I love this topic. I personally believe unions are terrible organizations. I also find the "unions were once useful but not anymore" to be a cop-out response. When it comes down to it, I find it funny how Unions try to claim to be fighting for the average person when they do things detrimental to the average person. One, they restrict our liberties. Yes freedom of association protects the rights of unions to exist which is completely fine! But that freedom also ensures we have the right NOT to associate with people. Unions force us to participate which just shows that they know they are useless because they are afraid if people had the choice they wouldnt join the union.

Secondly, Unions protect those who should be fired or dont deserve extra pay or perks, and hold down true hard workers who could be taking raises which are instead going to terrible employees. If you work hard you should individually be rewarded for your actions, not hope that your actions outweight those of the slackers and hope the employer will give you all a raise.

Unions ruin work ethic, ruin employee moral(different from group/union moral), protect those who shouldnt be, and hurt good employees. I respect unions if they respect others, just like I respect people if they show respect. But when you see Unions like CUPE being unreasonable it really is hard to support them even if they do have legitimate concerns.

This is just one of my neo-liberal rants I guess.

Originally Posted by tauntobr

I just got an update regarding the status of the unions at Mac, and possibility of a strike from the Office of the Vice-President (Education) of the MSU:

Firstly, don’t panic about the strike vote. This is a vote to authorize the bargaining committee to make the decision to go on strike. While it isn’t exactly a good thing for the prospect of not having a strike, this is a pretty standard part of the collective bargaining process. Strike votes often happen without strikes ever occuring.
However, if an agreement is not reached by September first, for CAW, and both sections of CUPE (TA’s and Post-Docs), the bargaining teams for the three unions HAVE been authorized to call a strike.
The University, at this point, intends to stay open in the event of a TA strike, with classes still running.
As for welcome week with CAW, those conversations are ongoing.
CUPE Demands are not public yet, and as non-participants in the bargaining process, I do not have acess to them.

Can you or someone else here elaborate on the VP Ed's response in a more detailed manner? I'm somewhat lost about this CAW union; according to what I heard last it was the TA's/Post Docs aka the CUPE that wanted to go on strike. Who does CAW represent the Prof's? Ad which is the "third" union and who do they represent? Or are the Post Doc's the professors/lecturers?
What does CAW has to do with Welcome Week?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for unions I'm not for or against them, while I am slightly left leaning and therefore obviously believe in the power of having unions against big corporations, I do think that sometimes they do abuse their power and go out of line. But I guess that's just human nature to abuse their power and hold the corporation at ransom about benefits they probably don't deserve for their level of work and education(Wages, Benefits).

However at the flip side it is rather unfair to paint all unions with the sweeping statement of being evil and that "I'm anti union". As Callen mentioned unions do alot alot more then just harrass the companies for wages. Just like there is the Lightbulb story, I personally have a positive story regarding unions as well. It is pretty long but in summary my Dad is an Airline Pilot in Pakistan(Hence part of the Pilots Union) where the union succesfully took a case to the supreme court, used mini strikes and go slow tactics to undo the State Owned Airlines descision to lay off over 100 Pilots and Ground a Certain Aircraft years before it was supposed to be out of service(Apparently the Upper Brass were to recieve kickbacks by making deals for new aircraft). This is the only incident I recall, but the Airlines Union in Pakistan and from what I've read all over the world have been successful in saving Pilot jobs in wake of the Airline Recession in the 21st Century and forced the Airlines to instead become more efficient/cut costs elsewhere and use other methods for profits.

There was a cetain legislation that can be used against them mentioned by Ben, but I don't think that will ever pass simply because the Political Parties all use Unions for gathering votes, there is NO WAY they will do anything to damage that relationship.

But in summary, I'm not really sure what the solution here is. Unions have both pro's and con's but they will never be obsolete under any circumstances, the corporations by no means can guarantee worker job safety and other market benefits unless we have unions.

Originally Posted by tauntobr

I just got an update regarding the status of the unions at Mac, and possibility of a strike from the Office of the Vice-President (Education) of the MSU:

Firstly, don’t panic about the strike vote. This is a vote to authorize the bargaining committee to make the decision to go on strike. While it isn’t exactly a good thing for the prospect of not having a strike, this is a pretty standard part of the collective bargaining process. Strike votes often happen without strikes ever occuring.
However, if an agreement is not reached by September first, for CAW, and both sections of CUPE (TA’s and Post-Docs), the bargaining teams for the three unions HAVE been authorized to call a strike.
The University, at this point, intends to stay open in the event of a TA strike, with classes still running.
As for welcome week with CAW, those conversations are ongoing.
CUPE Demands are not public yet, and as non-participants in the bargaining process, I do not have acess to them.

