The future of McMaster’s learning environment is at stake as sessional faculty approve a strike mandate and negotiations with the university stall
McMaster sessional faculty represented by CUPE local 3906 are inching closer to a strike as bargaining continues to stall between the union and the university. While last December’s 83 per cent approval for a strike mandate, should negotiations fall through, doesn’t mean a strike is inevitable, students are going to have to consider what the possible labour action on campus might mean for them.
The potential strike, far from just a potential disruption, could be a major turning point for teaching and learning at McMaster.
Sessional faculty, faculty typically paid per class to teach, represent a significant amount of McMaster’s teaching workforce. The use of this poorly compensated and precarious workforce by the university represents a unique challenge to student learning.
The heavy demands placed on sessional faculty and the limited support provided to them by McMaster mean their ability to meet student needs, whether for accessibility, timeliness, or flexible office hours are limited.
The union and the university remain far from agreement on many issues as bargaining is likely to approach conciliation — a non-binding process in which a third party attempts to bring the negotiating parties closer to an agreement.
The disagreement between involved parties is over proposed pay increases and contract length. McMaster’s proposed pay increase would keep sessional faculties pay behind other universities for at least four years according to the union.
CUPE’s proposed 3-year contract is an attempt to align the collective bargaining process of multiple of the union’s contracts, which the union hopes will give them more leverage in future negotiations because of a higher risk of disruption from more employees.
From a student perspective the union’s demands are related to teaching and job security. The union has demanded a minimum of one TA per 50 students to support faculty and a responsibility for McMaster to offer sessional faculty who have taught a given course twice to teach that course again should it be re-run.
For factors largely beyond the control of individual sessional faculty, they are ill-equipped to best meet and exceed student needs. Sessional faculty are faced with heavy demands of their time, including often commuting between multiple schools, being given limited grading support and being forced to teach a larger number of classes in addition to other career requirements.
Students, faculty and administrations recognize the need for career-related mentorship between students and faculty, but without adequate time and compensation, this is a difficult need for sessional faculty to meet.
This divide between sessional faculty and students is replicated at the department level, where sessional faculty struggle to be included in a meaningful way in department operations.
Committing to job security for sessional staff makes both financial and educational sense. McMaster recognizes the need to invest in sessional faculty's teaching skills, which it does through the MacPherson Institute. So why are they unwilling to make a simple policy change to invest in sessional faculty's job security?
McMaster's goals of fostering a better learning environment can only benefit from this security. By allowing for longer term investment in secure sessional faculty's professional development, as well as rewarding sessional faculty's personal investment of time and effort into the university and students, the campus community can only benefit.
As the bargaining process escalates between McMaster and CUPE local 3906, students have more at stake than just a potential disruption to classes. McMaster and CUPE have the chance to strike a deal that benefits both student and sessional faculty, and that can facilitate better educational relationships between them.
McMaster and CUPE have the chance to strike a deal that benefits both student and sessional faculty, and that can facilitate better educational relationships between them.
McMaster’s stated objective to develop a flexible, personalized learning experience requires support be given to its hard working sessional faculty. It's now time for them to step up.
New employment contract for sessional faculty members and addressing out-of-province TA exclusion concerns
At McMaster University, the Canadian Union of Public Employees 3906 is a union that works to improve the working conditions of academic workers at the university. The union currently represents about 3,500 workers at McMaster and includes three units.
Unit 1 includes teaching assistants and research assistants in lieu. Unit 2 includes sessional faculty, McMaster English Language Development sessional faculty and hourly-rated sessional music faculty. Lastly, Unit 3 includes post-doctoral fellows.
A key responsibility of the union is to negotiate and enforce an employment contract for each of the three units. The contract includes all benefits, rights and responsibilities of union members, and the responsibilities and obligations of the employer, McMaster University.
Recently, several issues have arisen between the union and the university. The previous collective agreement for Unit 2 members expired on Aug. 31, 2020, which prompted negotiations with McMaster to develop a new agreement.
Sharoni Mitra, president of CUPE 3906, said that the new agreement entails various concerns from sessional faculty members such as better job security, benefits, working conditions, teaching assistant training and compensation for the extra technological support required in a remote environment during this time.
From Oct. 14 to 16, the union held a strike vote amongst its Unit 2 members. Members voted 81 per cent in favour of a strike mandate for the bargaining committee if negotiations with McMaster fail.
This does not necessarily mean that a strike will occur, but votes from members signal to the union that members are prepared to strike should negotiations with McMaster fail to meet members’ needs.
Other recent negotiations with McMaster include the university’s exclusion of out-of-province teaching assistants from the bargaining unit. This means that out-of-province teaching assistants lose rights, privileges and protections that are a part of their membership with the union. They are excluded from the union’s dental plan, healthcare spending account, Gender Affirmation Fund, worker protections and other benefits.
Mitra expressed that the union was not consulted by the university about this decision and that the university justifies their exclusion of out-of-province TAs due to the wording within their collective agreement.
The previous collective agreement between TAs and the university denoted that teaching assistants of Ontario are recognized by the university as part of the agreement. However, Mitra said that this was largely interpreted by the union as teaching assistants who are working for McMaster, an institution located in Ontario.
The union argued that they are teaching assistants of Ontario, regardless of where they live.
The union argued that they are teaching assistants of Ontario, regardless of where they live.
This decision has been met with much criticism from the union, especially due to the change to the online environment that teaching assistants have to face during the COVID-19 pandemic. The union has sent the university a letter of understanding in hopes of resolving the matter internally but was not met with a satisfying response from the university.
