Originally Posted by sew12

Your response doesn't even make sense in reference to what I said.

I said its a job so don't they get paid? If they get paid why are they asking for the University to give them extra money?

I'm asking a question about whether or not they are paid a salary or hourly wages, you didn't answer.

I'm asking if they get paid, what is this extra money they're asking the University for for?

I'm aware that the MSU President is paid, what does this have to do with what I asked? I never said it wasn't a job or that they shouldn't be paid.

well you should be more clear what you're asking

I don't know if they get paid
this extra money could be extra to their salary

Peter George brought in HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars to the school.. his salary and pension are a mere fraction of that.

The argument that he makes so much is bunk. He does a job that I cannot fathom, and does it with extraordinary success. Stop bitching about his salary because if he wasn't around we would not have the top-rate institution that we do.

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 encourage you, Mr Schirm, to get with the times. A student earning $20-40 per hour is not anywhere near as hard up as a dockworker making pennies a day with no benefits or insurance in the 1920s. Factory workers, assembly lines, janitors and other blue collar workers are what the unions were formed to represent. Not kids making $30 an hour.

Don't get me wrong, unions are great. I think a lot of good has been performed because of unions. And I believe the there is a equilibrium between a union and an employer that exists to make things a win-win situation.

However, when a union (like CUPE 3906) goes against the viewpoints of a lot of it's members and becomes a corrupt organization, I believe unions are malicious. I can't be for certain if the university's offer was good, because I'm not in Labour Studies, but I think there should have been more negotiations before hastily going on strike.

CUPE 3906 is definitely self-serving and focused on greed, and not because they need more money, but because the university has more (but it certainly is investing more in the campus--look at all the construction that has been done in the past few years).

Also, I think Peter George deserves some money. In his tenure as president, the University has flourished and became a global leader in several fields. It went from a 2nd tier university to a 1st tier one. And again, look at all the projects on campus that have started under his tenure.

http://www.mcmaster.ca/mufa/PresidentContract.pdf

Originally Posted by reeves

I would encourage you, Mr Schirm, to get with the times. A student earning $20-40 per hour is not anywhere near as hard up as a dockworker making pennies a day with no benefits or insurance in the 1920s. Factory workers, assembly lines, janitors and other blue collar workers are what the unions were formed to represent. Not kids making $30 an hour.

There is no possible definition of "kid" under which I would fall, nor would my colleagues fall. You are either assuming that we are all under the age of 18, or that we act in some way shape or form like kids. That sort of comment is meant to be derogatory and has no place on these message boards.

I have said this many times in the past: It is not the hourly rate which is of importance, but moreso the total amount of money earned from being a TA. Our rate is only so high because the university will not recognize that we work more (and in some cases much more) then the 260 hours they have allotted (McMaster, by the way, is one of the only, if not the only school which still assumes it's TAs work 260 hours a year, as opposed to the much more widely recognized 280 hours).

And who is to say which groups unions should represent? What about Walmart workers who are constantly abused? What about code developers who are given unrealistic deadlines to fulfill, and either must work many hours extra to fulfill these requirements or risk termination? And why not TAs, who are at risk of being overworked, of having no benefits, and who's current earnings fall below the poverty line?

Which leads me into one very important question: If we worked in a different environment (say, a factory) and were at risk of having our benefits reduced, and our pay cut (which it is, due to tuition increase) while making less money then it is feasible to live off of, would you feel the same way? Would you support THEM in a strike? And if so, why not TAs? Because it will have an adverse effect on you? Because we have that "student" label, even though after our first year of study, our entire time is spent either in research or TAing?

Originally Posted by talues

There is no possible definition of "kid" under which I would fall, nor would my colleagues fall. You are either assuming that we are all under the age of 18, or that we act in some way shape or form like kids. That sort of comment is meant to be derogatory and has no place on these message boards.

Wow. You're legally an adult. Welcome to the real world, where people make these things called "expressions". One being "kid" for a young person. Now, let me find you a cookie.

