Originally Posted by Taunton

This is why we need right-to-work legislation. Nobody should be forced to join an organization they don't believe in. A union should not be an impedence to someone working wherever they want to work.

Well said, Ben.

Originally Posted by AYuen

3) If we go on strike, even for 1 week, we probably lose out. Most TA's are paid for 10 hours per week. In one week of striking, we lose out on (10 hours of pay) x (~$35/hour) = ~$350. If they are fighting for $1 an hour pay increase, that's 350 hours until we break even. Strike for 2 weeks and it's almost guaranteed that any 2-year Masters student will never break-even.

WOAH Didn't another T.A or the CUPE negotiator claimed that T.A's only get paid 3 hours a week officially? What is the average number of paid hours for a)
Undergrads and b) Graduate T.A's? Does anyone know?

Originally Posted by huzaifa47

WOAH Didn't another T.A or the CUPE negotiator claimed that T.A's only get paid 3 hours a week officially? What is the average number of paid hours for a)
Undergrads and b) Graduate T.A's? Does anyone know?

Most graduate TAs are compensated for 130 hours per academic term. Exactly how many per week is a little strange. See we get paid out in equal installments over 4 months (so an average of 17.3 weeks). Which means an average 7.5 hours compensated / week. Technically we're contracted for an average of 10 hours per week for 13 weeks. They just spread the pay over a longer period. Its weird and confusing, but that's the way it is.

Undergraduate TAs really vary. Contracts can be as little as 25 or 30 hours per term, or as much as the 130 per term as offered to most graduate TAs. If I had to put an average to it off the top of my head, I'd say undergraduate TAs are paid for 4 hours per week on average.

Originally Posted by sew12

Do TAs ever have the option of voting out the union and switching to another one?

I know at other places there is this option when employees are dissatisfied.

It might depend if another Union decides they'd be a better fit though and tries to get in. Hmmm.

If the TAs are so unhappy with CUPE and their bs though they shouldn't have to be part of that union.

No, we don't have that option. And that is my main problem with it. I have no problem if other people want to join a union, but the fact that I am forced to pay 2.5% of my TA salary to them when I just want them to go away makes me angry. That, and they tabled a motion to increase our fees by 8%, and they did so by disingenuous math and disguised it as a '0.2%' increase. And they call this 'democracy'.

Originally Posted by AYuen

No, we don't have that option. And that is my main problem with it. I have no problem if other people want to join a union, but the fact that I am forced to pay 2.5% of my TA salary to them when I just want them to go away makes me angry. That, and they tabled a motion to increase our fees by 8%, and they did so by disingenuous math and disguised it as a '0.2%' increase. And they call this 'democracy'.

Please, contact your local MP and let them know you support right-to-work legislation! The only way something like this can ever be brought to the government is if enough people support it!

Originally Posted by AYuen

That, and they tabled a motion to increase our fees by 8%, and they did so by disingenuous math and disguised it as a '0.2%' increase. And they call this 'democracy'.

As I've explained a couple of times before. Last year the union did table a motion to increase Unit 1 Class A dues from 2.5% to 2.7%. This is a relative 8% increase and the absolute amount of the increase was made absolutely clear in numerous emails and the wording of the motion itself. This money was to cover off the current deficit in benefits (vision, childcare, UHIP, hardship) we keep talking about. While the motion passed, the division it caused within the membership was noted, and so it was decided a better approach would be to make a serious push to resolve the structural underfunding of benefits through bargaining, rather than by the proposed increase in dues on the membership. I believe this approach was absolutely democratic and absolutely respectful of the opinions of all the members present at that meeting. The Union could have just implemented the increase, but instead listened to the voice of members who were concerned and tried to find an alternative way to raise the money to pay for the benefits we all have access to.

Originally Posted by dsahota

As I've explained a couple of times before. Last year the union did table a motion to increase Unit 1 Class A dues from 2.5% to 2.7%. This is a relative 8% increase and the absolute amount of the increase was made absolutely clear in numerous emails and the wording of the motion itself. This money was to cover off the current deficit in benefits (vision, childcare, UHIP, hardship) we keep talking about. While the motion passed, the division it caused within the membership was noted, and so it was decided a better approach would be to make a serious push to resolve the structural underfunding of benefits through bargaining, rather than by the proposed increase in dues on the membership. I believe this approach was absolutely democratic and absolutely respectful of the opinions of all the members present at that meeting. The Union could have just implemented the increase, but instead listened to the voice of members who were concerned and tried to find an alternative way to raise the money to pay for the benefits we all have access to.

You can explain this as many times as you want. The fact remains that Jesse Payne, CUPE Exec, refused to admit it was an 8% increase. In an e-mail to me from Jesse, after several back and forths trying to show him simple math, he said to me on Jan. 29th, 2009: "That said, the increase to the dues rate IS by .2%. " If you look at the motion, there is no mention of 8% anywhere. When I told this to several other grad students, every single response was 'I thought it was 0.2%. I would have voted no if I knew it was 8%!'.

So what is it? Mathematical imcompetance? Or misrepresenting numbers to get a desired outcome? If it's unintentional then why are these people in charge of my money? If it's intentional... then why are these people in charge of my money?

The answer is simple: they shouldn't be, and I shouldn't be forced to join a union I not only don't believe in, but that I believe is detrimental to the undergrads, the TA's, and the university.

