The following post we attempted to put on the CUPE bargaining blog has definitely been censored. Later posts were approved, but ours was not.
Hence we're taking it here.
We were going to avoid posting this on a public site until the union forced our hand, but it looks like the bad blood is already out there.
Regardless of your position on the terms of the offer or unions in general, the issue here is the legitimacy of the strike mandate vote. Is the “strike mandate vote” really representative of a “strike vote” by the union? We would argue no, but there are ways of eliminating this confusion.
Please follow the steps listed in the following email we have just sent out to other CUPE 3906 members if you are interested in taking concrete action.
Dear Fellow CUPE 3906 members,
We are concerned that the strike mandate vote being used to authorize our strike may not be an accurate representation of the democratic will of the CUPE 3906 membership. If you share our concerns, please add your name to the bottom of this email, then email it back to
[email protected] Please also forward this to any other CUPE 3906 members you think will benefit from it.
When 40 names are collected, we will submit it to the Union leadership. Although they refused to accommodate our previous requests to hold such a vote, they are required by CUPE Local 3906 By-law 9c to hold a special membership meeting when a request is presented by 40 or more members.
Thank you in advance for your support in this urgent matter that affects us all, as well as the entire McMaster community.
To the President of CUPE Local 3906,
We, the undersigned members of CUPE 3906, request a special membership meeting as soon as practically possible and within 36 hours of this submission to discuss the University’s final offer and hold a strike vote as to whether or not to accept the offer.
If this is deemed incompatible with the CUPE 3906 Constitution (with specific reference to the relevant provision), then we request a special membership meeting as soon as practically possible and within 36 hours of this submission to discuss the legitimacy of the earlier “strike mandate vote” and vote on the question “does the ‘strike mandate vote’ on the question ‘do you authorize your elected bargaining team to call a strike if necessary in order to achieve a fair collective agreement?’ constitute a legitimate strike vote?”
We also request that any strike action be postponed until after this special membership meeting.
Sincerely,
Patrick Savage
Trent Toulouse
Stan Govenlock