In the LOU, the union asked that the university agree to recognize out-of-province TAs as unionized TAs at least for the time being, while courses are being offered online.
“Our preference would have been to find a solution without causing worry for our members; however, the University has made it clear that this won’t be possible,” the union shared.
“Our preference would have been to find a solution without causing worry for our members; however, the University has made it clear that this won’t be possible,” the union shared on their website.
As a TA living out-of-province during this school year, Angela Kruger expressed that it is frustrating for them to know that they have been excluded from the union by the university.
Kruger said they enjoy teaching and being able to share their knowledge with students; however, it’s unfortunate that the institution is also benefiting from this relationship while making things more difficult with the power they hold.
“If I wanted to say this is too much work for me, I don’t know what I would do and I don't know what grounds I would have. I do know who to talk to but I don’t know what they could do for me since I’m not considered part of the union,” said Kruger.
Kruger said that they have now had to postpone activities such as dental visits due to the lack of coverage they now receive following the exclusion.
Kruger also added that being able to organize TAs together has such immense value as TAs are often in a rather vulnerable position between the power dynamic with the university. Although it is important for them to stand up to power, circumstances from the pandemic such as rent and living expenses limit their options in negotiating with McMaster.
“To sacrifice a TAship or jeopardize your relationship with the university when you are trying to build a career in the university, is a relatively serious thing to consider doing. So yeah, I do think that it’s important to organize but I do think that as TAs there are multiple intersections of precarity that will necessarily inform whatever kinds of organizing efforts we are able to exert,” said Kruger.
The union has now filed a policy grievance, which is an official complaint, but this was denied by the university.
"Basically, McMaster found a loophole to exploit us,” said Mitra.
“It’s just completely unconscionable that the employer would use the pandemic to push people out of the union to weaken our collective power and to directly strip them of those benefits and protections. Basically, McMaster found a loophole to exploit us,” said Mitra.
The situation has been referred to arbitration and the union is working with CUPE National’s legal department to prepare for any next steps that might occur in the negotiations with McMaster.
On Nov. 26, 89 per cent of the Canadian Union of Public Employes 3906’s Unit 1 members voted in favour of ratifying a tentative agreement with the university, thus avoiding a strike. CUPE 3906 Unit 1 represents research and teaching assistants in both graduate and undergraduate programs at McMaster.
Voting began on Nov. 25, immediately following CUPE 3906’s Special General Membership Meeting. At this meeting, the new agreement between TAs and the university was presented to Unit 1 members.
According to CUPE 3906 president Nathan Todd, the union was able to secure a deal that met their main bargaining priorities, which included paid TA training, increased benefits and expanded paid pregnancy and parental leave.
“It's not accurate to say that TAs had most of their demands met, but we were able to secure a significant gain that members had identified as a big priority,” stated Todd in an email.
The full agreement between TAs and the university has not been released. However, CUPE 3906 released an overview of the agreement on Nov. 27.
The tentative agreement includes five additional hours of paid pedagogical and anti-oppression training for all TAs. In previous years, the collective agreement has allocated TAs three paid hours a semester to participate in health and safety and orientation training. According to CUPE 3906, this was not enough.
“Additional hours of paid pedagogical and anti-oppression training were the biggest gain insofar as it was one of the largest priorities identified by the membership. This gain speaks not only to improving our pay but also to improving our working conditions,” wrote Todd in an email.
“Additional hours of paid pedagogical and anti-oppression training were the biggest gain insofar as it was one of the largest priorities identified by the membership."
The tentative agreement also proposes a one per cent increase in wages for the next three years. Collective agreements usually mandate annual wage increases so that wages keep up with the rate of inflation. As of this month, yearly inflation in Ontario sits at 1.7 per cent.
During the bargaining process for the collective agreement, CUPE 3906 advocated against the one per cent wage cap. CUPE 3906 stated that the wage limit would cause harm to workers’ livelihoods because their wages would not keep up with the rate of inflation.
Todd cites Bill 124 — the Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act — as the reason TAs were limited to a one per cent increase in wages. Under Bill 124, which received Royal Assent on Nov. 7, salary increases to public employees are limited to one per cent for every twelve month period.
Currently, graduate and undergraduate TAs are paid $43.63 and $25.30 per hour, respectively. Under the tentative agreement, graduate and undergraduate TAs will receive $44.07 and $25.55 per hour beginning Sept. 1, 2020. Beginning Sept. 2021 they will receive $44.95 and $26.07 per hour.
Todd emphasized that while Bill 124 made negotiations difficult, he believes that CUPE 3906 got the best deal given the circumstances.
In addition to paid training and wages, the tentative agreement also expands paid pregnancy and family medical leave, and dedicates a fund towards supporting members seeking gender affirmation.
Todd emphasized that while Bill 124 made negotiations difficult, he believes that CUPE 3906 got the best deal given the circumstances.
“I hope our members and the broader McMaster community recognize that government and university policies which contribute to rising costs of living (including tuition) and precarious employment makes labour relations more difficult, and that such policies can be resisted and defeated by union and community members,” wrote Todd in an email.
The tentative agreement must now be ratified by McMaster’s Board of Governors, set to take place on Dec. 12. If ratified, the agreement will take immediate effect.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
September 2019 marked the first of possibly many registration periods in which students could opt-out of student union fees deemed non-essential. This change, instituted by the Government of Ontario in January 2019, is part of the widely criticised Student Choice Initiative. In the past, McMaster’s student union fees for all clubs and services have been mandatory. Non-essential fees range from a few dollars, like the $1 fee for Mac Farmstands or $2 for Horizons, to $13.72 for CFMU 93.3FM or $17.50 for Campus Events. As early as January, student groups have feared the worst and prepared for the inevitable cuts.
