WHAT IS FORCED RATIFICATION?
“Forced ratification” is a loophole in the labour laws that gives the employer the power to circumvent the bargaining process, contact striking members directly and force them to vote on a deal of the employer’s own choosing. This is obviously against the principle of fair bargaining and a way to divide union members. The employer is only legally allowed to use forced ratification once.
York’s PR machine is working overtime to spin their so-called “fair, reasonable and sustainable” proposal. Let’s show them that we see through this high-priced hypocritical hype. Vote NO to the employer’s bad offer. We are ready, willing and able to bargain – York needs to match this goodwill by coming to the table instead of forcing a regressive deal on us.
STAND UP FOR OUR RIGHT TO BARGAIN
Forced ratification circumvents collective bargaining. We want the employer to come back to the table and negotiate. Instead the employer has consistently rejected bargaining in favour of binding arbitration, tacitly supported back-to-work legislation, and now is pushing towards forced ratification. Since the summer, and even more so since the strike began, the York administration has done everything possible to undermine our legal rights as a union.
Instead of sitting down with us they have bargained in the media, turned us into walking targets of undergraduate anger, driver road rage and right wing talk-radio vitriol, and paternalistically treated us like children rather than valued educators. We cannot let them succeed.
VOTING NO WILL HELP US WIN A BETTER DEAL
The strike is coming to an end. Unless a settlement is reached by mid-January the summer 2009 school term will be endangered. The University will use a forced ratification vote on its inferior offer PRECISELY because it anticipates coming under greater pressure as January nears. If we vote NO, the Administration will be under tremendous pressure to settle and the union will be in an unparalleled position of strength to make up the losses this offer represents and make gains.
The Administration wants us to believe that the only choice is to either ratify now or stay out until March, but the reality is that both sides will be very anxious to settle so that classes can resume in January. Our likelihood of gaining a better contract increases substantially with a NO vote against the University’s so-called “final offer.” This is a bluff and not the best we can hope for after a six-week strike. The union fully anticipates a speedy and favourable resolution to this strike at the table. The fact that they University is resorting to forced ratification is a recognition that we can win more by staying at the bargaining table.
The deal the University has just posted on its site is virtually the same offer they gave us on November 4th that pushed us out on strike in the first place.
DANGEROUS AND INADEQUATE ON UNIT 2 JOB SECURITY
The employer’s offer on contract teaching is both inadequate and dangerous. Their proposed contracts would have eligible members teach 4 full courses at $60,000 a year while tenured faculty teach 2.5 and make around $90,000. This is unacceptable for our members and for YUFA because it creates a new tier of underpaid, overworked faculty subjected to the same scrutiny and rigor as tenured professors without the recognition, pay, benefits or time to do the independent research needed to get full-professorships. Instead of addressing the issues this proposal actually cements and institutionalizes the exploitation of contract faculty.
Their offer of 10 full-time (YUFA) Teaching Stream conversion appointments does not address the situation of a large number of Unit 2 contract faculty who deserve increased job security and the possibility of conversion to full tenure-track (YUFA) appointments. It is crucial that we hold the line for an offer on both conversions and long-term contracts that reverses the current trend.
INADEQUATE ON BENEFITS
The employer’s offer of indexation of some funds to address future growth is a step in the right direction, but it doesn’t address all-important issues such as conference and research funds, GA bursaries, or tuition. York claims to be offering increases of 5% and 12% but this is still a net loss for us. Our funds have lost 28% in value because of membership growth. We need benefits that grow relative to enrolment but our depleted funds must be brought funds back to 2005 levels.
WAGES & MINIMUM FUNDING PACKAGES FOR GRADUATE STUDENTS
The employer’s proposed wage increases are misleading because they don’t talk about benefits and avoid the issue of total minimum funding for graduate students. When you take wages AND BENEFITS together and set them against inflation the University’s wage offer actually adds up to a 1.4% reduction. Our present wage proposal is 4% in the first year and 4% or cost of living (whichever is higher) in the second. We’ve come down but they’re refusing to shift.
The University is offering nothing on minimum funding packages for graduate students. Contrary to the propaganda, our funding is NOT the best in the Province. Our research shows that annual guaranteed funding for graduate students at the Universities of Western Ontario, Waterloo, Toronto, Trent and Queen’s is better than our present level.
The University has also offered nothing on important issues such as class size, bursaries and leaves for Unit 3s, post-residency tuition fees, International student parity or child-care.
A TWO-YEAR DEAL FOR BETTER, COORDINATED PUBLIC POLICY ACROSS ONTARIO
York’s proposal assumes a three-year deal. This will destroy any possibility of coordinated bargaining across the post-secondary sector. Our issues at York are not isolated concerns. The sector as a whole is drifting towards more short-term, underpaid, precarious jobs, higher tuition fees, pressuring students on completion times, larger class sizes and less supports for students at all levels. The Provincial government is responsible for setting funding levels and policies that protect the quality and accessibility of education. Coordinated bargaining in 2010 targets the government as our major funder, facilitates a more rational approach to policy-making, helps the university get the funding they need, and means we can stop fighting individual and isolated battles against individual employers.