I believe we find out on Monday or Tuesday what the results are. However, I was told there are three bargaining sessions(don't know correct term) prior to September 1st.

Originally Posted by huzaifa47

Can you or someone else here elaborate on the VP Ed's response in a more detailed manner? I'm somewhat lost about this CAW union; according to what I heard last it was the TA's/Post Docs aka the CUPE that wanted to go on strike. Who does CAW represent the Prof's? Ad which is the "third" union and who do they represent? Or are the Post Doc's the professors/lecturers?
What does CAW has to do with Welcome Week?

CAW represents 2200 staff members on campus. Essentially, it's the support staff from various services including Financial Aid, Career Services, Registrar, etc. CAW doesn't have anything to do with Welcome Week? However, it has a lot to do with other stuff. For example, if financial aid is only being run by managers (because managers are under a different union) well things will take a lot longer to get processed. Financial Aid and Registrar are kind of a big deal and get incredibly busy August/September. It doesn't have to do with professors or TAs.

Originally Posted by huzaifa47

Can you or someone else here elaborate on the VP Ed's response in a more detailed manner? I'm somewhat lost about this CAW union; according to what I heard last it was the TA's/Post Docs aka the CUPE that wanted to go on strike. Who does CAW represent the Prof's? Ad which is the "third" union and who do they represent? Or are the Post Doc's the professors/lecturers?

CAW (Canadian Auto Workers) Local 555 represents the non-academic salaried staff at McMaster.

CUPE Local 3906 represents the T.As/R.As, Sessionals, and Post Docs. Each are in different units, currently Unit 1 and 3 are in negotiations. Those are the T.As and the Post Docs.

Originally Posted by .:callen:.

CAW (Canadian Auto Workers) Local 555 represents the non-academic salaried staff at McMaster.

CUPE Local 3906 represents the T.As/R.As, Sessionals, and Post Docs. Each are in different units, currently Unit 1 and 3 are in negotiations. Those are the T.As and the Post Docs.

So who exactly are the Post Docs? The Tenured Facutly members?

And Its rather wierd and surprising how Sessionals aren't on the board to harass Mac admin and make a statement. If that Insiders Article is correct/accurate more then 200 sessionals were layed off this year and even now they do not have that much of a job security, that's actually worse then any issue regarding wages/benefits! Does anyone know why they are not pressuring Mac?

Brothers and sisters,

Time and time again, I feel myself coming to the aide of organizations that are being attacked viciously by individuals who have themselves never experienced the numerous benefits of unionized workplaces. Nor have they experienced the harshness of a non-unionized workplace.

I currently hold down two jobs. One is unionized, the other precarious (labour-studies speak for seasonal/part-time). In my unionized shop, I get my government mandated breaks and lunches, representatives to talk to outside the reach of the corporation, money put aside in the union protected pension fund and hundreds of other social affairs organized through the UFCW.

In my non-union shop, breaks and lunches are frowned upon, there is no one to speak to but supervisors and job security is a major issue.

Unions, today, are more relevant then they have ever been. We live in a time where we, the children of privilege, have the opportunity to go to school and get an education leading to well paying, secure jobs in the upper tier of society.

But for the millions of other people out there, who for one reason or another, do not have the opportunity to go to school, unions must be in place to provide a solid, uniting voice against all forms of discrimination, oppression and maltreatment.

Have we not evolved to the state where we look out for those among us who cannot look out for themselves?

Have we not entered an era that, despite the recent downturn, still leaves us richer and more complacent then ever before?

Unions fight for higher wages for those living paycheck to paycheck.

Unions protect pension benefits being clawed back by businesses and their interests in government.

Unions provide a social aspect to workplaces where productivity is paramount.

Unions are a basic human need...the need for groups, unity and solidarity.

Those who oppose unions, generally speaking, take the side of the corporation. To die-hard anti-unionists, what is best for the biggest and most successful corporations is, ultimately, best for all of us.

But at the end of the day, the corporation has an obligation to return a high profit to its investors.

The union has an obligation to do its best for its members, to stand for them, even when counter rallies are held to fight them, even when trash is thrown at them, even when they are harassed for standing up for their rights.

What kind of world is it, where that happens! What kind of world is it where people will physically intimidate, verbally harass and emotionally attack people for standing up for their rights, or what passes for rights in this world today!