Nearly two months after the SCI was introduced, the impact on students and the MSU isn’t entirely clear. Despite other universities having already released comprehensive opt-out rates to their university’s student unions, McMaster’s registrar’s office still hasn’t released final numbers. According to Alex Johnston, the MSU’s vice-president (finance), an official breakdown won’t be released until registration is finalized. The final registration numbers have yet to be disclosed by the university.
As a result of the Student Choice Initiative, many aspects of what the MSU offers to students will become financially optional between September. 12-20. The MSU encourages students to #ChooseStudentLife. Learn more about how your money is spent at: https://t.co/GdcabjjSMF. pic.twitter.com/EOvrhnB3bY
— McMaster Students Union (MSU) (@MSU_McMaster) September 10, 2019
What we do know is that students opted out of services at a rate of roughly 32 per cent of across non-essential fees. These fees include services such as campus events, Shinerama and Mac Farmstand. How this 32 per cent rate translates into absolute dollar losses for the MSU is unclear, and Johnston says it’s difficult to speculate. Throughout the opt-out period, Johnston states that the MSU prioritized transparency. For example, the MSU created a “Choose Student Life” page to encourage undergraduate students to learn about the MSU services and fee breakdown before opting out.
“We did communicate that this could lead to the potential for a pay-for-service model or a reduction of overall services or just reduction in service operations. So those are things we did communicate. Where we actually end up going right now, again I think it’s a little too soon to tell,” said Johnston.
Despite the MSU’s focus on transparency, some felt that the MSU could have done more.
Ed, a part-time manager of a student service deemed non-essential that asked not to be identified, said that they were displeased with the MSU’s communication leading up to and throughout the SCI implementation.
“Communication has been fraught. Everytime I would bring it up I would receive a ‘we don’t know for sure yet’. And then no follow ups,” said Ed.
Daniel, another PTM who asked not to be identified, felt that work they had previously done to improve their service’s finances hadn’t been taken into consideration. They felt that the MSU should have encourage more discussion about SCI leading before the opt-out period.
“I knew for the majority of my role finances are important … which is why I made a lot of changes … I don’t want to say they weren’t willing to have that conversation really early, but I kind of wish we had that conversation early,” said Daniel.
As for faculty societies, whose fees were also deemed non-essential, the SCI’s impact is unclear.
Madeleine Raad, the McMaster social sciences society president, said that the society is being careful about spending, although the alumni society has stepped up to fill their funding gaps.
“From my understanding, the social sciences opt-out was not as high per say maybe other faculties I might have heard of. However our fee is one of the lower fees, our fee is $16,” said Raad.
Although it may be too soon to see the long term impact of the SCI, changes are already being made to non-essential services.
To prepare for the possibility of high opt-out rates, all MSU services were asked by the executive board to make pre-emptive cuts to their operating budgets for the 2019-2020 school year
“[We] cut back on things most companies cut back on which is promotions … The last thing you want to cut back on are salaries and wages and actual staffing positions,” said Sandeep Bhandari, the campus radio station’s administrative director.
In the Oct. 20, 2019 SRA meeting, Johnston gave a report on audited statements from the MSU’s 2018-2019 fiscal year. While optimistic, the numbers reflected deficits across the MSU. Johnson mentioned that the Underground, the Silhouette, and 1280 bar and grill all had large deficits and outlined plans for improving finances going forward. Johnston also said that the MSU is soliciting proposals from an external consultant to assist with financial changes the MSU will need to make going forward as the SCI becomes an annual affair.
“If we continue the way we’re going, we’re going to deplete our operating funds in two years. So that’s obviously not sustainable so we need to make some changes going forward,” said Johnston.
Johnston also reported that the MSU’s executive board, comprised of full-time staff and SRA members, had also made decisions that impact part-time services. The Executive Board has decided to push back the hiring of PTMs for Macycle and Farmstand into 2020, although they are traditionally hired in the fall. Johnston said this decision was made to buy the MSU more time to figure out a financial plan going forward. While this is a temporary push-back, there are still worries that the PTMs will be expected to participate in the hiring process after their terms without pay or be cut out of the important process it entirely.
“This is a discussion that happened in close session … but we did decide to delay the hiring for Farmstand and Macycle. Typically those part time managers are hired … but due to the fact that we don’t have final opt-in numbers yet we did decide to delay their hiring so we could re-evaluate then move onwards,” said Johnston.
The executive board also made the decision to pause all operations for the Creating Leadership Amongst Youth conference for the 2020 year. Typically CLAY happens in May, but this year will be the exception.
“We did decide to put a hold on operations for CLAY 2020 just because we couldn’t delay the hiring and then have the part-time manager start later because the conference just couldn’t function,” said Johnston.
Johnston says these decisions are a part of the MSU’s efforts to develop a strategy to make the union more sustainable going forward. The long term impacts of the SCI are unclear, but the MSU is doing what it can to adapt, including expanding The Grind in an attempt to alleviate 1280’s running deficit and hiring a full complement of staff for the Underground so it can operate at full capacity.
A big concern for most non-essential service employees was job security.
James Tennant, CFMU program director, and Bhandari stressed the importance of student radio, especially for student staff who can’t get these unique experiential learning opportunities elsewhere.
“We do have a very small staff compared to some other services on campus. But it’s definitely a concern, and it’s the last thing we would want to do … Because they’re valuable to us and the experience they get in the positions is valuable to the students,” said Tennant.
