typical reactionary ultra pro-union "think tanks" that pump these ideas to anybody outside of the union.

This discussion has nothing to do with conservatism. I know many students who are deeply rooted in conservative values but support union action. This part of your argument is a non-issue.

--

It takes two sides to worsen a situation. Undergraduates may never know what really goes on at the bargaining table, but just because students support a certain side does not mean they are ignorant or uninformed.

i understand your perspective. it is important to emphasize that nothing is perfect and hyper-generalizations is definately the last approach one would want to take on any issue.

However, a point you brought up that many students have no idea about - and this is not a conspiracy - , that when CUPE held an information session in the Student Centre Atrium back on September 18th ( yes that's right, they were trying to get studetns informed as of the 2nd week of classes - thats how serious the issue was - but nobody seemed to pay attention) , i want you to know that security - both dressed and undercover were taking pictures of those were paying attention to the information session.

This is truly disturbing, and i already know most of you are goin to outright reject this assertion and consider it a 'union conspiracy', but i was there and I caught them red handed with my own eyes. CUPE has continuously demanded a stop to this disturbing practise as it always present during CUPE demonstartions or information rallies... and was present back during the information session on SEPTEMBER 18 - i have to reiterate that because students need to know that they have been trying so hard to get students informed - more than the university admin and MSU combined.

Originally Posted by ramirez.a

CUPE has continuously demanded a stop to this disturbing practise

Then why do they practice it themselves?

Originally Posted by ramirez.a

i understand your perspective. it is important to emphasize that nothing is perfect and hyper-generalizations is definately the last approach one would want to take on any issue.

However, a point you brought up that many students have no idea about - and this is not a conspiracy - , that when CUPE held an information session in the Student Centre Atrium back on September 18th ( yes that's right, they were trying to get studetns informed as of the 2nd week of classes - thats how serious the issue was - but nobody seemed to pay attention) , i want you to know that security - both dressed and undercover were taking pictures of those were paying attention to the information session.

This is truly disturbing, and i already know most of you are goin to outright reject this assertion and consider it a 'union conspiracy', but i was there and I caught them red handed with my own eyes. CUPE has continuously demanded a stop to this disturbing practise as it always present during CUPE demonstartions or information rallies... and was present back during the information session on SEPTEMBER 18 - i have to reiterate that because students need to know that they have been trying so hard to get students informed - more than the university admin and MSU combined.

You see, I was at the student center that day, waiting in a 30 minute line up to buy bus tickets. I recall vividly because I got into quite a heated discussion with one of the CUPE guys who came and talked to me. I don't recall seeing more than about 15-20 people at information session, and certainly no one that I could see was taking pictures.

So I'm going to call you out on this one.

If you were actually there, and witnessed all this, how many CUPE members were walking around talking to the students passing by?

I never called Taunton arrogant or ignorant - i said his statements are. Moreover, i made it clear that i was not using the term ignorant in a degrogatory sense. When i explained that his statements were based on typical ultra-conservatism ideologies, i was not saying that in a degrogatory sense, but that the overwhelming majority of his comments on this website regarding the negotiation process (which i highly encourage all of you to read) are literally the same arguments - nearly word for word - of those who had extreme conservative perspectives. I do not disrespect this perspective - as ive continued to state that i respect opposing opinions, however what I am trying to emphasize is that many people on this website will listen to what he is saying as objective truth because he is an SRA member - this is a generalization, but most of you can understand the rationale behind it.
At the same time, as he is a member of the SRA - and has personally objected to the tactics my committee has taken on trying to inform students regarding the strike as irrespectful to students feelings, he is supposed to fulfill his position as representing the interests of students. He can have his perspectives, however some of the comments he has made do not reflect MANY perspectives of McMaster students, and is actually extremely disrespectful to not only myself and students who have different perspectives, but also to the CUPE bargaining team who I recommend all of you to meet and discuss personally with them your interests and concerns.

They are some of the most humble and good hearted people Ive met on campus, and it really disgusts me to read comments on this thread that demonize them. You dont have to agree with them, but they have always been more than willing - and actually gone out of there way - to try and get students who have concerns to discuss it with them personally.

I'm not out to make any enemies, but I have followed this process since the beginning of summer and cannot believe the disrespect the university administration has shown towards CUPE and McMaster students - because if they really did care about the interests of students, they would have resolved this issue before the commencement of the 09-10 fall academic year - as CUPE was trying to do. Instead they delayed and refused to negotiate for 3 months.

again i respect opposing views, however when comments are being made from individuals who have a very politically sensitive position in a Student Representative Assembly that are blatantly subjective and outright disrespectful, i feel that issue has to be addressed.

The following post I attempted to put on the CUPE bargaining blog has definitely been censored. Later posts were approved, but mine was not.

