Originally Posted by Furgs

From what I've heard the labour studies program itself will shut down completely in support of the union. This is what I've heard so I could be mistaken or right. So then it comes into question that as a labour studies student do I cross the picket line to get to my other classes which aren't labour studies? Most people I know in my program aren't going to school because they basically have no class because a majority of their schedule is labour studies courses.

Me personally, I have all my electives this term so there's nothing that can convince me not to go to class. Although I'd like to support my faculty, I'm not going to lose out and miss class and I think the terms were more than generous which was presented at the bargaining table.

Is the Labour Studies program even allowed to shut down in support of the union?

I thought Professors were obligated to teach as they are not on strike themselves?

I think it would be unfair of Professors to decide not to cross the picket line and cancel classes. They aren't on strike they need to come into work and do what they're being paid to do. We paid tuition for this year and we paid to be taught and as the Professors aren't in a legal strike position they have no business refusing to come into work.

Plus supporting a union that much of its membership doesn't support and is unhappy with seems pretty stupid in theory. I get that a program like Labour Studies supports unions in general but it would seem to go against their beliefs to support a union who isn't doing a fair job of representing their membership, or one who is completing ignoring what their membership actually wants. It seems bizarre to just blindly support unions in general, including crappy ones.

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.

Just in my opinion...september 18 was a friday and...being a student, we all look forward to friday and on any given friday we're always like TGIF. So as a student I think that many people just, get what they need to get done and go home and in my experience I think student apathy is very high, no one really wants to get involved or care (we didnt even reach quorum last year). So choosing the 18th is, not a very strategically good idea if you want to get a hold of students. If I personally knew about it sure I would have listened for fun but I have my fridays off so there's not really much incentive for me to go onto campus unless I completely have to. And I'm sure plenty of other students feel the same way so we can't really be blamed for anything, it's incredibly difficult to keep students informed sometimes. Most just want to do what they have to do and go home, can't really blame them.

Actually, I went out of my way to ask the people who were handing out flyers what class they TAed for, of the three I asked, 2 were labour studies. I guess labour studies has a higher proportion of strike supporters.

Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

Actually, I went out of my way to ask the people who were handing out flyers what class they TAed for, of the three I asked, 2 were labour studies. I guess labour studies has a higher proportion of strike supporters.

That's not exactly shocking.

I would imagine that labour studies takes the view that all unions are good and anything a union does to protect its workers or procure benefits for them is good no matter what. I could be wrong though, perhaps the labour studies major could help us out with this one.

Originally Posted by sew12

Is the Labour Studies program even allowed to shut down in support of the union?

I thought Professors were obligated to teach as they are not on strike themselves?

I think it would be unfair of Professors to decide not to cross the picket line and cancel classes. They aren't on strike they need to come into work and do what they're being paid to do. We paid tuition for this year and we paid to be taught and as the Professors aren't in a legal strike position they have no business refusing to come into work.

Plus supporting a union that much of its membership doesn't support and is unhappy with seems pretty stupid in theory. I get that a program like Labour Studies supports unions in general but it would seem to go against their beliefs to support a union who isn't doing a fair job of representing their membership, or one who is completing ignoring what their membership actually wants. It seems bizarre to just blindly support unions in general, including crappy ones.

I honestly couldn't tell you. Not having any labour studies professors this term to ask makes it a little difficult. I dont really understand the reasoning behind it and I'm sure that certain professors have an academic duty/oath to teach.

I for one think it's a little...excessive, in my opinion, if they do completely shut down. My education takes precedence over.....a very small amount in wage gains and benefit increases.

Originally Posted by Furgs

I honestly couldn't tell you. Not having any labour studies professors this term to ask makes it a little difficult. I dont really understand the reasoning behind it and I'm sure that certain professors have an academic duty/oath to teach.

I for one think it's a little...excessive, in my opinion, if they do completely shut down. My education takes precedence over.....a very small amount in wage gains and benefit increases.

I would guess that they feel it would be hypocritical to teach about labour studies and lecture on stuff like the importance of unions and all the great achievements unions have made for workers when McMaster's TAs are on strike and the University won't give them a deal they (and by they it obviously means the CUPE reps, not the TAs themselves) feel is unfair.

I just find it amusing that the actual union membership as a whole isn't supporting this strike (obviously some are) but a whole program at Mac is shutting down in order to support it. It would be more realistic if they were shutting down to support a legitimate strike that union members actually agreed to, or if the TAs actually had an opportunity to turn down Mac's allegedly unfair offer themselves.

It seems odd to blindly support a strike just because its a strike and not because its a strike that union members feel strongly about.

Originally Posted by sew12

That's not exactly shocking.

I would imagine that labour studies takes the view that all unions are good and anything a union does to protect its workers or procure benefits for them is good no matter what. I could be wrong though, perhaps the labour studies major could help us out with this one.