Bhandari said, “It’s been said for many years it’s giving a voice to those who don’t otherwise have access to the airways. And that is the nature of campus community radio across the country.”
Daniel also reflected on the SCI. He expressed dismay that his efforts to improve his service’s financials weren’t headed leading up to the SCI implementation, despite clearly outlining ways the service could improve financially going forward in the wake of the SCI.
Ed wished that there had been a bigger push over the months leading up to the opt-out period, not just during it.
“SCI’s really bad but the MSU’s attitude of not talking about it makes everything worse,” said Ed.
Ed also had hoped for solidarity amongst all MSU services, not just advocacy from the ones impacted. He felt like nearly enough people weren’t talking about it.
Indeed, when Sandy Shaw, MPP for Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas, visited campus in February 2019 to talk about the provincial policies impacting students, the MSU gave her a tour of the PCC, Maccess and WGEN—three services deemed essential and therefore not at risk of being impacted by the SCI.
Despite criticism of the SCI’s rollout and MSU advocacy efforts, many PTMs are are just worried for the future of their services.
Daniel said, “Thats been the biggest impact of SCI: emotionally. The worry for the future of the service.”
Ed said, “If my service doesn’t run its going to affect the people who volunteer for me and it’s going to affect all those people who use my service regularly.”
“I’m sad because I don’t want my service to die,” said Ed.
With the SCI mandated for the next two years, with possibility for renewal, the long-term implications could be dire. Without a clear path forward, part-time student staff, volunteers and services users are left to worry for what is to come. MSU advocacy may have mitigated what could have been worse opt-out numbers, but future efforts will be essential to keep services afloat.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Updates
Highlights
After unsuccessful negotiations on Nov. 5, the Canadian Union of Public Employees local 3906, the union representing McMaster Teaching Assistants, Research Assistants and other academic workers, announced that they are inching closer to calling a strike before the end of the month.
The announcement comes after months of labour negotiations between CUPE 3906 and the university. Since August, CUPE 3906 has been negotiating on behalf of McMaster TAs and RAs. They are represented under CUPE 3906 unit 1, one of the union’s three bargaining units.
In August, the employment contract for academic workers at McMaster expired, as it does every three years. The contract, called the collective agreement, outlines the rights and responsibilities of employers and employees, including rules about wages, work hours and benefits. When the collective agreement expired, the university and CUPE 3906 entered into collective bargaining to renegotiate the agreement on behalf of its members, giving the union a chance to push for improvements to their working conditions.
To prepare for negotiations, CUPE 3906 released a survey for its members to identify their bargaining priorities. One of CUPE’s main sets of bargaining priorities is centred around wages and work hours. Under the previous collective agreement, graduate TAs earned $43.63 per hour, and undergraduate TAs received $25.30 an hour. However, the agreement also states that they cannot work more than 260 hours a year, or more than 10 hours a week on average.
For graduate TAs, this results in a maximum of $11,343.80 a year. Nathan Todd, the president of CUPE 3906, pointed out that unless TAs have other means of financial support, such as scholarships, this maximum will not cover full-time tuition, which TAs must pay in order to maintain their conditions of employment.
Furthermore, says Todd, many TAs work above their hours. Between running tutorials, grading work and holding office hours, they can work above their hours without overtime pay.
One way that CUPE 3906 hopes to address this is by proposing to increase the minimum number of hours for TA contracts from 33 to 40. While this does not allow TAs to work more than the allotted 260 hours, it helps to increase the number of paid hours on short-term contracts.
Additionally, CUPE 3906 has stated that McMaster has proposed changes that will make it harder for TAs to take on additional guaranteed work hours. According to CUPE 3906 representatives, the university is proposing to remove language in the collective agreement that allows TAs to increase their number of guaranteed number hours if they get hired for additional work in their second year. The university has a policy not to discuss the content of ongoing labour negotiations, so representatives have not confirmed whether McMaster made this proposal.
Another bargaining priority is the implementation of university-wide paid TA training. Currently, the collective agreement between CUPE and the university allows TAs three paid hours a semester to participate in health and safety and orientation training, which is meant to provide new employees with general information about the university and resources available to them. The agreement states that orientation training can point new employees towards professional development resources that they would presumably have to access on their own time.
CUPE has stated that this is insufficient. Instead, the union has proposed five paid hours of pedagogical training and three hours of anti-oppression training.
“I don't think asking for training on how to do your job is unreasonable. It's the kind of thing you'd expect from any professional workplace,” said Todd.
CUPE’s proposals also include paid family medical leave, preference to Indigenous applicants for positions in the Indigenous Studies Program and protection against tuition increases.
According to Todd, the proposals that the university put forward during the Nov. 5 meeting did not speak to enough of the priorities that CUPE had raised. He also said the university’s proposals included concessions, where the employer takes back gains that had been made through bargaining in previous years.
“Those are the two things that we asked them to do at the end of the last negotiations to keep negotiations forward, because we can't accept a contract that has concessions,” said Todd.
McMaster representatives have not commented on the details of their proposed bargaining agreements.
In a historic vote on Sept. 26, 87 per cent of CUPE’s unit 1 membership voted to authorize a strike. The positive strike vote allows the bargaining team to call a strike if they are unsatisfied with the deal that the university offers them during negotiations.
After another unsuccessful bargaining meeting on Nov. 5, CUPE announced that they are inching ever closer to declaring a strike.
Gord Arbeau, director of communications at McMaster, said that in the case of a strike, the university would remain open and exams would still be scheduled. He stated that the university is undergoing contingency planning to determine how to mitigate the impacts of a potential strike, but did not elaborate on what these strategies would entail.
