From the Union list of demands:

5.08 The Employer will pay to the Union $13,000 on September 1, 2009 and $14,000 on September 1, 2010. This money will be distributed by the Union among elected Local representatives in recognition of their union work.

........ That's essentially a ransom of $27 000 that will be distributed among the upper echelons of CUPE 3906. Solidarity, indeed. That's twenty-seven thousand dollars.

So, students of McMaster, how do you feel about this? That amount of money could potentially pay for the full tuition of one degree. It seems the Union wants a pat on the back for failing to represent its membership and holding the education of 20 000 people hostage. How ridiculous is this?

Before all the trolls come out from under the bridge...

"This money will be distributed by the Union among elected Local representatives in recognition of their union work."

It takes a lot of hard work to be an elected official of the union, coupled with many sacrifices including financial ones. This small amount (and in real world terms, this $27k is) distributed among many people doesn't even begin to compensate the elected officials for all their hard work.

Originally Posted by InYoutoGive

From the Union/Terrorist list of demands:

5.08 The Employer will pay to the Union $13,000 on September 1, 2009 and $14,000 on September 1, 2010. This money will be distributed by the Union among elected Local representatives in recognition of their union work.

........ That's essentially a ransom of $27 000 that will be distributed among the upper echelons of CUPE 3906. Solidarity, indeed. That's twenty-seven thousand dollars.

So, students of McMaster, how do you feel about this? That amount of money could potentially pay for the full tuition of one degree. It seems the Union wants a pat on the back for failing to represent its membership and holding the education of 20 000 people hostage. How ridiculous is this?

You sound surprised.

You didnt actually think that any union would be happy with only collecting union dues from its members, did you? It's great when they dont have to do anything but sit back and collect, but once they have to actually do what they were elected to do, they demand more.

Maybe they should go work at one of Hamilton's steel mills, and then come back and talk about hard work.

Originally Posted by talues

Before all the trolls come out from under the bridge...

"This money will be distributed by the Union among elected Local representatives in recognition of their union work."

It takes a lot of hard work to be an elected official of the union, coupled with many sacrifices including financial ones. This small amount (and in real world terms, this $27k is) distributed among many people doesn't even begin to compensate the elected officials for all their hard work.

They get paid through their dues. If that pay isnt enough, collect more dues, and piss off more members.

I would encourage you, Mr. Reeves, to do a bit of research concerning both the history of unions, and on how unions work. I have read many of your posts thus far and feel as if you (and many others) are very much misinformed by how unions work. There is a social stigma associated with unions in a sense that unions are generally viewed as a very bad thing (and there are cases in which unions have severely abused their positions), when in fact they have helped protect workers rights for a long long time.

My (blue-collar) family's been in Hamilton for a very, very long time, and we have a wonderful history with unions. My great-grandfather refused to walk off of the job several times with Stelco, and as a result, his children were attacked, his home vandalized, and his personal safety threatened every time he traveled to work. I'm not kidding. This shit actually happens.

I've got family in Dofasco, too, and it recently voted against forming a worker's union. Weird, isn't it? People NOT wanting a union? That must boggle your mind.

I would encourage you, talues, to do a bit of research concerning both the history of unions, and how unions work. At this point in time, CUPE's strike mandate (if you could call it that) seems to be incredibly slim. Just how slim depends on the math you're doing, but a conservative estimate would be 300-400 out of 3000. If you'd read through some of the anti-scab rhetoric on their blog, in addition to some of the measures they are (will be) suggesting to 'deal with' strike breakers (does CUPE really need my picture and address?), CUPE's stance on the personal privacy and liberty of their members seem pretty clear.

Not to mention the $27 000 pat on the back that CUPE management is giving itself. That's like Parliament voting through yet another salary raise for themselves. Seeing as everything else seems to have been agreed upon, for the most part, this looks like something the bargaining team slipped in there now that they have the leverage of an actual strike to back the document up with.

Originally Posted by talues

I would encourage you, Mr. Reeves, to do a bit of research concerning both the history of unions, and on how unions work. I have read many of your posts thus far and feel as if you (and many others) are very much misinformed by how unions work. There is a social stigma associated with unions in a sense that unions are generally viewed as a very bad thing (and there are cases in which unions have severely abused their positions), when in fact they have helped protect workers rights for a long long time.

And I would encourage you to look at CUPE 3906 specifically and not confuse our frustration with all unions in general. We don't shovel coal into an oven here. We sit and mark papers/assignments/labs mostly. Many pro (and anti) union arguments simply don't apply in a non-industrial setting.

I've already mentioned many reasons why I disagree with the CUPE 3906 leadership, namely the bullying of people that disagree with them, the forced membership & extortion of fees, and not letting us vote on our own contract. But since this is on the topic of fees, did you know that they passed a motion to raise the dues by 8% this year? They disguised it as a '0.2%' increase, but they actually meant to increase from 2.5% to 2.7% of your wages. I tried to point this out to CUPE to get them to actually state 8%, but they refused. Everyone I told about the '0.2%' increase did not realize it was actually 8%.

