Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Met
Back on topic...
I am kind of sick of all this Union/Striker bashing. They went through completely normal and legitimate channels relating to their contract. There was evidently a good portion of union members that thought they were getting a bad deal from the university, so they went on strike and did not break any rules by doing so.
In the end, the strike was resolved fairly, democratically and with little interruption to the students. From what I saw at the picket lines, the strikers were not harassing anyone, they were simply trying to get their message heard. Blocking traffic, though annoying, is again a legitimate way to get their message heard by the university. If strikers were legally not permitted to cause any inconvenience to the university, they would have zero bargaining power and would therefore eliminate the need for a strike in the first place.
I know it may personally inconvenience you when any union goes on strike, but the right to strike is a completely legitimate part of democracy, fairness, and equality in the workplace.
Those TAs who chose to act on their right to strike deserve just as much respect as those TAs who scabbed and acted on their right to continue working.
|
Ditto. I'm not sure what it is but people aren't getting the idea that Unions have every right to do what they did. While I don't agree with some of their voting bylaws I am all for a few of the platform points they had for their strike.
Quality of education is definitely something worth striking for; unfortunately that aspect of the strike got sidelined by the incessant for/against chatter over the wages. Class sizes seems like a random point to make but when you couple that with the fact that their paid hours are still from the decade where they had 15-20 kids in their tutorials(compared to 40-50 today), they did have a fair argument that the number of hours they are being paid(which once again incidentally is less then the market # of hours rate 260 vs 300 I think) is something they want changed not because of personal greed but because of fair economic principles.
The Administration is running the school like a business and It would take a VERY strong counter-argument to challenge that; The faculties according to a number of prof's are not their biggest Fans(especially in Arts+Business) but unless they themselves unionize they are powerless to complain against the massive enrollment levels and class sizes the whole research vs capital infrastructure spending debate and so on. CUPE did raise some of those points; though obviously that was defeated by the whole Wages issue.
The reason the current undegrads/grads who are happy with the $20+ they earn; earn that is because of T.A Unions working for it over the years. If the past generation never supported their union like the current lot you wouldn't be enjoying the wage you are currently enjoying :S
Its basic market economics; I don't get why people want to compare their retail/sales job with a T.A's job and use that to bash them for their "greed" :S
They are two completely different markets with two completely different equilibrium market wages: You can't just ignore those laws to support your "I'll love to do this T.A thing for minimum wage" argument. I would suggest you apply to become a T.A next year and "move" into the specialized market that requires a certain skill set(grades+research)?
Even though technically Mac T.A's are nowhere near the top of any T.A earning list(Even IF we take uoft out) and according to the law of basic economics they had every right to "aspire for" a more equitable market wage.
The amount of pure anti-union sentiment is just sad; I know some people just hate unions by default. But that shouldn't be a reason for one to completely laugh of any argument they make :S [/rant]
*waits for the piles of rebuttals* sigh.