McMaster has an existing policy that outlines the rights and responsibilities of undergraduate students in the case of work stoppages. According to the policy, undergraduate students are entitled to withdraw from academic activities during a work stoppage, and cannot be penalized academically for doing so. However, they still must meet course requirements, and have the right to extended deadlines, make-up assignments and other alternative arrangements. Furthermore, students who feel that the disruption has unreasonably affected their grades may submit appeals.
A strike would also have significant effects on TAs and RAs. According to Todd, if a strike were initiated, unit 1 members would stop receiving payment and some benefits from the university. Striking members would cease duties related to their employment, including tutorials, labs, grading and email correspondence with students. However, unit 1 members would be eligible for strike pay. CUPE 3906 offers $15 an hour of tax-free strike pay to striking members for 20 hours a week, which amounts to up to $300 a week.
On Nov. 18 and 19, CUPE 3906 will meet with university representatives for a mediation session in a final attempt to negotiate a collective agreement. If they are unable to reach a deal, CUPE 3906 will be in a position to call a strike.
According to Arbeau, the university is hopeful about the upcoming meeting.
“We remain hopeful that an agreement that is responsible and reflective of the important work that the membership does [and] hopeful that an agreement can be reached without a work stoppage,” he said.
CUPE 3906 also hopes to come to a fair deal in order to avoid a strike.
In a statement from Nov. 9, CUPE 3906 wrote “We remain eager to reach a fair agreement that reflects your priorities ahead of this deadline, and hopeful that the employer’s entire bargaining team will come to the table on the 19th ready to do the same.”
On Sept. 26, the Canadian Union of Public Employees 3906 made history as 87 per cent of its Unit 1 members voted to authorize a strike mandate. Unit 1 represents graduate and undergraduate teaching assistants and research assistants at McMaster. This will allow for strike action, if deemed necessary.
The vote came after a series of labour negotiations between CUPE 3906 and McMaster University. Beginning in June, CUPE had presented a list of proposed changes to the collective agreement that supervises McMaster’s academic employees. The list included paid training for teaching assistants, equitable wages between undergraduate and graduate teaching assistants, an increase to the minimum number of hours on a contract, protection against tuition increases and better representation for Indigenous members.
McMaster had planned to conduct negotiations with CUPE 3906 in accordance with Bill 124, which, if passed, would nullify collective agreements and limit the annual increase of compensation and wages to one per cent. Since the bill was yet to be legally binding at the time of negotiations, CUPE 3906 disagreed with McMaster’s choice to bargain under Bill 124.
After the first reading of Bill 124, which occurred on June 5, 2019, 64 Legislative Assembly members were in favour of passing the bill and 40 members voted against it. In the end, the motion was carried forward. In order to become law, Bill 124 will need to pass additional readings.
By the beginning of September, CUPE 3906 and McMaster had failed to arrive at an agreement. When the bargaining process reached an impasse on Sept. 11, the teaching and research assistants of CUPE 3906’s Unit 1 filed for conciliation and scheduled a strike vote for Sept. 26.
According to an update from CUPE 3906, after four days of voting, a record-breaking majority voted in favour of a strike in the event that CUPE 3906 deems a strike necessary. Most of the members are unwilling to accept the conditions offered by McMaster.
CUPE 3906 represents 3,500 workers at McMaster each year. This makes it one of the largest unions in Hamilton and the largest on campus. Unit 1 alone represents about 2,700 McMaster employees, including all teaching assistants, some research assistants, markers, demonstrators and tutors.
“The bargaining team is not releasing total numbers right now … but it is by far the highest amount of people we’ve ever seen. We had more people vote ‘yes’ than have ever voted total,” said Nathan Todd, president of CUPE 3906 and a graduate student in McMaster’s philosophy department.
A statement on CUPE 3906’s website adds that the strike mandate vote illustrates the members’ commitment to the needs that the union is representing.
Despite a landmark vote, however, CUPE 3906 remains unsure as to how the timeline will look following the strike authorization. The union has not been able to return to the bargaining table; they have not been afforded the chance to change their position and they are advocating for the same changes as when negotiations first began.
At the moment, the rest of the negotiating process is in a standstill as CUPE 3906 waits for news from their provincially appointed conciliation officer. The union is aware that the conciliator has contacted McMaster but does not know how the university has responded, if at all.
“I’m not sure if [McMaster] has returned [the conciliator]’s calls or given her any updates but last I spoke with the conciliator this week, she wasn’t able to confirm any further dates … We’ve offered a number of dates this month. We’re waiting to hear back. That’s kind of holding back the timeline at this point,” said Todd.
Chantal Mancini, a PhD candidate in the department of labour studies and a delegate to the Hamilton and District Labour Council for CUPE 3906, states that McMaster has not demonstrated their support for their graduate students in this round of bargaining.
“It’s interesting that a major focus of researchers in labour studies is the increase of precarious work and the negative impact this has on the well-being of workers. Yet, in direct contrast to this research, McMaster has presented a proposal to our union that will increase the precariousness of the work that I and my Unit 1 colleagues perform,” she said.
Mancini says that the university’s proposal does not support the well-being of graduate students. She notes that although students will benefit from the priorities requested of McMaster, the university has nevertheless rejected the union’s demands.
Maybe the coolest thing while working the voting booth, was having undergrads come up and ask how they could help. Felt awesome to be supported by the whole student family. https://t.co/NEr2xyREMx
— Adam Fortais (@AdamFortais) September 27, 2019
Regardless of the administration’s silence, other bodies on campus have shown their support for CUPE 3906. The McMaster Graduate Student Association released a letter of support on Oct. 2, declaring that the GSA’s priorities align with those of CUPE 3906’s. The day after, the Department of Political Science at McMaster also announced their support for better working conditions and compensation for teaching and research assistants, hoping for a fair agreement between the union and the university.