Originally Posted by talues

I have said this many times in the past: It is not the hourly rate which is of importance, but moreso the total amount of money earned from being a TA. Our rate is only so high because the university will not recognize that we work more (and in some cases much more) then the 260 hours they have allotted (McMaster, by the way, is one of the only, if not the only school which still assumes it's TAs work 260 hours a year, as opposed to the much more widely recognized 280 hours).

So basically, youre TEACHING assistant, and are being treated very similar to a TEACHER. Who would have thought? Are teachers paid more for taking their work home and grading papers? Are they given a premium for staying late to coach sports, direct plays, or run detentions? None of my teacher friends are. One even works part time on the weekends for more moeny, since his job doesnt pay enough to pay his mortgage + expenses. And they've completed university, gone to teachers college, and are full time unionized employees. Why should a TA, part time and unaccredited, get compensated more "fairly" than the teachers that helped get them in to university?

Originally Posted by talues

And who is to say which groups unions should represent? What about Walmart workers who are constantly abused? What about code developers who are given unrealistic deadlines to fulfill, and either must work many hours extra to fulfill these requirements or risk termination? And why not TAs, who are at risk of being overworked, of having no benefits, and who's current earnings fall below the poverty line?

That was done for us by the authors of the first authoritative book on the subject of unions in the late 1800s: "The origins of unions' existence can be traced from the eighteenth century, where the rapid expansion of industrial society drew women, children, rural workers, and immigrants to the work force in larger numbers and in new roles. This pool of unskilled and semi-skilled labor spontaneously organized in fits and starts throughout its beginnings" - History of Trade Unionism. Notice the "unskilled and semi skilled", not "University educated". As for code developers, malmarat employees, and TAs, theres things now called labour laws, and safety regulations, that didnt exist back when unions were formed. Now that they're around, it gives workers a way to fight back.

Originally Posted by talues

Which leads me into one very important question: If we worked in a different environment (say, a factory) and were at risk of having our benefits reduced, and our pay cut (which it is, due to tuition increase) while making less money then it is feasible to live off of, would you feel the same way? Would you support THEM in a strike? And if so, why not TAs? Because it will have an adverse effect on you? Because we have that "student" label, even though after our first year of study, our entire time is spent either in research or TAing?

I may support them in a strike. It depends on all the specifics, of course. I definitely did not support the auto industrys factory workers collective whining about pay cuts and hour shortages resulting from the recession (no stirkes happened, but I would not have supported them if they did). If you work in a factory and are complaining about getting cut back to $57/hour, as one guy was in the newspaper at the time, I could care less. Minimum wage now is what, $9.50, $10/hour? That's enough to "get by" on. Shit, I survived on minimum wage when it was $6.80 an hour.

It has nothing to do with you being students, or any effect it may or may not have on me. It's that people are making as much as they are, in a job that they had the opportunity to decline, now complaining about the very terms that they previously accepted. Don't like what Mac offers? Theres lots of other schools.

Originally Posted by reeves

I may support them in a strike. It depends on all the specifics, of course. I definitely did not support the auto industrys factory workers collective whining about pay cuts and hour shortages resulting from the recession (no stirkes happened, but I would not have supported them if they did). If you work in a factory and are complaining about getting cut back to $57/hour, as one guy was in the newspaper at the time, I could care less. Minimum wage now is what, $9.50, $10/hour? That's enough to "get by" on. Shit, I survived on minimum wage when it was $6.80 an hour.

Again, it all stems from earning less then then the poverty line, which is defined as (stolen from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold) "The poverty threshold, or poverty line, is the minimum level of income deemed necessary to achieve an adequate standard of living in a given country."

My personal beliefs are that, whether you're a rich software mogul or a burger flipper at Harvey's, you should never earn less then the poverty threshold. Everyone should be given the chance (provided they are contributing to society in some way, shape or form) to earn at minimum that amount. There are many grad students all over Ontario who earn significantly less then this amount. As they are no longer dependents of their parents, they tend not to have access to the same loans nor the same financial support from their parents as graduate students. We rely on our scholarships and TA funds to survive. If we lose our benefits, if we lose salary, it can cause serious burden for some/many of us.

