Originally Posted by alyssabriere

Well that would be really shitty. I really hope they don't go on strike because I need the money from that job and if they decide to go on strike I won't have time to find any other job for the upcoming year. ugh.

You'll be out of work for the duration of the strike. You should be able to resume your normal duties when the strike ends.

Originally Posted by DannyV

The beauty of unions is that should you choose to go against the union you could be verbally assaulted and labeled a scab.

In short, you would be forced out of your job.

Ahh yes... the noble unions.

Screw them. I might be getting a TA job in september, and if I do (and if they happen to go on strike), I'll be walking right past them.

Wow, I'm amazed at some of the responses in this thread, calling the non-academic staff "animals" and "pigs"?! that's just ridiculous and uncalled for.

To say that they should accept whatever they're offered because we're in a recession is total BS. Yes, we are in a tight spot financially but then why not make the cut across the board? Why only change the contract for non-academic staff? Are they less important?

I have talked to some non-academic staff and their problem is not with increased pay, or signing bonuses but with the new pension plan being proposed. They're more than willing to have a pay freeze in exchange for the old contract, no more, no less. After all, they are people with families to support and do not want to go on strike anymore than we want them to.

To say that were paying them is not entirely true. Lab techs for example, are on a yearly salary coming from their supervisor grants. Yes, it would be an inconvenience if they strike, and it will affect our education, but that does not mean they don't have the right to fight for their benefits. True, we might be the future, but they are the present.

I think people are so disgruntled that they automatically assume that union + strike = "greedy people looking for pay increases". With the LCBO strike, it was to protect the security of the jobs as many full-time positions were being converted into seasonal or part time positions.

Like I said earlier, although the business investments are being reduced because of the recession, funding is coming from alternate sources (see U of T).

Originally Posted by chugaucon

Wow, I'm amazed at some of the responses in this thread, calling the non-academic staff "animals" and "pigs"?! that's just ridiculous and uncalled for.

To say that they should accept whatever they're offered because we're in a recession is total BS. Yes, we are in a tight spot financially but then why not make the cut across the board? Why only change the contract for non-academic staff? Are they less important?

I have talked to some non-academic staff and their problem is not with increased pay, or signing bonuses but with the new pension plan being proposed. They're more than willing to have a pay freeze in exchange for the old contract, no more, no less. After all, they are people with families to support and do not want to go on strike anymore than we want them to.

To say that were paying them is not entirely true. Lab techs for example, are on a yearly salary coming from their supervisor grants. Yes, it would be an inconvenience if they strike, and it will affect our education, but that does not mean they don't have the right to fight for their benefits. True, we might be the future, but they are the present.

Just to play devil's advocate; Recession = cutbacks, for you to say that it's NOT greedy to expect no cutbacks to your job is fairly unrealistic. The whole problem is that Defined benefits pension plans are very, very bad for businesses. Had McMaster had a Defined contribution pension plan, they would likely not even make a cutback.

As far as the paycuts not being attributed to the academic faculty, I'm not sure if that's true or not, but assuming it is true, for your benefit, the academic staff are what draw students to the school in the first place. Without them, there would be no students and therefore no income stream for the university. You don't want to agitate them because they are in a sense "more important". I do realize that non-academic staff don't get much credit because they do behind the scene work mainly, but hopefully you can see that academic staff are the main business drivers in the university. I want to have renowned professors at the university I go to, I don't care as much about having renowned secretaries.

And as far as having families to support, I won't shed any tears to that argument if they decide to go on strike, thereby drastically decreasing their income for that period. That's not thinking about your family, that's just penalizing them, and also penalizing the students that are the reason you even have the job you do.

Those profs are "useless" to students without the "machine" of the university system

Originally Posted by daisy

Those profs are "useless" to students without the "machine" of the university system

A retort to that would be the fact that professors had to go to school for X years and earn a degree to qualify for their job. They deserve higher benefits then the rest of the staff. Secretaries on the other hand don't have to obtain Ph.D's.

On top of that, it's general economics, suppy vs. demand. A lot more people are qualified to be non-academic staff, so the demand for those jobs is higher, allowing them to be paid lower.

Lab technicians are also getting a cut - people seem to ignore this and assume that secretaries are the only ones losing benefits. Many of them have their M. Sc plus additional courses that they take in college.

Some lab technicians/instructional assistants are so essential for the university experience Ph Ds. Marvin Gunderman is an IA, but his guest lectures in 2F03 were absolutely amazing. He's so well known for his bug work that he's taught courses at Queens. Ray Procwat is also amazing at organizing large courses, yet is able to assist students individually with course material and logistic issues. Sharon Stray organizes all the first year biology labs as well as a number of volunteers and workers. Just because they don't have a Ph. D it doesn't mean that they deserve to get all their benefits slashed.

Originally Posted by jesus

Just because they don't have a Ph. D it doesn't mean that they deserve to get all their benefits slashed.

It's not so much the fact that if you don't have a Ph. D, you don't deserve benefits, as it is the fact that if your job doesn't have something like a Ph.D as an entry barrier, you're going to have a lot more people than you qualified for it, forcing the salary down until demand for the job = supply for the job.

There is a reason McDonald's can pay people minimum wage where as an investment bank cannot. People who go through the education/jumping through hoops to obtain the required knowledge for investment banking causes them to be part of a smaller qualified crowd, thereby demanding a higher wage for their troubles vs. every 18 year old in the world who is qualified to work at McDonald's.

A person might be surprised at the educational backgrounds of administrative staff...inluding secretaries Careful about assumptions

Originally Posted by daisy

A person might be surprised at the educational backgrounds of administrative staff...inluding secretaries Careful about assumptions

I'm not saying that the people who hold those positions aren't highly educated, but the fact remains that the job itself does not require having an MBA/J.D./Ph.D. That means that having one doesn't inherently make you more valuable than someone who doesn't.

To go back to the McDonald's example, having an MBA generally shouldn't make you a better burger flipper than an 18 year old without one.

oh no .....................

Let's please not go off topic. This thread is about Mcmaster going on strike and not about educational backgrounds of the administrative staff.

Faculty need secretaries. University can't run without them.

Originally Posted by macsci

Faculty need secretaries. University can't run without them.

But apparently they're going to, since the university has no plans of closing or stopping classes in the event of a strike.