“We’re considering reaching out to other departments as well … It seems like, in the departments we’ve spoken to, there is a good level of support,” said Mollie McGuire, vice-president of CUPE 3906.
On Oct. 6, CUPE Ontario, which represents 55,000 educators across the province, averted a strike after the provincial government made concessions in a collective agreement. This renders them the first of several unions to arrive at a deal with the Ford government since public school employee contracts expired in September. While the deal did not involve them, CUPE 3906 has stated that they stand in solidarity with CUPE’s Ontario School Board Council of Unions.
“[We are] immensely proud of their accomplishments at the bargaining table and beyond. The OBSCU, CUPE, their allies and their communities stood firm in resistance to authority politics and the devaluation of their work. Their accomplishments were possible due to the direct action by their members and their community and their success is a testament to the value of mobilization and the power of the labour movement,” said Todd.
Teaching and research assistants at McMaster are hoping for a similar accomplishment, referring to the strong strike vote mandate provided to CUPE 3906 as an indication of their resolve to seek a fair contract.
“It is my hope that McMaster has taken notice and is committed to negotiating a fair deal that reflects the value of the work we do for the university. Reaching a deal is ultimately the best outcome for everyone,” said Mancini.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By Nathan Todd, Contributor
This year, Ontario has seen significant and damaging cuts to funding for students, student associations, universities and the public employees who keep universities and communities running.
Many of you may have already felt the impact of these changes — there are already reports of students who are no longer able to attend university because of the elimination of some Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP) grants. In addition, the Student Choice Initiative left student and graduate associations scrambling over the summer in attempts to prepare for and minimize the funding cuts that the SCI would bring.
Teaching assistants who are often students are not immune to these negative effects. As students, we are affected by the cuts to OSAP, and as members of either the McMaster Students Union or the Graduate Students Association, we are also members of associations facing considerable budget cuts. On top of this, our ongoing rounds of bargaining with McMaster University for a new employment contract, among other things, threatens to leave us in an even more precarious situation.
As public employees, we are also now facing Bill 124, a proposed piece of legislation which would mandate that our wage increases do not exceed one per cent, an amount that does not keep up with the cost of inflation. In other words, Bill 124 effectively mandates that we take pay cuts over the next three years.
To put this in a better context, graduate TAs who work 260 hours (which is usually the most a TA can work at Mac) earn less than $11,500 for the year, and undergraduate TAs earn considerably less than that. This is not enough to balance the tuition we need to pay in order to have access to the job in the first place. Given these circumstances, increases to our wages and benefits are always a priority for us in bargaining. Unfortunately, McMaster is not willing to entertain an agreement that wouldn’t conform to Bill 124 should the bill become law. Therefore, meaningful wage increases seem to be a non-starter for the university.
Beyond Bill 124, McMaster is also looking to roll back the amount of hours TAs are entitled to work, making our ability to pay for tuition and keep up with the cost of living even more difficult.
Wage increases are not our only priority. One of the top priorities we identified before heading into bargaining was paid job-specific and anti-oppressive training for TAs. As it stands, there is no training for TAs. This means that they are learning how to run labs, teach tutorials, mentor and grade on the job! In asking for paid training, we are not asking for anything you wouldn’t expect from working in an office, a high school or a McDonald’s.
McMaster, however, is unsure if paid TA training is feasible. Let me repeat that: A university isn’t sure if it is feasible to teach people how to teach.
As a TA of about five years, I think we do a good job. But running tutorials and grading the assignments that go on to impact the lives of undergraduates is serious, professional work. As TAs, we recognize that. This is why we are asking for professional training to ensure that undergraduates are getting the highest quality teaching possible. Not only would paid training help TAs financially, but it would also benefit us professionally and it would benefit the students who rely on us.
If our bargaining continues to stall, there is a chance you will get messages from McMaster or members in the community about TAs being difficult or that what we are asking for is unreasonable. If this happens, please keep in mind that we are asking for things that any reasonable professional ought to — the ability to keep up with the cost of inflation and the proper training to do our jobs.
Given the attacks that university members have seen through the cuts to OSAP, the Student Choice Initiative and the looming Bill 124, it is more important than ever that we collectively resist attacks on the most vulnerable. McMaster claims it is committed to making a “Brighter World” – TAs and students deserve to be part of it.
Nathan Todd is the President of CUPE 3906
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
After a summer of labour negotiations with McMaster University, the union representing McMaster teaching and research assistants has declared a strike vote for the end of the month.
Since June, the Canadian Union of Public Employees 3906 has been negotiating the collective agreements governing academic workers at McMaster University. Last Wednesday, the unit representing teaching assistants and research assistants announced that they had reached an impasse, opting to file for conciliation and declaring a strike vote for the end of the month.
Collective Bargaining
In June, CUPE 3906 met with McMaster’s bargaining committee. Each party proposed changes to the collective agreement governing teaching assistants, research assistants in-lieu and all other university employees represented under CUPE 3906 Unit One.
According to Gord Arbeau, director of communications at McMaster, the University does not publicly discuss the content of ongoing labour negotiations. However, he stated that they aim to reach fair agreements with their employees.
“The goal is to reach a fair and equitable agreement with our bargaining partners that represents the important work that the members of that unit perform,” said Arbeau.
CUPE 3906 presented a list of priorities including increased funding, improved mental and physical health support, increased paid training, better representation for Indigenous members and improved working conditions.
