[lorend]

Via MSU Labour Relations

Members of SEIU Local 2 voted Thursday night to reject the University's contract offer. The five-year deal contained no wage cuts, a range of salary increases, and provided lump sum payments for all employees. It also required changes to benefit provisions in order to meet the province's requirement that all new collective agreements contain no net compensation increases in the first two years.

SEIU Local 2 represents operations and maintenance workers, skilled trades and cleaners and custodians at McMaster. They are in a legal strike position and have set 1:00 a.m. Wednesday, October 13 as the strike deadline. No bargaining has been scheduled but the University is willing to resume negotiations upon request.

The University will remain open if there is a strike. A contingency planning group has been meeting for a number of weeks to ensure that health and safety on campus is maintained. Picket lines could delay traffic getting into and out of campus and should a strike occur, everyone is asked to leave themselves extra time to get to work and classes. Additional information on contingency planning is availablehere. Updates will be available through the Labour Relations link on the Daily News.

Greatttttttt...



Who's up next year?

Originally Posted by britb

Greatttttttt...

Who's up next year?

You asked, but do you really want to know?


Sessional Faculty (CUPE 3906 Unit 2): currently expired, in negotiations
Full time faculty and librarians: June 30, 2011
Postdoctoral Fellows (CUPE 3906 Unit 3): July 15, 2011
Teaching Assistants / Research Assistants (CUPE 3906 Unit 1): August 31, 2011
CAW: August 31, 2012

The big one will obviously be the Full-time faculty negotiations, if the University sticks to its no net total compensation increase for 2 years plan (as it has with SEIU and CUPE Unit 2) then it could definitely get messy with the Faculty.

Hm...so if they follow through with the strike..we can expect lots of garbage and tons of broken shet? Doesnt sound that bad really.

"It also required changes to benefit provisions in order to meet the province's requirement that all new collective agreements contain no net compensation increases in the first two years."

Where does it say to cut benefits?

The Daily news is just propaganda for Mac. The only reason it doesn't include wage cuts is because the Union rejected the offer. It still contains many benefit cuts as well as reduced holidays and premiums. There are other cuts but I don't have the contract in front of me.

It seems like going on strike is the new cool thing to do

Apparently when the janitorial staff at Concordia went on strike, the campus became so filthy that the admin caved within a week.

Originally Posted by collinbf

Apparently when the janitorial staff at Concordia went on strike, the campus became so filthy that the admin caved within a week.

I'm trying so hard not to picture the girls bathrooms in MUSC right now. They're bad enough as it is, and that's with regular cleaning.

Originally Posted by AelyaS

I'm trying so hard not to picture the girls bathrooms in MUSC right now. They're bad enough as it is, and that's with regular cleaning.

Oh, don't worry, they'll be the clean ones . Pretty sure MUSC is cleaned by a private company, so if you're looking for nice bathrooms, check out MUSC *shudders*

Originally Posted by jamescw1234

Oh, don't worry, they'll be the clean ones . Pretty sure MUSC is cleaned by a private company, so if you're looking for nice bathrooms, check out MUSC *shudders*

I feel so much better now.

im so pulling a homer simpson where the sanitation ppl wouldn't pick up his trash, so he made like garbage mountain mwhahhahahahahaha

Originally Posted by collinbf

"It also required changes to benefit provisions in order to meet the province's requirement that all new collective agreements contain no net compensation increases in the first two years."

Where does it say to cut benefits?

The Daily news is just propaganda for Mac. The only reason it doesn't include wage cuts is because the Union rejected the offer. It still contains many benefit cuts as well as reduced holidays and premiums. There are other cuts but I don't have the contract in front of me.

Net compensation includes benefits. If mac can't increase compensation and the union demands wage increases then benefits must be reduced. Period. I don't know the details but if it is true that the province requires no net compensation increases then this could be a long strike.

FYI reading the union's response I am convinced their leadership are not too bright.

They are demanding the University ignore provincial policy. Take it up with McGuinty. The University's hands are tied. Right OR wrong, the fact is that other groups already have contracts and they can't be modified until they're up. When they are up they will have to undergo the same thing (or maybe worse depending on the government elected).

Oh my. TA's.... Maintenance personnel.. and what, the profs being next? This is just getting ridiculous :S.

Originally Posted by arathbon

FYI reading the union's response I am convinced their leadership are not too bright.

They are demanding the University ignore provincial policy. Take it up with McGuinty. The University's hands are tied. Right OR wrong, the fact is that other groups already have contracts and they can't be modified until they're up. When they are up they will have to undergo the same thing (or maybe worse depending on the government elected).

For the record this "provincial policy" is only that the provincial government kindly asks that there be a two year total compensation freeze. It is in fact not a policy at all, but rather just a suggestion, numerous other public sector unions have negotiated contracts with total compensation increases since the "policy" was suggested [1]. McMaster is merely trying to hide behind the provincial government "suggestion" when they know it has no legitimate effect.

The reason why it is a suggestion and not a piece of legislation is that the Supreme Court of Canada in 2007 found 8-1 that groups have a charter right to collectively bargain and this right cannot be taken away by provincial government legislation. Requiring a zero compensation increase effectively removes the right of groups to bargain. The relevant court case is: Health Services and Support – Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 391, 2007 SCC 27.

The ruling, in its entirety, can be found here: http://scc.lexum.umontreal.c a/en/2...2007scc27.html

[1] Text of arbitration judgement for windsor hospital workers from August 24th stating the total compensation freeze does not apply: http://www.opseu.org/bps/health/hosp...2010-10-01.pdf