Well we all learn about unions and they HAVE had very beneficial influences in the past. However, in some cases they have out lived their purpose in my opinion and just like everything they have their pros and cons. Unions are good yes for, job security, health and safety, benefits, protection from harassment and such, etc. But think about it, these aren't full time jobs for most people so most TA's I think are very happy with their current wages, plus in terms of benefits, I think a vast majority are under their parents or have even opted out of the mcmaster plan. I do understand there are people who really need them though. I'd like to think that what i've learned in labour studies, although it shows many benefits to unions, I should be entitled to make my own opinion and judgement about them, although it might not be the same for other labour studies students.

I understand there needs to be solidarity and strength but within reason and in this case...I personally don't agree with CUPE.

Originally Posted by Furgs

Well we all learn about unions and they HAVE had very beneficial influences in the past. However, in some cases they have out lived their purpose in my opinion and just like everything they have their pros and cons. Unions are good yes for, job security, health and safety, benefits, protection from harassment and such, etc. But think about it, these aren't full time jobs for most people so most TA's I think are very happy with their current wages, plus in terms of benefits, I think a vast majority are under their parents or have even opted out of the mcmaster plan. I do understand there are people who really need them though. I'd like to think that what i've learned in labour studies, although it shows many benefits to unions, I should be entitled to make my own opinion and judgement about them, although it might not be the same for other labour studies students.

I understand there needs to be solidarity and strength but within reason and in this case...I personally don't agree with CUPE.

Yeah, I understand supporting legitimate strikes where workers actually disagree with what they're being offered but we don't actually know if the TAs disagree with the conditions McMaster has offered at this point because CUPE isn't allowing them to vote. Therefore it seems like it goes against the belief in fairness for workers to support a union strike where the union is the one who isn't being fair to the workers.

Originally Posted by sew12

Yeah, I understand supporting legitimate strikes where workers actually disagree with what they're being offered but we don't actually know if the TAs disagree with the conditions McMaster has offered at this point because CUPE isn't allowing them to vote. Therefore it seems like it goes against the belief in fairness for workers to support a union strike where the union is the one who isn't being fair to the workers.

I think if TA's were put to a vote about wanting to strike or not, there would be a huge number of them who wouldn't want to strike. I've been talking with friends who are TA's and others who know a bunch of TA's and a majority of them are saying they will cross the picket line and TA.

Originally Posted by Furgs

I think if TA's were put to a vote about wanting to strike or not, there would be a huge number of them who wouldn't want to strike. I've been talking with friends who are TA's and others who know a bunch of TA's and a majority of them are saying they will cross the picket line and TA.

Yeah, that's what it sounds like. More importantly than the actual strike vote though is allowing them to vote on whether they accept the deal McMaster has now offered. This whole strike is about getting whatever additional benefits the TAs/RAs have requested (pay for more hours etc) so not allowing them to vote on whether or not they want want the University is offering them is stupid. CUPE has no business forcing a strike over this if the TAs don't even get to decide if the offer they are being offered is unfair for themselves.

Forcing a strike and threatening "scabs" is wrong.

Wow... not sure if I should even bother responding to ramirez.a's posts (I find it extremely funny that I've been called "ultra-conservative"... I'm actually more of a centrist Liberal) but I'll just say this:

As an SRA member it's my responsibility to represent the best interests of students. Regardless of my personal opinions on unions (which I have made myself very clear on), a strike can never be considered "in the best interests of students", and therefore I am 100% against strike action for that reason alone.

In case anyone has been keeping track, I've never really said anything bad about TA's in general, and in support of the TA's being caught in the middle of this terrible debacle, I'm speaking loudly and openly against CUPE. This strike is wrong, period.

Finally, I dont fear Mr. Ramirez, or CUPE, or anyone else for that matter. I'll continue to speak against this strike and CUPE for as long as is necessary (or until it can be conclusively shown that the TA's actually support CUPE, and that the deal offered by the University is actually bad for the TA's and students in general).

Originally Posted by Taunton

Finally, I dont fear Mr. Ramirez, or CUPE, or anyone else for that matter. I'll continue to speak against this strike and CUPE for as long as is necessary (or until it can be conclusively shown that the TA's actually support CUPE, and that the deal offered by the University is actually bad for the TA's and students in general).

If CUPE allows the TAs to vote on the issue and the results show that our TAs, our fellow students actually support this strike then and only then will I support this strike. I'm pro-TA and right now I don't see CUPE's actions as being pro-TA, in fact they are the exact opposite. CUPE is acting in a way that only serves the higher ups need for power and legitimacy, not in a way that actually serves the desires of their membership.

The argument of CUPE not representing the needs of their TAs - and students for that matter - i can argue is a statement that is made without intense investigation on the entire process of negotiations dating back to the beginning of summer.

A quick 101 on unions: within the past 20 years (literally within the generation of most current students at McMaster - and society as a whole), unions and organized labour have been the direct target of dominating economic policies. These policies have literally outlined the eradication of unions to facilitate a 'freer - undisrupted market'. As a result, these economic policies and philosophies that have been imposed and penetrated into our generations mindsets clearly- and sadly - have demonstrated their effect with this current negotiation process with CUPE's unit 1 bargaining team.

This is what I have learned from this entire process.