Strikes disrupt people's lives, yes. But who's fault is the strike?

The CUPE workers who voted to stand together in solidarity and walk out, or the government contractors who refuse to give part-time, seasonal and temporary workers access to the pension fund they have been paying into since they got their jobs!?

If you are privileged enough to have never experienced workplaces without unions, or even privileged enough to have never worked, then I congratulate you on your success.

But I ask one thing:

Put yourself in the shoes of the working single mother who can barely feed her family because her wage is too low.

Or in the shoes of the 50 year old temporary CUPE worker in Toronto who, after years of paying into his pension fund, has been denied access to it, and will retire into poverty.

Or the 19 year old university student who has to work 2 jobs to put himself through school.

What do I think of unions?

Solidarity. Forever.

Post Doctoral Fellows (or "Post Docs") are people who just got their doctoral degrees and have been given a 'trial' position at the University. They are not tenured, and are evaluated quite closely for their one or two year period (depending on what it may be) based on 'academic merit' (which instead of grades, this is research potential) and 'teaching ability' (which are the little evaluations filled out by the students, as well as having a tenured faculty member sit in on a few lectures throughout the year)

I've seen a lot of successful Post Docs get hired as permanent faculty members, and a lot leave in search of positions at other universities.

http://www.math.mcmaster.ca/people/p....php?id= 1230
http://www.math.mcmaster.ca/people/p...l.php?id= 258
http://www.math.mcmaster.ca/people/p....php?id= 1158

These are examples of post docs. (Note the "Postdoctoral Fellow" or "Graduate Student, Mathematics (PhD)" subheadings)

As for people who are not post docs, and hence tenured faculty members, they have the following titles:

-Professor
-Associate Professor
-Assistant Professor
-Adjunct Professor
-Professor Emeritus ("Retired" professor)

(I may have missed some)

Originally Posted by Mowicz

Post Doctoral Fellows (or "Post Docs") are people who just got their doctoral degrees and have been given a 'trial' position at the University. They are not tenured, and are evaluated quite closely for their one or two year period (depending on what it may be) based on 'academic merit' (which instead of grades, this is research potential) and 'teaching ability' (which are the little evaluations filled out by the students, as well as having a tenured faculty member sit in on a few lectures throughout the year)

I've seen a lot of successful Post Docs get hired as permanent faculty members, and a lot leave in search of positions at other universities.

http://www.math.mcmaster.ca/people/p....php?id= 1230
http://www.math.mcmaster.ca/people/p...l.php?id= 258
http://www.math.mcmaster.ca/people/p....php?id= 1158

These are examples of post docs. (Note the "Postdoctoral Fellow" or "Graduate Student, Mathematics (PhD)" subheadings)

As for people who are not post docs, and hence tenured faculty members, they have the following titles:

-Professor
-Associate Professor
-Assistant Professor
-Adjunct Professor
-Professor Emeritus ("Retired" professor)

(I may have missed some)

I see, so which union are the tenured Faculty members part of?

Originally Posted by huzaifa47

I see, so which union are the tenured Faculty members part of?

I dunno. Coast Guard?

Since I don't know much about politics and unions, I was wondering if anyone who says they are anti-union could help me understand their point of view better. Specifically, I'm not sure what Ian Finlay meant when he says "Unions protect those who should be fired or dont deserve extra pay or perks". This is my hypothetical question:

Let's say that there is an imaginary grocery store that happens to be having an unprofitable year. At this grocery store there is a middle-aged employee, Frank, who has been working there for 3 years, in produce for example. Over the years Frank has accumulated raises and benefits, and he makes just enough money to live comfortably. But, Frank is slow at his job (he has a bum knee) and calls in sick with suspicious frequency. Then I come along, a young healthy person willing to work for 1/2 of Frank's wages and available at all hours. It would be profitable to fire Frank, or severely cut his hours, and have me do his work (I would get more done). Should the manager be able to replace Frank with me without Frank making some colossal mistake (like punching a customer)?

Should the manager be able to cut Frank's wages, and raise mine, in accordance with our relative productivity?