The university is planning just that: the net change between the tuition hike and wage increase is a loss, and they are also failing to provide more benefit money even though the number of TAs has increase (same money for more TAs = less money per TA).

Originally Posted by reeves

It has nothing to do with you being students, or any effect it may or may not have on me. It's that people are making as much as they are, in a job that they had the opportunity to decline, now complaining about the very terms that they previously accepted. Don't like what Mac offers? Theres lots of other schools.

We are not complaining about the terms we accepted: the terms are changing in our new contract. We are losing out in the "best offer" the university has proposed, even if it looks like we're not (back to tuition hike vs wage increase).

And you and I both know that I cannot compromise my education by switching schools at this point in my professional career. I came to Mac because I had the opportunity to work with a fantastic supervisor, and even if being a TA is a benefit or byproduct of this, I expect to be treated fairly.

Originally Posted by talues

Again, it all stems from earning less then then the poverty line, which is defined as (stolen from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold) "The poverty threshold, or poverty line, is the minimum level of income deemed necessary to achieve an adequate standard of living in a given country."

I respect your opinion that every one should be allowed to earn above the poverty line, even though I don't necessarily agree. I think that if we got into that it would be too large a digression, however.

Another place where we'd likely disagree is if the cost of tuition should be factored in to our net income and not be viewed a personal cost. I feel this is relevant because my department (and many others) guarantee an income (again, before tuition) that is in excess of the poverty line for an individual living in the city the size of Hamilton. The cost of tuition is an investment in our future, since we all finish with post graduate degrees that carry value in the job market. Personally I don't see why the university should be required to provide an income less tuition in excess of the poverty line while we are here earning our degrees, because we do walk away with something valuable after our time here is over. And, again personally, I have no trouble living off my net income after tuition nor do most (if not all) the people I know.

If you read that and think my situation is not shared by everyone, there are graduate TAs at McMaster that take home substantially less and may be trying to support families, that is exactly my point. I acknowledge that people with similar situations and values should be able to bargain collectively (including strike action if necessary). Nonetheless, we are all represented by the same union, not by choice but as a requirement of being a graduate student at McMaster. I mentioned before that many times I've been asked, as a member of the union, to vote in the "collective" best interests rather than my own, including the vote for the strike mandate. As a result, I do not feel that my personal interests are best served by going on strike or by supporting the union in this regard.

That's just my opinion.

Originally Posted by talues

I would have to severely compromise both my research and academic commitments. In a sense, I would have to go above and beyond what my duties are currently as a TA.

I do not know if I would list this under "advantages to striking" or not.

So you're concerned about compromising your academic commitments from being on the picket lines? Why aren't you concerned about the other 20,000 students' academic commitments from being on the picket lines? Who's selfish now?

Sometimes I wonder if these CUPE people can hear themselves type...

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.

So let the "scabs" leave the union, not get the benefits you want so badly and continue to do the job they're doing for the right reasons, for the students.

I don't think your argument against scabs has much value until people have the right to choose whether or not they actually want to be part of the union.

Originally Posted by talues

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.

Just wanted to point out:
It is also inherently selfish to force any TA to pay dues and join a union, especially when the TA has no interest in partaking.

You wouldn't have to be "disappointed" with those who cross the picket line if there was a choice given. Also, these "selfish" members would have nothing to gain if allowed the chance to opt out of the union. In fact, it looks so much worse on the union when the encouragement of "disappointment"/intimidation is prevalent on those who are content and just want to do their job.

Wouldn't it be so much better if those who actually cared were to join the union and consequently be 100% and wholeheartedly involved in the process? This idea of a "scab" is just annoying.

---------

Undergraduate students are in it for the education (pardon me if this is "selfish"). You can't possibly expect them to support a cause which impedes their learning, ESPECIALLY those students who have worked tooth-and-nail to make enough money to pay for tuition, and are unable to work during the school year because it would mess up their studies.

