Originally Posted by dsahota

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

Originally Posted by arathbon

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

arathbon, you must be lost, don't even show your face around these parts

Originally Posted by andrew22

arathbon, you must be lost, don't even show your face around these parts

Why don't you stop being an ass. You are the rudest, biggest jackass on this forums and I'm tired of reading your mean degrading posts towards other people.

FYI just because the provincial government can't force mac not to give them a raise, it means the province has not factored in compensation increases in funding for Universities.

That means that mac will either have to 1) Raise tuition or 2) Cut elsewhere.

I dunno about you, but when people all around are getting laid off (including some student's parents), and many students can't find work, getting a compensation neutral contract sounds a lot better than us (the students) swallowing even bigger tuition increases. Lets face it, the fact they get paid above minimum wage, have job security and get benefits makes them pretty well off compared to many of the families I knew as a kid. In fact they themselves admit they are generously compensated compared to cleaning staff working for private contractors.

Their ad hominem attacks on mac (Mac is on a mission to create poverty in Hamilton, pardon me but that is bull, plain and simple) are unhelpful and childish and really diminishes them in my opinion. If mac really wanted to do that, they'd just switch to a private contractor.

NOTE: Before the inevitable "But there's money elsewhere that can be saved, etc. etc." comments. I know that. But then we're into trying to change other worker's contracts.

Originally Posted by arathbon

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.

But they didn't increase the wages. At first they tried to cut the wages AND benefits for the cleaning section. In the new deal they decided to keep the cleaners wages the same and cut benefits. They will be making the same amount as before with reduced benefits.

Originally Posted by arathbon

FYI just because the provincial government can't force mac not to give them a raise, it means the province has not factored in compensation increases in funding for Universities.

That means that mac will either have to 1) Raise tuition or 2) Cut elsewhere.

But they aren't increasing the benefits their decreasing it. The union was willing to even continue the current contract with no change but the University declined. Secondly tuition is already gone up since last year, and so has enrolment. Also they don't seem to have any issue with increasing the wages of management who just got a raise. They also gave Peter George a 1.4 million dollar retirement package.

The fact is the university prefers to spend money on constructing new buildings then maintaing the current facilities. Solar is a perfect example.

Originally Posted by collinbf

But they didn't increase the wages. At first they tried to cut the wages AND benefits for the cleaning section. In the new deal they decided to keep the cleaners wages the same and cut benefits. They will be making the same amount as before with reduced benefits.

The original deal was shit, I 100% agree, I am talking about the new deal:

"Hourly wage rates for members of the bargaining unit now range between $15.02 and $30.15 per hour, depending on job classification. By the end of the proposed five-year contract, that range would increase to between $16.00 and $34.63 per hour, should the membership accept the offer."

Of course the University could be fibbing but it'd be pretty easy to catch them.

For low end employees that's 6.5% over the contract. I'm not sure what that would be in real income (and that really depends on how inflation goes), but its certainly not true that their wages are staying the same.

Originally Posted by arathbon

The original deal was shit, I 100% agree, I am talking about the new deal:

"Hourly wage rates for members of the bargaining unit now range between $15.02 and $30.15 per hour, depending on job classification. By the end of the proposed five-year contract, that range would increase to between $16.00 and $34.63 per hour, should the membership accept the offer."

Of course the University could be fibbing but it'd be pretty easy to catch them.

For low end employees that's 6.5% over the contract. I'm not sure what that would be in real income (and that really depends on how inflation goes), but its certainly not true that their wages are staying the same.

That increase is for the trades not cleaners. Also the only reason they can raise the wages for the trades is by cutting the wage premiums, sick days, and holidays. Also the main cuts are aimed only at the cleaners. Furthermore the cleaners can only get 15.02 if they give up their benefits completely otherwise they make 13.02

At least the strikers and university have a chance at benefiting from this (depending on who wins). But students just keep getting punished for going to school. I'm sick of being dragged into conflicts that honestly should not be my concern.

I don't even care who's right and who's wrong anymore. I'm pissed at all of them.

Remember the TA strike? How we couldn't get our questions answered or assignments marked, and how both sides try to sway student opinion? Now if this one goes the buildings will get disgusting, ie the lecture halls, places where students go (profs, etc. have offices). The admin is going to use this, regardless of who wins, as yet another reason to increase tuition.

Originally Posted by collinbf

But they aren't increasing the benefits their decreasing it. The union was willing to even continue the current contract with no change but the University declined.

I didn't say they were increasing benefits. And would continuing the current contract include any wage and benefit increases at the same rate as found in the previous contract.

Secondly tuition is already gone up since last year, and so has enrolment.

Yes. And I don't want it to continue to increase so rapidly.

Also they don't seem to have any issue with increasing the wages of management who just got a raise. They also gave Peter George a 1.4 million dollar retirement package.

Quite frankly I really don't think that's fair at all. All employees should be treated to the same standard when their contract is up. However, outside of the management itself, I doubt mac is treating its employees radically differently as the Union claims. (Simply because their contract runs out first)

The fact is the university prefers to spend money on constructing new buildings then maintaing the current facilities. Solar is a perfect example.

Well that's a whole other issue, and has to do with what the government is willing to provide funding for, and what donors want to give for.

A big problem is that the province wants to continue to increase enrollment. To do so, a lot of new construction is necessary.

Originally Posted by collinbf

That increase is for the trades not cleaners. Also the only reason they can raise the wages for the trades is by cutting the wage premiums, sick days, and holidays. Also the main cuts are aimed only at the cleaners. Furthermore the cleaners can only get 15.02 if they give up their benefits completely otherwise they make 13.02

Could you provide a link to these numbers? I'd be interested in seeing a more precise breakdown.

Originally Posted by arathbon

Could you provide a link to these numbers? I'd be interested in seeing a more precise breakdown.

I left it in Hamilton, I'm at my cousins right now so I can upload it tommorrow.

Originally Posted by collinbf

I left it in Hamilton, I'm at my cousins right now so I can upload it tommorrow.

Thanks I appreciate that.

ehh nvm : (

From what I read here it seems this might be one of the few legit cases of a union getting screwed. However no offical documents have been linked so i'am going purely from heresay.