Hence I'm taking it here.

We were going to avoid posting this on a public site until the union forced our hand, but it looks like the bad blood is already out there.
Regardless of your position on the terms of the offer or unions in general, the issue here is the legitimacy of the strike mandate vote. Is the “strike mandate vote” really representative of a “strike vote” by the union? We would argue no, but there are ways of eliminating this confusion.

Please follow the steps listed in the following email we have just sent out to other CUPE 3906 members if you are interested in taking concrete action.


Dear Fellow CUPE 3906 members,

We are concerned that the strike mandate vote being used to authorize our strike may not be an accurate representation of the democratic will of the CUPE 3906 membership. If you share our concerns, please add your name to the bottom of this email, then email it back to [email protected] Please also forward this to any other CUPE 3906 members you think will benefit from it.

When 40 names are collected, we will submit it to the Union leadership. Although they refused to accommodate our previous requests to hold such a vote, they are required by CUPE Local 3906 By-law 9c to hold a special membership meeting when a request is presented by 40 or more members.

Thank you in advance for your support in this urgent matter that affects us all, as well as the entire McMaster community.


To the President of CUPE Local 3906,

We, the undersigned members of CUPE 3906, request a special membership meeting as soon as practically possible and within 36 hours of this submission to discuss the University’s final offer and hold a strike vote as to whether or not to accept the offer.

If this is deemed incompatible with the CUPE 3906 Constitution (with specific reference to the relevant provision), then we request a special membership meeting as soon as practically possible and within 36 hours of this submission to discuss the legitimacy of the earlier “strike mandate vote” and vote on the question “does the ‘strike mandate vote’ on the question ‘do you authorize your elected bargaining team to call a strike if necessary in order to achieve a fair collective agreement?’ constitute a legitimate strike vote?”

We also request that any strike action be postponed until after this special membership meeting.

Sincerely,
Patrick Savage
Trent Toulouse
Stan Govenlock

Originally Posted by pesavage

The following post I attempted to put on the CUPE bargaining blog has definitely been censored. Later posts were approved, but mine was not.
Hence I'm taking it here.

We were going to avoid posting this on a public site until the union forced our hand, but it looks like the bad blood is already out there.
Regardless of your position on the terms of the offer or unions in general, the issue here is the legitimacy of the strike mandate vote. Is the “strike mandate vote” really representative of a “strike vote” by the union? We would argue no, but there are ways of eliminating this confusion.
Please follow the steps listed in the following email we have just sent out to other CUPE 3906 members if you are interested in taking concrete action.
Dear Fellow CUPE 3906 members,
We are concerned that the strike mandate vote being used to authorize our strike may not be an accurate representation of the democratic will of the CUPE 3906 membership. If you share our concerns, please add your name to the bottom of this email, then email it back to [email protected] Please also forward this to any other CUPE 3906 members you think will benefit from it.
When 40 names are collected, we will submit it to the Union leadership. Although they refused to accommodate our previous requests to hold such a vote, they are required by CUPE Local 3906 By-law 9c to hold a special membership meeting when a request is presented by 40 or more members.
Thank you in advance for your support in this urgent matter that affects us all, as well as the entire McMaster community.
To the President of CUPE Local 3906,
We, the undersigned members of CUPE 3906, request a special membership meeting as soon as practically possible and within 36 hours of this submission to discuss the University’s final offer and hold a strike vote as to whether or not to accept the offer.
If this is deemed incompatible with the CUPE 3906 Constitution (with specific reference to the relevant provision), then we request a special membership meeting as soon as practically possible and within 36 hours of this submission to discuss the legitimacy of the earlier “strike mandate vote” and vote on the question “does the ‘strike mandate vote’ on the question ‘do you authorize your elected bargaining team to call a strike if necessary in order to achieve a fair collective agreement?’ constitute a legitimate strike vote?”
We also request that any strike action be postponed until after this special membership meeting.
Sincerely,
Patrick Savage
Trent Toulouse
Stan Govenlock

Patrick, if you turn that into more of a petition type format, I can get about 15-20 signatures from my department on Monday. All unit 1 graduate TAs.

Originally Posted by pesavage

The following post I attempted to put on the CUPE bargaining blog has definitely been censored. Later posts were approved, but mine was not.

Hence I'm taking it here.

We were going to avoid posting this on a public site until the union forced our hand, but it looks like the bad blood is already out there.
Regardless of your position on the terms of the offer or unions in general, the issue here is the legitimacy of the strike mandate vote. Is the “strike mandate vote” really representative of a “strike vote” by the union? We would argue no, but there are ways of eliminating this confusion.

Please follow the steps listed in the following email we have just sent out to other CUPE 3906 members if you are interested in taking concrete action.


