So I tried to ask this question in another thread but people didnt seem to be able to answer without bickering and it was closed...

can someone please just simply explain the two sides of the strike..

Ive understood the others theres been but cant seem to get proper info on this one

Originally Posted by malakovski

So I tried to ask this question in another thread but people didnt seem to be able to answer without bickering and it was closed...

can someone please just simply explain the two sides of the strike..

Ive understood the others theres been but cant seem to get proper info on this one

Whoa, big text.

Anyway, the university moved to cut benefits to Hospitality workers. They obviously didn't like it, and bargaining between the two sides fell apart. Hence, strike.

That's the basic look at what's happening, avoiding bias and stuff.

so whats this whole thing about reduction to minimum wage?... or is taht info completely wrong

Uh, right, avoiding bias and stuff. I hear that from the workers on strike, but I don't imagine the university would tell the same story.

Does anyone have information on/a link to the specific offers that have been made and rejected?

Originally Posted by malakovski

so whats this whole thing about reduction to minimum wage?... or is taht info completely wrong

Might be included, since they do make above the min for similar jobs in other sectors. This is the first I'm hearing about it, though I'm not expert.

As far as I can gather:

- The University wants to cut job security and benefits for the hospitality workers.
-The hospitality workers believe the University is doing this in an effort to casualize the work force, meaning they want part-time, minimum wage workers, not full-time workers who they have to pay a higher wage, offer job-security and benefits to.
-The hospitality workers are upset at this and do not wish to sign a new contract that would allow the University to do this.

I gathered this from a union release so that's obviously the union's side of the story.

Obviously the University's side of the story is easy to gather and I'm not being biased here, its just the truth. Everything revolves around money, costs. The University obviously feels it would be more cost effective to have casual, part time workers who make minimum wage and do not require a benefits package, which is true, it would be.

So its a clash of what the University feels would help minimize their costs in running hospitality services, and therefore would reduce overall costs to run the University and what the Hospitality workers feel is unfair.

thanks!

If that is the case, I know which side im in agreement with to a greater extent. But keeping in with the no bickering-bias free attempt of this thread Im not going to mention anything

To shed a bit more light on the University's side:

The University is facing budget deficits (and has been for a few years now) and our Hospitality staff is paid extremely well for the work they do ($15 - $21 an hour + benefits). We also hire more chefs than needed (it's a shame seeing someone with actual training making chicken fingers and fries). The University is looking to cut down on the costs associated with hospitality by focusing on hiring part-time staff to do the more menial work. The University also plans to allow everyone who already has full-time employment with benefits to keep them, they just won't be hiring/promoting any new people to those positions. In other words: the University is trying to keep the quality of service about the same while cutting costs.

The main problem is that many of the part-time staff have been working towards full-time positions for years (I talked to one whose been doing so for almost 20 now) and they're worried that their part-time positions will be replaced by new, lower paid ones.

The Universities position isn't as "evil" as the Union is making it out to be, but the Union does have a point.

Good answers.

For more information, the MSU has created a Labour Relations page with frequent updates directly from each side without added commentary (as well as a link to Students Rights and Responsibilities... I'd suggest taking a quick read if you haven't already).

Also, feel free to email me ([email protected] er.ca) or Joe (Vice-Pres Education at [email protected]) if there is anything else you'd like to know.

Currently Joe and I have prepared a list of questions for both sides to learn more, most of it is what provisions are being put in place to protect students (ie. long-term planning, accommodations for students with dietary needs).

I was hoping for a snow day....

Income Inequality at McMaster University
by Norman M. Kearney
8 January 2011


In 2009, McMaster University paid $121 million in salaries and benefits to 883 employees who earned more than $100,000 (1). Two-thirds took home at least $115,000 with 80% receiving at least $200 in taxable benefits.

Former President Peter George received $536,474 in salaries and benefits and retiring Dean & Vice-President of Health Sciences John Kelton received $416,386 (1). On average, faculty, management, and administration earned $137,022 and received $482 in taxable benefits.

The University employs 7761 faculty, librarians, and staff (2) of which the 883 best-paid employees constitute 11%. In 2009, revenue from tuition counted as 19% of total revenue (2 p.35). As such, each of McMaster’s 23,209 full-time undergraduate and graduate students (2 p.7) contributed $997 to the compensation paid to the University’s 883 best-paid employees, or $1.13 per employee.

