Originally Posted by collinbf

Health Care Benefits Reduced Article 23.01 pg. 22
Employees in job Classifications 2 (Custodian B) and 3 (Custodian A and Labourers) have had their health care benefits reduced. Under the former agreement family coverage was 223.26/month and Single coverage was 100.74/month. Under the new agreement this would be reduced with family coverage being only 110/month and single coverage only 50.00month.

Dental Benefits Reduced Article 23.01 pg. 23
Employees in job Classifications 2 (Custodian B) and 3 (Custodian A and Labourers) have also had their dental care benefits reduced. Currently families are entitled to 143.14/month and single coverage is 61.38/month. Under the new agreement this would be reduced to 70.00/month for a family and 30/month for single coverage.

Just to do a little calculation on how much of a loss these reductions are to employees, lets assume most Custodians and Labourers have families, then the contribution from the University to health coverage is a loss of $113 / month and dental coverage is $73 / month, combined for a total loss of $186 / month. The result on employees paycheques will be an increase in the employee contribution of that amount, resulting in less $ / month taken home. Combined over a year that's a cumulative loss of $2232 per employee. That's a heck of a lot of money for people who are at the lowest end of McMaster's current payscale.

Put in terms of $/hour wages, $2232 is effectively a $1-$1.25 / hour reduction in wages.

So while the 2-3% cut in wages is bad, the health and dental coverage reductions likely mean a 5-10% reduction in pay for employees. Combine the losses and by the end of the contract employees could be looking at paycheques that are 10-15% less than they are currently. That is assuming that McMaster doesn't just decide to fire all the SEIU members and contract everything out.

McMaster does have some budget troubles, but balancing the books by completely gutting the contract of SEIU members is just plain disgusting. From handing out $180,000 signing bonuses, $100,000 / year (on top of $300k pension) golden parachutes and health spending accounts of $20,000 for individuals at the top, McMaster has a lot of places to look for savings before it guts the compensation for people who are on the borderline of earning a living wage.

I don't like mcmaster admin, shoutout to them cause i kno they visit lol. can the MSU do anything to help?

Originally Posted by andrew22

I don't like mcmaster admin, shoutout to them cause i kno they visit lol. can the MSU do anything to help?

The MSU has a strict policy to act in the best interests of students and to remain strictly neutral in any labour dispute. The policy can be found here: https://www.msumcmaster.ca/content/d...20FINAL(1).pdf

The rationale is that whether or not we believe either side is right or wrong or if we "feel" that Janitorial staff are being given an unfair deal it is not our role to take a side. Taking side with either party will burn the bridge with the other and is fundamentally unfair for us to do since we are representatives of all 22,000 Undergrads. A good example of consequences of taking a side in such an issue is York University and YFS in 2008.

LOL i am amused by this...which is very cruel of me. But finally us off campus students get some justice D:

jkjk

edit/

@DannyV, idk.

Those cuts are pretty severe. They don't seem to be realistic, there's no way the admin could have hoped to get them past the union.

@Desda what kind of justice are you talking about?

The University and SEIU Local 2 continue negotiations on a new contract. The union has now given the University written notice that the earliest possible date it could strike is Wednesday, October 6 at 10:00 p.m. Pickets will not be formed prior to that date and time.
Both parties continue to meet with a goal of reaching a new agreement. SEIU Local 2 represents operations and maintenance, skilled trades and custodians and cleaners at McMaster.

The Daily News will continue to be updated as information becomes available.

http://dailynews.mcmaster.ca /story.cfm?id=6973

Originally Posted by huzaifa47

The MSU has a strict policy to act in the best interests of students and to remain strictly neutral in any labour dispute. The policy can be found here: https://www.msumcmaster.ca/content/documents/Link/Operating%20Policies/Labour%20Stoppage%20P aper%20FINAL(1).pdf

The rationale is that whether or not we believe either side is right or wrong or if we "feel" that Janitorial staff are being given an unfair deal it is not our role to take a side. Taking side with either party will burn the bridge with the other and is fundamentally unfair for us to do since we are representatives of all 22,000 Undergrads. A good example of consequences of taking a side in such an issue is York University and YFS in 2008.

ugh you're just gonna go with Chris Martin's prepared ideas of what the MSU should be?
the whole 'we r only here to help students' line is all that the msu is gonna do? and 'sh sh sh we mustn't make the admin mad.... everyone don't say a word, we are neutral" stuff..... blahhhh.

kiiinda expected more than parroting from you huzaifa. : (

((even dannyV isn't union bashing on this one...))

Originally Posted by andrew22

ugh you're just gonna go with Chris Martin's prepared ideas of what the MSU should be?
the whole 'we r only here to help students' line is all that the msu is gonna do? and 'sh sh sh we mustn't make the admin mad.... everyone don't say a word, we are neutral" stuff..... blahhhh.

kiiinda expected more than parroting from you huzaifa. : (

((even dannyV isn't union bashing on this one...))