Now, this is a story all about how
The life of some students got flipped-turned upside down
And I like to take a minute
Just sit right there
I'll tell you how I became the union leader of something unfair

In west Hamilton born and raised
On the campus was where I spent most of my days
Chillin' out maxin' relaxin' all cool
And rallying picketers outside of the school
When a couple of administration guys
Who were up to no good
Startin making trouble in my neighborhood
We got in one little fight and McMaster got scared
They said 'We refuse to give you a better deal, see if we care.'

I begged and pleaded with them day after day
But they refused our demands and sent us on our way
They took me to Sterling and told me to picket.
I put my ipod on and said, 'I might as well kick it'.

I pulled up to the gates about 7 or 8
And I yelled to the students 'Yo I'll mark your paper later'
I looked at the school,
And all the empty labs there,
Then sat on my throne as the leader of something unfair

someone correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't the place of unions to mostly ensure fair pay, benefits, freedom from discrimination and a healthy working environment?

I understand that some TAs feel that class sizes are too large... but when you accepted the job you knew those conditions and agreed to them. If you didn't like them you could have chosen another part-time job, something off-campus (likely wouldn't pay nearly the almost $40/hr TAs make, but still). I'm not sure I see the logic of accepting a position and then suddenly deciding that the position is unacceptable and you have a right to a better job (one that you did not sign up for), and completely redefine the job.

also, being a TA is a part-time job. 10 hours a week can never be expected be full-time, even 20 hours a week is still 'half-time'. why anyone expects to earn above the poverty line on a part-time job is beyond me, those measures are put in place for full-time workers. TAs are full-time students, part-time workers. manage your loans, scholarships, wages and expenses intelligently, work during the summer like all of us 'lucky undergrads who have it so easy' and don't pretend you deserve full-time pay and benefits from a part-time job.

Originally Posted by stevennevets

someone correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't the place of unions to mostly ensure fair pay, benefits, freedom from discrimination and a healthy working environment?

I understand that some TAs feel that class sizes are too large... but when you accepted the job you knew those conditions and agreed to them. If you didn't like them you could have chosen another part-time job, something off-campus (likely wouldn't pay nearly the almost $40/hr TAs make, but still). I'm not sure I see the logic of accepting a position and then suddenly deciding that the position is unacceptable and you have a right to a better job (one that you did not sign up for), and completely redefine the job.

also, being a TA is a part-time job. 10 hours a week can never be expected be full-time, even 20 hours a week is still 'half-time'. why anyone expects to earn above the poverty line on a part-time job is beyond me, those measures are put in place for full-time workers. TAs are full-time students, part-time workers. manage your loans, scholarships, wages and expenses intelligently, work during the summer like all of us 'lucky undergrads who have it so easy' and don't pretend you deserve full-time pay and benefits from a part-time job.

1. A TA position is used to supplant our other scholarships and income. It is a major portion of our funding. While we only (or are supposed to) TA 10 hours a week (Many of us TA much more than this), we spend a minimum 40 hours, and in many cases many more, working on research or doing academic related activities. It is not the fact that I am getting a raise of X amount in my hourly wage, it is the fact that due to the tuition increase we are losing money.

2. I did not know the conditions of TAing at Mac prior to my arrival. I could have been more informed. Regardless of what the conditions were, it is still not right for them to be sub par.

3. I never said undergrads got it easy. Not once. We were all undergrads once, and many of us still carry debt from undergrad. Some of us cannot get any more loans especially if we lack a co-signer. It is also not feasible for us to pick up another part-time job in many cases, we just don't have the time.

And as for working in the summer: It is possible that you are just misinformed, but we already work in the summer, as grad students! It's a year round thing! Fortunately/unfortunately we don't have the opportunity to work summer jobs to supplant our income further. Do you think I'd be complaining if I made 20k during 8 months of work? Now THAT would just be absurd...