Compensation cost the University approximately $482.5 million (2 p.35) of which $121.7 million constitutes 25%. The other 6878 employees (2 p.26) split the remaining 75% of the compensation budget with an average salary of $52,457. Each student contributed $2954 to the compensation paid to the University’s 6878 employees who earn less than $100,000, or $0.43 per employee.

The 883 best-paid employees, therefore, make on average 2.6 times as much as 89% of all employees at McMaster University, consuming 25% of the compensation budget and costing each student almost three times the cost per employee for other workers. A 5% raise for the top earners, who take home on average $137,000, would cost students $0.06 per employee, whereas a 5% raise for the other 6878 employees, who take home on average $52,000, would cost students $0.02 per worker; tuition would increase by $148 and $50, respectively.

Redistributing 5% of income from the 883 best-paid employees to the other 6878 employees would, on average, reduce the salaries of the top earners by $6053 per employee (average salary becomes $130,969) and increase the salaries of the other employees by $885 per employee (average salary becomes $53,342) with no net change to the cost of human resources at McMaster University and no effect on tuition.


Sources:

(1) 2009 McMaster University Public Sector Salary Disclosure (http://www.workingatmcmaster .ca/me...-2009-1-46.pdf). Published 31 March 2010, accessed 8 January 2011.
(2) 2008-2009 McMaster University Fact Book (http://www.mcmaster.ca/avpira/docume...ok20082009.pdf) Published November 2009, accessed 8 January 2011.


------------------------------



It should be clear why the lowest paid workers at McMaster are upset about having their benefits slashed after reading the above. Why is the university cutting corners with these people and not from the people at the top of the ladder? We, as students, are paying the most for the people at the top and that includes sending Peter George's wife to Australia ($13 000). How does that make sense?

This is so frustrating...

Originally Posted by Parnian

It should be clear why the lowest paid workers at McMaster are upset about having their benefits slashed after reading the above. Why is the university cutting corners with these people and not from the people at the top of the ladder? We, as students, are paying the most for the people at the top and that includes sending Peter George's wife to Australia ($13 000). How does that make sense?

This is so frustrating...

Well, I wonder who should get less wages. Professors who teach Neuroscience or a lady with not college degree that servers Pizza at the student center?

I agree that the wages of the top shouldn't go to $400k+ but at the same time ..

Originally Posted by Sasha

Well, I wonder who should get less wages. Professors who teach Neuroscience or a lady with not college degree that servers Pizza at the student center?

I agree that the wages of the top shouldn't go to $400k+ but at the same time ..

These workers are making just a little above minimum wage. They are just as important as the neuroscience professor. These people are serving us our FOOD. That stuff has to be hygienic. Every worker (cleaner, food handler, professor) is important in the grand scheme of things, especially in a university setting.

Come on, with strikes like this happening, McMaster University's reputation is going down the drain and they don't care as long as long as they take our money. Tuition keeps rising every year and yet they keep taking away from the people on the lowest rung of the ladder. It's crazy.

anybody know if they have plans to back to the negotiating table or are they just not talking right now

Also its not a question of who should be paid more, its more of a question of how much more is reasonable.

I don't think any rational student feels the hospitality service workers should get paid in excess of 100 000 dollars a year, but perhaps they also don't think some of the higher up employees at McMaster should be making as much as they are either.

I wouldn't agree with this strike at all if it were about a massive pay raise for the hospitality workers, but given that is about job security and benefits and that they University obviously sees fit to offer exorbitant amounts of money to those on the top of the food chain, I can't help but see why they're so frustrated, and striking.

As has been mentioned what both groups do is important but perhaps the compensation for those at the top is getting excessive and its obviously the people the University finds less important that get screwed over so they can make these concessions to the elite.

The last 3 strikes or potential strikes we've experienced here have been about McMaster trying to cut wages, benefits and job security to our TAs (people who directly influence the learning of its students), the custodial workers etc (people who keep the school clean for the students) and now the hospitality workers (people who provide food to the students). Meanwhile I haven't heard about any cuts to the salaries of those 883 people at the top of the ladder, and furthermore what we have heard about is excessive expenses and ridiculous pensions for them.

It doesn't exactly seem like the University cares about all the people who provide services to their students.

Some of those 833 are award-winning professors who would just leave if their pay is decreased, or possibly people who are making salary-involved decisions. It's harder to get their wages decreased than those who are really more replaceable, strictly speaking.