At the meeting, the motion passed, despite my best efforts at organizing a resistance. There were 25 people there, passing a motion to raise dues for 2700 people. The dues increase was not levied in the end, but the fact remains that CUPE 3906 is greatly influenced by an unevenly represented, small but vocal group of agitators and professional protesters.

Originally Posted by InYoutoGive

At this point in time, CUPE's strike mandate (if you could call it that) seems to be incredibly slim.

There was a strike mandate vote. Those who made the decision not to vote have only themselves to blame if the vote did not turn out in their favor. If the majority of TAs truly wished to avoid a strike, they could have easily taken the 5 minutes out of their day to vote.

As for the treatment of scabbers, while I do not agree with scabbing in most situations, I also do not agree with what has occurred to those who have scabbed in the past. Scabbing is a terrible thing to do, but it does not warrant personal and physical attacks against the scab or anyone related to the scab. I have told colleagues who are thinking about scabbing that, while on a professional level I would be extremely disappointed in them, I would not let it affect personal relationships.

You must understand our frustration with scabs, however. If we do end up with a new, better contract due to the strike, those who made the decision to scab will benefit from said contract, along with benefiting from being a scab. It will be the sacrifices of others which will lead to their personal gains, and that is inherently selfish.

Originally Posted by AYuen

and not letting us vote on our own contract.

If the university felt like their contract was sufficient and fair, and that the TAs would vote in favor of it, they could have exercised their right to force a vote on it thus preventing a strike. This notion that they "requested" it be vote on is merely a PR tactic to make it look like the union is the cause for the strike, when in reality both parties are at fault.

Originally Posted by talues

I would encourage you, Mr. Reeves, to do a bit of research concerning both the history of unions, and on how unions work. I have read many of your posts thus far and feel as if you (and many others) are very much misinformed by how unions work. There is a social stigma associated with unions in a sense that unions are generally viewed as a very bad thing (and there are cases in which unions have severely abused their positions), when in fact they have helped protect workers rights for a long long time.

I would also encourage you to not assume that every single time someone has an opinion different than yours it is because of a lack of research on the topic.

There is currently a social stigma attached to unions because of their actions, public opinion has a short memory. If Unions only did things like protect workers rights, maybe public opinion of them would not be so low. The unions like CUPE that strike merely to make themselves seem relevant hurt the the reputation of Unions that actually do some good (and hurt the cause of promoting unions in countries where they are sorely needed).

Originally Posted by talues

There was a strike mandate vote. Those who made the decision not to vote have only themselves to blame if the vote did not turn out in their favor. If the majority of TAs truly wished to avoid a strike, they could have easily taken the 5 minutes out of their day to vote.

from CUPE's own blog:

"A strike mandate vote is NOT a vote to strike."

"As such, while a a strike is not an impossibility at some point in the future, there WILL NOT be a strike immediately following a strong “YES” in the mandate vote."

"Our strike mandate vote is NOT a vote to go on strike"

http://unit1bargaining.wordp ress.c...ote-explained/

Originally Posted by talues

There was a strike mandate vote. Those who made the decision not to vote have only themselves to blame if the vote did not turn out in their favor. If the majority of TAs truly wished to avoid a strike, they could have easily taken the 5 minutes out of their day to vote.

Keep in mind that a large number of TAs were not informed about the strike mandate vote. While that may not be entirely CUPE's fault, the fact that they have no required quorum makes it so that they have no motivation to see a majority of their members turn out.

In terms of scabbing, I'm pretty sure you can assume that those are the people who would not be a part of CUPE if they had a choice. Think of them as non members who donate $30 a month to support your cause if it makes you feel better about it. If most of your members turn into scabs, I'm guessing that your union is not wanted nor needed by the people who are in it.

Originally Posted by AYuen

from CUPE's own blog:

"A strike mandate vote is NOT a vote to strike."

"As such, while a a strike is not an impossibility at some point in the future, there WILL NOT be a strike immediately following a strong “YES” in the mandate vote."

"Our strike mandate vote is NOT a vote to go on strike"

http://unit1bargaining.wordp ress.c...ote-explained/

I would also add that from the 3906 Constitution:

"12. STRIKES
A strike vote, if called by the Bargaining Committee, shall be commenced
at a General membership Meeting, or a Special General Membership
Meeting. Voting by secret ballot of union members shall be held on two
(2) consecutive days, and strike action is authorized if the majority of
those voting vote in favor of a strike."


We had a strike-mandate vote, not a strike vote. This strike is blatantly at odds with their own constitutionl

Originally Posted by talues

You must understand our frustration with scabs, however. If we do end up with a new, better contract due to the strike, those who made the decision to scab will benefit from said contract, along with benefiting from being a scab. It will be the sacrifices of others which will lead to their personal gains, and that is inherently selfish.

Look at it this way...

Picketers get strike pay AND back pay when the strike ends. At York, after 3 months of striking, the picketers got 90% of their back pay when the back-to-work protocols were negotiated.

People who exercise their right to work (scabs), only get their regular paycheque.

Basically for every week on strike, the picketers will be up $200.