Originally Posted by AYuen

1) Undergrads have every right to be mad at CUPE. But CUPE does not necessarily mean TAs in general. A large portion of the graduate TA's hate CUPE 3906 with a burning fire, and would not be in this union if we weren't forced into it. In fact, of all the graduate students I know, I can't think of any that have even the slightest faint praise for CUPE. We DO NOT SUPPORT A STRIKE and will come out to vote down any strike vote that CUPE tries to force down our throats.

Originally Posted by AYuen

2) I was a grad student in 2006 during the last round of negotiations, and the same thing will happen in 2009. They'll get a strike mandate (done already), and when McMaster presents their final offer to the TAs, the TAs will accept the offer despite CUPE sending us 3 e-mails a day telling us to reject it. My dad was a grad student here, and he said the exact same thing happened back in the late 70's so it's not exactly without precedent. CUPE exec's main goal is not for us, it is to justify their own jobs. If Mac offered us a fair contract and CUPE just took it, instead of rejecting it (regardless of the content of the offer), then the exec looks useless. They only put up a fight so they can look useful, and continue to justify the need for a useless union. They don't actually care what's on the table unless they can either yell about it or pat themselves on the back for getting it.

The CUPE exec are not paid employees, they are volunteers elected who receive a small stipend. The exec also isn't who even makes the decision on whether to call a strike, its the bargaining team who were also elected and ratified by the membership.

If we get offered a fair and reasonable offer, it will be brought back to the membership for ratification with a recommendation from the bargaining team. Fair and reasonable is based on the direction our membership gave us through consultations, the survey (which had several hundred responses with similar response rate from all faculties) and the proposals passed at our GMM's in the Spring.

Originally Posted by AYuen

3) If we go on strike, even for 1 week, we probably lose out. Most TA's are paid for 10 hours per week. In one week of striking, we lose out on (10 hours of pay) x (~$35/hour) = ~$350. If they are fighting for $1 an hour pay increase, that's 350 hours until we break even. Strike for 2 weeks and it's almost guaranteed that any 2-year Masters student will never break-even.

a) If you do picket duty or some other duty for those hours of work you get $10 / hour for 20 hours / week.
b) the way we're paid it actually works out to 7.5 hours / week (13 weeks of pay spread over 17.3 weeks).
c) In past TA strikes, because the work still has to get done at some point, TAs have not generally suffered a loss in wages. Rather, the wages get deferred and paid out later. This of course is not guaranteed, but it is common practice.
d) We're not fighting for a $1 / hour wage increase. We're working to make some serious changes in the way McMaster operates and to prevent against the future reduction of our paycheques by massive tuition hikes. You've already lost $400 in take home pay this year due to the increase in tuition, one of our key priorities is to get that money back. We're also working to protect the quality of education at McMaster by ensuring that TA to Student ratios are reasonable, that TAs have sufficient hours paid to do the work they're contracted for.

Originally Posted by AYuen

4) There is no doubt that I've had some bad TAs in my time as an undergrad. But I think it is unfair for a student to demand the world from TA's too. In classes I've TA'd, I've offered to: read over papers to give advice *before* it is marked so they can learn/make improvements, help any student with assignment problems, make templates for reports so they don't have to worry about formatting, and have unlimited office hours. Yet after all of this, I get about 2 or 3 students taking me up on my offer to help, and about 10 who fail the assignment/paper because they didn't bother to ask for help (even if it is a simple one word answer, they don't ask!). We are here to help, but we are not here to give you the answer and walk away!

Its great that you're dedicated to your students, I take a very similar approach when I TA. As far as I'm concerned, I'll put in as many hours as needed to ensure the students get the help they need so they can learn the material. Of course, students also have a responsibility to access what's been made available to them by their TAs.

Originally Posted by AYuen

You can explain this as many times as you want. The fact remains that Jesse Payne, CUPE Exec, refused to admit it was an 8% increase. In an e-mail to me from Jesse, after several back and forths trying to show him simple math, he said to me on Jan. 29th, 2009: "That said, the increase to the dues rate IS by .2%. " If you look at the motion, there is no mention of 8% anywhere. When I told this to several other grad students, every single response was 'I thought it was 0.2%. I would have voted no if I knew it was 8%!'.

This is a case of two different ways of seeing numbers and its the problem with percentages, which must always be relative. The way we generally talk about proposals within the University budget framework is that a percentage increase is relative to the total amount. That's why Jesse says its .2% increase, because that's how we always work with numbers (and how the University does as well) at the bargaining table. But .2% is of course 8% of 2.5%, which is another completely valid way of considering the numbers. We're really splitting hairs here and instead of being confusing with relative numbers, lets put it in absolute numbers because then there's no ambiguity. For a full graduate TAship the proposed increase can be calculated as: $9880 * 0.2% = $19.76 over a whole year.

As a correction, Jesse is our staff member, he is not an executive. He is highly competent, an extraordinarily hard worker, who we often get midnight emails from, even when he's on vacation, because he absolutely cares and is absolutely committed to helping out the membership of this union. He absolutely was not misrepresenting the numbers in any way shape or form, he was just quoting them in the sort of budgetary framework we always work in. To get rid of any ambiguity he also quoted the numbers in absolute values.

Maybe we should wait till Oct 30 midnight to further discuss this...