Dear Fellow CUPE 3906 members,

We are concerned that the strike mandate vote being used to authorize our strike may not be an accurate representation of the democratic will of the CUPE 3906 membership. If you share our concerns, please add your name to the bottom of this email, then email it back to [email protected] Please also forward this to any other CUPE 3906 members you think will benefit from it.

When 40 names are collected, we will submit it to the Union leadership. Although they refused to accommodate our previous requests to hold such a vote, they are required by CUPE Local 3906 By-law 9c to hold a special membership meeting when a request is presented by 40 or more members.

Thank you in advance for your support in this urgent matter that affects us all, as well as the entire McMaster community.


To the President of CUPE Local 3906,

We, the undersigned members of CUPE 3906, request a special membership meeting as soon as practically possible and within 36 hours of this submission to discuss the University’s final offer and hold a strike vote as to whether or not to accept the offer.

If this is deemed incompatible with the CUPE 3906 Constitution (with specific reference to the relevant provision), then we request a special membership meeting as soon as practically possible and within 36 hours of this submission to discuss the legitimacy of the earlier “strike mandate vote” and vote on the question “does the ‘strike mandate vote’ on the question ‘do you authorize your elected bargaining team to call a strike if necessary in order to achieve a fair collective agreement?’ constitute a legitimate strike vote?”

We also request that any strike action be postponed until after this special membership meeting.

Sincerely,
Patrick Savage
Trent Toulouse
Stan Govenlock

Before posting it we were trying to ensure we had all the bylaw stuff understood. The blog automatically puts up posts of people who have posted before and been approved. Since this was your first post, its been put into a cue.

Derek

I am a student, not a TA. I live in a bubble, but even I can see there is something not right here.

Let the Union and the university point fingers at each other, but the people who should really have a voice are the TAs. They should have a vote , plain and simple to keep in line with the "democratic" valus.

Originally Posted by meddling

I am a student, not a TA. I live in a bubble, but even I can see there is something not right here.

Let the Union and the university point fingers at each other, but the people who should really have a voice are the TAs. They should have a vote , plain and simple to keep in line with the "democratic" valus.

They did have a vote on a strike mandate which clearly gave direction to the bargaining team to call a strike if necessary to achieve a fair collective agreement. The vote was held over 6 days with tons of notice, flyers, etc. We had the highest turnout in our local's known history. The package the employer has offered is very similar to the package on the table at that point, which our members clearly said wasn't fair. Calling another vote merely postpones the process and takes efforts of the bargaining team away from getting a fair collective agreement.

Originally Posted by dsahota

They did have a vote on a strike mandate which clearly gave direction to the bargaining team to call a strike if necessary to achieve a fair collective agreement. The vote was held over 6 days with tons of notice, flyers, etc. We had the highest turnout in our local's known history. The package the employer has offered is very similar to the package on the table at that point, which our members clearly said wasn't fair. Calling another vote merely postpones the process and takes efforts of the bargaining team away from getting a fair collective agreement.

Or you could put it to a vote since your own members are asking you to.

Seeing as I have not received a single email from the Union thus far, it would be nice to be invited to a meeting for once.

I'm supporting a vote on the issue.

Originally Posted by InYoutoGive

Seeing as I have not received a single email from the Union thus far, it would be nice to be invited to a meeting for once.

I'm supporting a vote on the issue.

CUPE just called an emergency General Membership Meeting for tomorrow at 4:00 pm.

This will be interesting.

Originally Posted by kleung

CUPE just called an emergency General Membership Meeting for tomorrow at 4:00 pm.

This will be interesting.

What if this just means they're briefing their membership on what they have to do in regards to the strike?

Personally I hope it means they're reconsidering the University's request that they allow their membership to vote on the deal, or they are holding a meeting to find out how many support a vote or something along those lines. Somehow I doubt it though.

Originally Posted by ramirez.a

Taunton again... you have got to be kidding me. If you really want to get into the 'history of unions', why haven't you address the fact that when these unions back in the day were FIGHTING WOMEN AND CHILDREN *WHO WERE NOT EUROCENTRIC BIOLOGICALLY* TO HAVE AN EDUCATION... went on the streets fighting for a better and more equitable society while employers - with the help of the state - gave orders to shot into protesting workers.

again, the more im reading your comments, the more saddening it is for me to see that students actually take your statements as legitimate

If you look at the history of unions, you'll find that they were incredibly violent, to strike breakers and to the police who were trying to keep some semblance of order. And they were also very much against women and children in the workplace, because women and children were paid less, and so the men had to accept a lower wage or be replaced. That's why there were so many union shops - anyone who was not part of the union was a threat in that they could drive wages for everyone down by accepting a lower wage for the same work. They were not working for a more equitable society, they were simply looking out for themselves.