It is beyond my comprehension how McMaster university students - encouraged and expected to think critically - cannot see the broader issue that this negotiation process entails.

Every form of resistance against powerful social and economic structures are continuously being pushed into a cornor with policies and by-laws that make any attempt of legitimate resistance merely impossible.

Moreover, listening and reading the majority of the criticism towards CUPE has also highlighted another important issue - most people (and students) do not understand the priority issues that CUPE stated as the key concerns that need to be addressed. - in other words; they do not entirely understand the broader issues that are being addressed, because if they did, there is absolutely no way any student can say CUPE is only working out of the interest of their members and executives attempt at 'legitimacy and power'.


I would gladly love for anyone to discuss and attempt to convince me that the proposal of the university does in fact attain to the interests of students... because if they can, I will gladly support it.

However the reality is, McMaster's administration refuses to:

- place caps on tutorial and lab sizes.

- Allow 5th and 6th year PhD candidates from being Tutorial or Research assistants

- Refuse to increase the hourly contract from 260 to 270 hours as a remedy to address the issue of unpaid over-work that most TA/RAs experience (while the majority of universities across Ontario have a 280 hour contract)

Instead, they chose to place money into wages (which CUPE has made it very clear that they want a wage freeze for graduate assisstants - meaning no increase to graduate TAs.) and it is very clear why they are doing this, as this tactic is working to a tee here at McMaster.

In the attempt to sway public opinion and demonize the union's actions as illegitimate and irrational, they highlight that they are increasing wages - and the unions still wants 'more', so they strike to screw students over - hence the argument "they act in the interest of their members - not students'.

But why aren’t they putting ANY EMPHASIS on the primary issues???????

If anyone could genuinely explain to me how the university's actions of: **increasing tuition fees + slashed services,
**increasing class sizes + prohibiting the most experienced and educated candidates from assisting undergraduates...

are in the *best interests* of students???

Somebody, please enlighten me, or am I missing out on something??

... if anyone uses the 'tough economic conditions' as a argument, I will not take any of your responses serious.

Originally Posted by ramirez.a

... if anyone uses the 'tough economic conditions' as a argument, I will not take any of your responses serious.

Is there a reason why we can't. You can't completely factor out the economy. Within collective bargaining, you have to factor in the environmental and economic factors.

Collective bargaining has gone through phases throughout the last 20 years

Courtesy of Collective Bargaining 4BC3:
Expansionary years, 1960s to 1980s. Period of employees leaving from association of consultations, liberalization of collective bargaining laws and unionization skyrocket. Significant increases in public employment. Wage catch up with the private sector - high wage settlements, 20% a year, b/c of inflation was going up at 12%, and high strike activity.

Restraint years early 1980s to end of 1980s.
introduction of public sector wage controls. Government began to introduce laws and caps/limits to public pay increases. Net result of wage controls - wage settlements declined but remained lower when control programs ended. There was also a slowdown in rate of growth of public employment, slow down in increase in union membership and decline is strike activity.

Retrenchment period 1990 to 1997s.
Major recession in 1991. Gov’t budget deficits - overall public debt increased. Public pressure on gov’t to do something. Ushered in restraint and restructuring. Gov’t had to find a way to restore balanced budgets. Impose wage restraint laws - freezes, wage rolls backs, unpaid days off, privatization and contracting out and cut public employment. Public service staff levels cut by 15%, strike activity continued to decline.

Consolidation Period 1998 - present (2008)
Dramatic economic recovery, economy was booming, gov’t revenue’s were increasing, enabling senior government to achieve balanced budgets followed by surpluses Public Sector unions tried to catch up b/c of retrenchment period, dedicated to achieve wage catch up with strikes. Gov’t had some ability to accommodate but gov’t wanted to be fiscally vigilant. Consolidate gains made in retrenchment years. By and large, unions were not successful, did not achieve the wage gains they wanted.

I understand unions are trying to make back the incredible concessions they were forced to but as you can see, the economy has huge implications on bargaining conditions. So it would be completely ignorant to rule it out.

Alex,

CUPE isn't particularly arguing for capped sizes as much as it is arguing for premiums in wages for class sizes over 25 etc.

CUPE is arguing for a wage freeze for graduate assistants to make it more costly to hire an Undergrad assistant over a graduate assistant. This is motivated by the Union's solidarity with the CFS-member GSA in order to force out Undergraduate TAs, who have been getting hired more prevalently.

I don't think you understand that the demonization of CUPE comes from forced CUPE members themselves. We listen to our friends who are TAs who are sick and tired of not being consulted, and are now faced with personal concerns over their safety as they plan to cross the picket lines.

I'm not sure any of us particularly view the Administration in a positive light, especially since many of us have had our education put on hold thanks to academic cutbacks.

But thats the thing! WE, THE STUDENTS are getting screwed over in such a dramatic way that we do not understand why our peers who are Teaching Assistants should be given such concessions in such an arduous time.

My graduation will be extended a few months thanks to McMaster changing course timetables to make some required courses I need conflict with other courses, or be offered every other year. Yet nobody is fighting for me?