They reported that the university had been receptive on several issues including pregnancy leave and labour/management relations.
However, CUPE 3906 stated that they had not reached agreements on their proposals for tuition waivers, paid pedagogical and anti oppression training, increase of minimum hours and restrictions on contract or volunteer work.
CUPE 3906 also reported problems with the University’s proposed compensation package. According to a bulletin released following the meeting, the University was bargaining within the mandate of a new provincial bill that limits compensation increases.
What is Bill 124 and why does it matter?
Bill 124, also known as the “Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act,” would place restrictions on the agreements that unions and employers can make with one another.
During collective bargaining, employers and employees negotiate compensation and salary increases. Usually, collective agreements mandate annual wage increases in order to keep up with the rate of inflation. As of this month, yearly inflation in Ontario sits at 2.1 per cent.
However, Bill 124 proposes that compensation and wage increases for public service workers cannot increase more than one per cent each year.
According to Ontario Treasury Board President Peter Bethlenfalvy, “the legislation would allow for reasonable wage increases, while protecting the province's front-line services, restoring the province's financial position and respecting taxpayer dollars.”
CUPE 3906 has criticized the bill for restricting workers’ rights to free collective bargaining. If passed, the bill would empower the provincial government to nullify collective agreements that do not abide by the one per cent wage cap. In practice, this means that the government could require parties to restart the bargaining process if their agreement does not align with the provisions in Bill 124.
The provincial government would also be empowered to retroactively veto collective agreements made after June 5.
“If the Ontario government has the power to unilaterally overrule agreements made between workers and their employers — and to interfere with the ability of workers to freely and democratically negotiate the wages, benefits, and working conditions in their workplace — then the right to collectively bargain is severely undermined,” says an article from Canadian labour news website rankandfile.ca.
Furthermore, CUPE has stated that the proposed wage cap would cause substantial harm to the livelihoods of public service workers, since the annual rate of inflation surpasses the one per cent wage cap.
At an emergency meeting following the announcement of Bill 124, CUPE 3906 members expressed concern over what this could mean for McMaster employees living in Hamilton, where the costs of living have increased significantly in recent years. According to a 2018 report from the Hamilton Housing Foundation, the average cost of rent in Hamilton has increased at double the rate of inflation since 2012.
“Anything that's below the level of inflation is a cut and phrasing it as a one per cent increase is just a willful misinterpretation of the facts … It's part of fragmenting the social services we're relying on, and the people it'll affect the most are people who are already marginalized,” said Julia Pyryeskina, a volunteer with CUPE 3906.
While Bill 124 is not yet legally binding, the university is committed to bargaining within the limits of the proposed legislation.
“The province has been clear with the broader public sector about its intentions ... we're part of the broader public service and we'll make sure that we'll work to be aligned with the intent of the legislation and the intent of the province,” stated Arbeau.
CUPE’s stance is that, since the bill is not yet law, McMaster should be negotiating a fair deal outside the parameters of the proposed legislation.
“We've asked the university to partner with us against Bill 124 … they have the opportunity to stand with us and bargain a fair deal and work with us against Bill 124 and they've denied to take that chance,” said Nathan Todd, CUPE 3906 president.
At an Impasse
After meeting again with the university’s bargaining committee on Aug. 21 and 22, CUPE 3906 reported that they had come to a standstill, in large part because they were unable to reach consensus on whether to bargain within the confines of Bill 124.
They also reported that the university had refused to entertain CUPE 3906’s proposal to entertain the 1 per cent wage cap in exchange for movement on proposed measures such as paid training and tuition freezes.
On Sept. 4, CUPE 3906 released a statement announcing that they had filed for conciliation, requiring a neutral third party from the Ministry of Labour to assist with negotiations.
They also announced plans to hold a strike vote at the end of the month, at which point CUPE’s membership will decide whether to give the bargaining team the power to call a strike. A positive vote does not immediately trigger a strike, but instead empowers the bargaining team to authorize a strike if they are unsatisfied with the deal that the university offers.
According to the statement, the ability to go on strike is a powerful tool when entering into conciliation, since the possibility of a strike indicates that failure to come to a compromise will yield serious consequences for the university.
Angie Perez, former CUPE president, says a strike is nobody’s first choice. However, she adds, it may be necessary.
“...No one wants a strike, it's horrible for the union, it's horrible for everybody … But if that's the only way we're going to be listened to, and it's the only way that we are going to have a real deal … that is not going to be hurting us and other people, we are not asking for unreasonable things,” Perez said.
CUPE is appealing to the McMaster community for support while they prepare for a strike vote.
“In order to avoid a strike, we must convince the University to meet us halfway. If they refuse to offer pay and benefits increases that keep up with inflation, they must offer enhanced job security, protections against future tuition increases, and opportunities for more paid hours to keep TAs and RAs-in-lieu from falling even further behind,” says a statement on the CUPE website.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
From the Student Representative Assembly requiring a survivor to disclose their assault in order for the removal of a perpetrator on the assembly to news of rampant sexual assault within the McMaster Students Union Maroons, this past year has been filled with controversy.
Given the events of this year, and what has occurred in the past, it is shocking that the MSU lacks a formal human resources department.
HR departments exist to deal with workplace disputes and ultimately ensure that employees are aware of their rights as minimally outlined by the Ontario Employment Standards Act. This includes the creation, implementation and enforcement of policies and structures that support employee rights like formal complaint structures and disciplinary policies.
Currently, the only HR presence that exists within the MSU is through the operations coordinator, Maddison Hampel. Though Hampel has formalized HR training and experience, her role does not allow her to adequately support all HR functions of the MSU.