Originally Posted by dukeb

Since I don't know much about politics and unions, I was wondering if anyone who says they are anti-union could help me understand their point of view better. Specifically, I'm not sure what Ian Finlay meant when he says "Unions protect those who should be fired or dont deserve extra pay or perks". This is my hypothetical question:

Let's say that there is an imaginary grocery store that happens to be having an unprofitable year. At this grocery store there is a middle-aged employee, Frank, who has been working there for 3 years, in produce for example. Over the years Frank has accumulated raises and benefits, and he makes just enough money to live comfortably. But, Frank is slow at his job (he has a bum knee) and calls in sick with suspicious frequency. Then I come along, a young healthy person willing to work for 1/2 of Frank's wages and available at all hours. It would be profitable to fire Frank, or severely cut his hours, and have me do his work (I would get more done). Should the manager be able to replace Frank with me without Frank making some colossal mistake (like punching a customer)?

Should the manager be able to cut Frank's wages, and raise mine, in accordance with our relative productivity?

The problem here is that the unions group everyone under the union together as one entity. This includes those such as the fictional "Frank" you're talking about, people who don't care, people who do an outstanding job and those who simply leech off the system (People Ian is referring to).

This means one could argue that a union is like a communist pocket within the system. Sure, this is good in a way because it gives job security to those that need it for survival, but it also gives it to those who don't.

Unfortunately too, it seems like union leaders feel that they need to raise the bar to what they believe to "standard living" every so often, which leads to things that don't exist outside the union like "bankable sick days" and a ridiculous amount of paid days off.

We can't only think of the Franks out there. There is only so much compassion that can be given without turning the tax payers into Frank.

Contrary to what a lot of unions believe, the tax payers aren't exactly rich .

Originally Posted by dukeb

Should the manager be able to replace Frank with me without Frank making some colossal mistake (like punching a customer)?

Within the confines of this extremely simplified scenario, yes, he should. Why should anyone have to settle for a sub-quality employee? Why is Frank "entitled" to this job?

(Ayn Rand would be proud of me right now...)

EDIT: I actualy don't know if I'm quite as anti-union as all that. I don't think employers should be able to fire employees without reason, but in this situation, it sucks for the employer to have to keep Frank when a better candidate is available. Behaviour like that encourages incompetency, IMO.

Originally Posted by dukeb

Since I don't know much about politics and unions, I was wondering if anyone who says they are anti-union could help me understand their point of view better. Specifically, I'm not sure what Ian Finlay meant when he says "Unions protect those who should be fired or dont deserve extra pay or perks". This is my hypothetical question:

Let's say that there is an imaginary grocery store that happens to be having an unprofitable year. At this grocery store there is a middle-aged employee, Frank, who has been working there for 3 years, in produce for example. Over the years Frank has accumulated raises and benefits, and he makes just enough money to live comfortably. But, Frank is slow at his job (he has a bum knee) and calls in sick with suspicious frequency. Then I come along, a young healthy person willing to work for 1/2 of Frank's wages and available at all hours. It would be profitable to fire Frank, or severely cut his hours, and have me do his work (I would get more done). Should the manager be able to replace Frank with me without Frank making some colossal mistake (like punching a customer)?

Should the manager be able to cut Frank's wages, and raise mine, in accordance with our relative productivity?

This is not a situation I see the issue with. No, Frank should not be punished to that degree. If an employer wants to cut his hours or wages, he needs reasons. It's the law. If they give him warnings and ask him to be more transparent with his sick calls, and do what they can to help him find accomadations for his bum knee, and things still dont get better then fine, do what you want. But If they dont try it is ultimately the employer who has failed in this situation.

The issue I see is, you have Joe and Andrew. They work entering insurance claims into a spreadsheet. Joe shows up, punchs numbers, takes breaks when he can. He doesn't work an hour over what he needs to. Should he get a raise? No he does not go above and beyond to deserve that extra dollar, or 2 days holiday. Andrew shows up to work, does the same job, but while doing it realizes if the company changed their system so that they only had to enter the info once it would save time and all employees would have an easier time learning. He saves the company millions of dollars in training and in productivity. Problem is he is set to a collective bargaining deal, which means he can't get a raise unless Joe gets one too.

Really in the unionized world the story happens basicly that way, but instead Andrew decides not to go for that extra step and look at how to progress the company because it doesnt benefit him any more than a guy who does the bare minimum.

That may have been a bit too complicated maybe. But Unions either stifle the creativity we saw in that example, or stifle the personal gains that these individuals could have. If one wants to participate in a union go right ahead! Just don't force me to join one if I dont want to.

Also just so its clear, I have worked for union and un-unionized places. I am not just some 19 year old student who has worked two jobs to pay for schooling.

Originally Posted by Geek

(Ayn Rand would be proud of me right now...)

hahaha... Ayn Rand would. I dont think that is a good thing or not.... Is it wrong to have a slight crush on Ayn Rand?