Well the policy does state that considering "exceptional" circumstances the MSU can take a stance. We actually had a discussion about this entire issue at last nights SRA Meeting. My Fellow SRA Social Science Alex Ramirez wanted to have a discussion and a potential stance motion on this issue. The facts of the cuts being offered to the workers were made clear to the assembly and an Observer actually informed us that the union has a 99% strike motion which hardly ever happens.

For me personally I supported the consideration of the motion to "discuss" this issue all the way(The SRA as a whole voted down the motion to discuss&potential stance but allowed the motion for simple discussion with no possibility of a stance), I also did my best to remind the assembly that recommendation two does leave out the possibility of taking a stance in exceptional circumstances and requested the Board of Directors to release a public statement and both sides of the arguments ASAP.

However its a bit hard to explain, but it is collectively the SRA that has ultimate power to take a stance or not; Since I am now an elected employee of the MSU going against the will of the SRA In an official capacity aka using my title as SRA member is for me unprofessional.

However since the motion to consider the possibility of "potentially" taking a stance did not pass, there is nothing more they I can personally do without going against MSU Policy. But to be fair to the assembly the motion was the last item on the agenda brought forward in new business and that means the assembly did not know about it from before hand. Hence I got the feeling they felt uncomfortable making a decision without having both sides of the story beforehand.

Though in fairness as I pointed out to them since this issue is something that potentially affects students in an adverse manner we all as representatives should already be ensuring we know both sides of the story comprehensively. But then again they are volunteers with many priorities and occupations.

Similarly an SRA member also brought up the fact that he emailed the Board of Directors informing them about the strike last Tuesday so hypothetically they atleast had enough time to be informed on this issue.

Right now the plan is to release a negotiation/labour dispute portal of sorts with the proposals from both sides posted so that students have a resource to get informed on this issue. We considered potentially having a stance motion brought forth at the Thursday Executive Board meeting, however since the strike vote is Wednesday night it might be too late. I'll keep you guys posted.

Also Colin, I was wondering if you could scan and post or email me the official contract if possible? I do not have access to the entire document via the union or Mac website.

Originally Posted by huzaifa47

Also Colin, I was wondering if you could scan and post or email me the official contract if possible? I do not have access to the entire document via the union or Mac website.

Sure thing I'll get on that when I get home tonight.

Originally Posted by collinbf

Unpaid Absence due to Workplace Injury Article 22.05
Under McMasters offer an employee who is absent from work due to an occupational illness or injury that is subject to a WSIB claim will be unpaid for the duration of their absence.

Thanks for posting all that information. Most of those are pretty horrible, but the one I quoted caught my eye. Not getting paid for workplace injury absence is just ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Kathy2

Thanks for posting all that information. Most of those are pretty horrible, but the one I quoted caught my eye. Not getting paid for workplace injury absence is just ridiculous.

That says they don't get paid if they make a WSIB claim. It just means they don't get to double-dip and collect pay while they also collect money from WSIB. Pretty standard.

Originally Posted by kristopherk

That says they don't get paid if they make a WSIB claim. It just means they don't get to double-dip and collect pay while they also collect money from WSIB. Pretty standard.

Maybe it's the wording. I took that as "Any injury that may be dealt with by WSIB..", not "Any injury that was reported to WSIB and WSIB will give the worker compensation"

Do you know what I mean?

Originally Posted by kristopherk

That says they don't get paid if they make a WSIB claim. It just means they don't get to double-dip and collect pay while they also collect money from WSIB. Pretty standard.

Actually WSIB claims only cover loss of earnings, so if the employee was still being paid they wouldn't be able to "double dip" as you put it.
http://www.wsib.on.ca/wsib/wsibsite....ic/BenefitsLOE

The more important part of this provision for employees is the percentage of earnings that WSIB covers. WSIB only covers a MAXIMUM of 85% of take home pay and would not include things such as pension contributions. So for employees who are injured, this provision means a loss of 15% off what they're currently getting as the burden of paying for their loss earnings is shifted from the employer to the WSIB.

For the employee this means:
1) 15% reduction in their take home pay when their injured on the job
2) a whole bunch of paperwork before they get any money (so potentially a few pay periods without any income)
3) a lot more stress to deal with while the employee should be 100% focussed on recovery (which also minimizes losses for the employer)

For the employer this means several things (off the top of my head):
1) In this financial year there are significant savings as no claims would have to be paid out
2) Their WSIB premiums are going to go up as the values of claims against McMaster is increased.
3) The cost of injuries get shifted from the current financial year to future financial years as premiums catch up to the increased claims.

What's "pretty standard" in contracts is actually that the employer covers the portion that WSIB wouldn't cover, so their employees don't end up taking a financial hit when they're injured on the job.

Originally Posted by dsahota

What's "pretty standard" in contracts is actually that the employer covers the portion that WSIB wouldn't cover, so their employees don't end up taking a financial hit when they're injured on the job.

I was only going my by own personal experience. I've never been hurt on the job, but everywhere I've worked the 85% was the standard.

That said, your explanation of the WSIB payout is much better than mine.