Updates please!

the meeting started over 35 minutes late.

that's all I've got so far. I'm waiting on tips/ppl to update their Facebook statuses.

Maybe the meeting is still in session.

Originally Posted by lorend

the meeting started over 35 minutes late.

that's all I've got so far. I'm waiting on tips/ppl to update their Facebook statuses.

Thanks Danielle
Do you know any reason why that happened?

Nope, no idea. Still waiting on other updates...

sooo did they vote and reject it? or was the voting rejected? sorry i am confused lol!

Originally Posted by jordanrogers

sooo did they vote and reject it? or was the voting rejected? sorry i am confused lol!

This is what I would like to know.

Did a vote happen? (someone said earlier this would be against CUPE's own bylaws) If it did, was it rejected? (the update would indicate yes)

Was the idea of letting membership vote rejected?

If a vote occurred, was it actually against CUPE's bylaws?

Also did enough people show up to the meeting to make the vote even legitimate (in the eyes of people, not necessarily based on what CUPE says)?

I couldn't make it on short notice unfortunately...got a pretty tough assignment due tomorrow. ):

I'll post any updates I'm getting by email.

hey guys.. i don't want to post comments from the unit 1 blog here, so i'll just post a link. a member there has summarized the events of the meeting.
take it all with a grain of salt (the same goes for the university's postings). people on both sides are being biased, as i'm sure everyone here is aware.

but yeah. check out the posting by Max...
http://unit1bargaining.wordp ress.c...-gym/#comments

It was announced during the SRA meeting that 91 members voted in favour of the university's offer, with 199 rejecting it.

So hurray, strike! McMaster Daily has updated their site stating what distrubances will be occuring etc.

woooah.. woooooah. hold up a minute. Stepping back a couple posts in that blog. Am I reading this right? They voted on whether or not they should have a vote? And the vote turned down the vote?

Originally Posted by mike_302

woooah.. woooooah. hold up a minute. Stepping back a couple posts in that blog. Am I reading this right? They voted on whether or not they should have a vote? And the vote turned down the vote?

Yes, CUPE allowed the membership to vote, and I must say that I appreciate it.

Now, let's not forget that it was a relatively small percentage who actually voted (albeit this is a problem across the campus), and it was primarily grad students. The undergraduate TA voice really wasn't heard (although that's not entirely CUPE's fault, apart from calling the meeting last minute). I wish students cared more about important things in general.

I seriously believe that if more TA's showed up (esp. the undergrads) we may have seen a different outcome.

Again, I must say that CUPE took a step in the right direction in offering an opportunity for the membership to vote, even if they didn't all take advantage of it.

Oh, and Callen, I believe you owe the MSU VP Education an apology, as he had his facts 100% straight from the beginning.

Ahhh, I dunno. sure, they allowed a bit of democracy, but it was all just a little bit self-serving. Call a meeting on extremely short notice, where Undergrads (the population that makes a difference) can't necessarily get out of doing work on such short notice, especially on a Sunday (albeit not at the WORST time on a Sunday) when stuff is due the next day, and a large majority of people may have gone home. On top of that, I believe the vote was just a vote on whether or not they should actually hold a vote... I know that description sounds messed up, but so does the idea. I could be wrong, but that is what I understood from that blog.

Originally Posted by jmbauman

It was announced during the SRA meeting that 91 members voted in favour of the university's offer, with 199 rejecting it.

So hurray, strike! McMaster Daily has updated their site stating what distrubances will be occuring etc.

Don't quote me on this, because I also couldn't make the meeting on such short notice, but I believe the vote was actually a 'vote on whether or not to put the offer to a vote from the whole membership'. i.e. follow what the exec/bargaining team suggests directly, or ask the TA's directly what they think of the university's offer.

In other words, 91 people just wanted the TA's to decide for themselves, and 199 thought it was either a waste of time to even ask them (or just really wants to picket).

I posted this in another thread. Maybe I meant to post it here and made a mistake. Oh well, copy paste:

Just in the interests of clarification, at the general membership meeting this afternoon a vote was held to determine if the membership should perform a ratification vote on McMaster's last offer.

Article 9c of the local bylaws states that 24 hours notice must be given for an emergency meeting. The meeting occured at 4:00 PM this afternoon in the Burridge Gymnasium, and I received an email at 3:54 PM yesterday saying that a meeting would be occuring at some time and place (not specified).

Article 9c also states that the subject to be discussed must be included in the notice of the meeting. The emails that I recieved stated the purpose of the meeting will be to discuss issues pertaining to the upcoming strike action. I did not recieve any communication from the union stating that a vote on whether or not to pursue ratification would be occuring. The executive, however, had presentation slides prepared in advance detailing what we were voting on (i.e. a motion on whether or not to pursue ratification).

It came up at the start of the meeting that what was occuring was in violation of Article 9c, however the chair of the session (from a different local) stated that all requirements of Article 9c were met.

I agree that the "letter of the law", as it were, of Article 9c were followed. However, I have reservations that what occured was within the spirit of the law, but that's just my opinion and obviously not an objective fact.