Jan 10 2009

Forced Ratification: A Letter from the 3903 Bargaining Team and Executive

Category: News,Point of Informationjonnyj @ 11:08 am

Dear CUPE 3903 Members,

Today the York administration appealed to labour legislation enacted by Mike Harris’ government to force a ratification vote on the administrations offer of January 7 2009. Both the executive and bargaining team convinced that this is yet another attempt by the administration to derail bargaining. The CUPE 3903 bargaining team arrived on the morning of January 9 as scheduled, ready to bargain, only to be informed that the administration was walking away from the table. We are very proud of the strength and solidarity of our members, and we are certain that this latest move will backfire against the employer.

The administration would have us believe that the choice is to either ratify their offer now or stay out indefinitely. But the reality is that with a strong show of support by voting no, the union will be in a strong position to negotiate a fair settlement for our membership. Once the membership rejects this “un-fair and un-equitable” offer, we will be in a stronger position to negotiate a speedy resolution to this strike on favorable terms.

In 2000-1, near to the end of our local’s last strike, the administration also called for a forced ratification vote, which was unsuccessful in resolving the strike. It resulted in a return to the bargaining table where a deal was reached within three days. We are certain that our members will be mindful of the progress made in bargaining in the past few days, and how a return to the table would be the most productive way to reach a sustainable settlement that puts us back in the classroom. Yesterday, the union representing Ottawa Transit Workers overwhelmingly rejected a forced ratification vote, and have now returned to the bargaining table.

The administration’s current offer is much less than what we received in our last contract. This current contract is valued at less than a total increase of 3% in each year of the agreement, and much less in the third, while our previous contracts have been valued between 4-5% in each year of the agreement. At the General Membership Meeting on January 8, over 90% of the 600+ members in attendance voted that they would reject this offer if it were brought to ratification. The membership also voted to condemn the repeated ways that the administration has sought to undermine the collective bargaining process and derail it through unnecessary delays and tactics such as this vote.

What does your vote against this offer mean? It means a rapid settlement which will result in more accessible graduate education, job security for contract faculty, and improved working and learning conditions at York University. While we have addressed some of the issues related to funding and fund protection in recent days, what your vote NO will ensure is that bargaining will continue on graduate student funding for Unit 1 and 3 members, and job security for Unit 2 members. It will also allow us to address the recent job losses for contract faculty, the sharp reduction in the Extended Health Benefits fund, the significant drop in conversion numbers each year, and continue to negotiate a superior Teaching Stream Appointment program.

Once the membership rejects not only this offer, but also the offensive manner in which it is being forced on us, we will be in an exceptionally strong position to come to a speedy resolution of the strike.

Sincerely,
The CUPE 3903 Bargaining Team and Executive

Tags: ,


Dec 31 2008

Welcome to the new CUPE 3903 Unit 2 Website!

Category: News,Point of Informationjonnyj @ 1:30 pm

Welcome to the CUPE 3903 Unit 2 website. This site has been designed to provide CUPE 3902 Unit 2 members with a forum to share ideas and concerns, a way to stay connected with other unit 2 members, and to post upcoming events relevant to unit 2 members.

All CUPE 3903 unit 2 members are invited to use and actively contribute to this site. If you would like to post anything to this site, simply click on the ‘register’ link on this page and submit your username and a valid email address. You will then be emailed a temporary password which you must use, along with your user name, to log in to the website for the first time. You can log in to the website by clicking on the ‘log in’  link on this page. Once you are logged in you can add details to  your profile and change your password. You will also be able to post content to this site.

**Please note: by registering on this site, you profile details (name, email address, etc.) will be visible to the site administrators. While site administrators are committed to respecting the privacy of site members, members should govern their own use of this site with the knowledge that their personal details are not completely private.


Dec 11 2008

Vote NO! to Forced Ratification

Category: Point of Informationjonnyj @ 10:32 am

VOTE NO! TO EMPLOYERS BAD DEAL

VOTE DOWN FORCED CONCESSIONS!

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.

WHY VOTE NO TO THE EMPLOYERS OFFER?

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.

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE EMPLOYER’S OFFER?

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.

DON’T LET THE EMPLOYER BYPASS BARGAINING!
VOTE DOWN FORCED RATIFICATION!

Forced Ratification Article (Strike Bulletin)

Tags: , ,


« Previous Page