Unfortunately, the only HR-focused training for student employees ends at the mandatory online workplace health and safety training modules that all employees of McMaster University are required to complete.
The majority of student employees, myself included, have never even been formally introduced to Hampel or made aware of our employment rights during our training sessions.
If we had a formal HR department, it is extremely likely that the Maroons sexual assault allegations would have been dealt with appropriately.
In fact, with a proper HR department, policies for sexual assault and workplace harassment would likely already be in place, and be created by individuals with the expertise to do so.
A formal HR department could also allow for better and more comprehensive hiring practices wherein individuals who were previously reported to the department are properly dealt with and not re-hired for other positions within the MSU, a consistent problem of the institution.
At the very least, an HR department that is independent of the MSU could allow student workers to feel comfortable reporting any issues. As it stands, I report my workplace issues to my direct supervisors, but this gets complicated if my concerns are about individuals in positions of power.
An HR department can ensure supervisors are accountable for their actions and held to an expected level of professionalism.
Josh Marando, president-elect of the MSU for the 2019-2020 year, has acknowledged that the lack of a formal HR department is an issue. One of his platform points is to restructure the internal operations of the MSU.
According to his #BuildTogether platform, he plans to divide the current full-time staff position of operations coordinator to create a specific HR coordinator who is independent from the board.
While the operations coordinator’s role would be shifted to focus largely on supporting clubs and internal operations, the proposed HR coordinator is meant to “support our students through connecting with university programs that have a focus on equity and anti-discrimination.”
Though creation of an independent HR coordinator is an important first step, it is not enough. The MSU is comprised of over 40 full-time permanent staff and 300 part-time student staff. A singular HR coordinator cannot possibly support this vast number of employees.
The lumping of the HR coordinator role with equity and anti-discrimination programs can also be problematic. Certainly the future HR coordinator can and should consult with equity groups to ensure their policies are consistent with student needs, but it is important that the two ultimately remain separate.
This is because it is possible that issues concerning diversity and discrimination may arise from the HR department. This would then make it difficult for individuals to report issues to the same department where the issues stem from.
What the MSU needs is a full-blown autonomous HR department, with policies in place and trained personnel. Only through implementation of an HR department can the MSU truly account for the safety of its student employees.
It’s important to remember that students employed by the MSU are employees. They deserve the same respect and safety enforced by a HR department in any other workplace.
Honestly, student workers should be unionized to ensure their rights are defended. Until they are, the MSU must do a better job in the 2019-2020 year of protecting their employees through implementation of formal HR resources and personnel.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
The McMaster Students Union and McMaster University are preparing to re-examine their policies and protocols on sexual violence in light of the recent Student Voices on Sexual Violence report released by the provincial government earlier this month.
The Student Voices on Sexual Violence survey was sent out last year and involved 160,000 students from over 40 Ontario post-secondary institutions outlining their experiences of sexual violence and harassment.
According to the survey, three in five McMaster students disclosed at least one experience of sexual harassment.
Sixty-one per cent of McMaster students said they do not have knowledge of McMaster’s sexual violence supports and services.
A McMaster Daily News article responding to the report states that McMaster has provided sexual violence prevention and response training to more than 8,600 students, staff and faculty over the past year.
Arig al Shaibah, McMaster’s associate vice president (Equity and Inclusion), said the university’s sexual violence education team will begin planning a bystander intervention training program in April.
In response to the report, the university will also shortly be reviewing the McMaster’s sexual violence policy, which was created in 2017.
“We are just in the beginning processes of looking at the policy,” al Shaibah said. “We know the numbers that come through our offices are not necessarily indicative of the full picture, so periodically going out there and being able to anonymously get a good gauge of people’s experiences and perceptions is really important.”
Every year, the EIO releases a report highlighting statistics on disclosures of sexual violence and harassment.
However, al Shaibah said the EIO needs to make sure that definitions used to classify disclosures are standardized.
“We have just improved the way we are collecting and centralizing data,” al Shaibah said. “Moving forward, one of the things we are doing is trying to make sure that everyone in the intake office is using the same definition so that we can start to capture trend data over time.”
MSU vice president (Administration) Kristina Epifano will be revising the current “Workplace Anti-Violence, Harassment, and Sexual Assault Prevention Policy” in response to the survey.
“With these revisions, we will host some feedback sessions, inviting student-staff and volunteers to share some of the challenges they've experienced with policies in the past and recommendations they would like to see moving forward,” Epifano said in an email. “I believe it is important to adapt the policy to highlight different options and courses of action that a survivor can take during the process.”
The provincial report comes against the backdrop of multiple allegations of sexual assault within the MSU Maroons.
On March 29, Farah released a statement addressing the subject, promising a formal investigation.
Nevertheless, Farah states that she hasn’t “found actual reports, anonymous or otherwise, of sexual violence within the Maroons team this year.”
The statement also said Epifano will be standardizing an anonymous online reporting tool used for Marrons for all MSU volunteers.
Jocelyn Heaton, the coordinator of the MSU Women and Gender Equity Network, said the MSU’s steps in addressing sexual violence are helpful, but there remains a lot of work to be done.
“The fact that less than three quarters of students know that there are supports and services available is pretty harmful for people who experience sexual violence,” said Heaton. “Also, knowing that a lot of that group is going to receive a disclosure during their time at university and they're not going to know where to refer people to is harmful as well,” she said.
Heaton also mentioned that there has been no consultation thus far with services like WGEN when it comes to the Maroons incident and revising the MSU’s workplace sexual assault prevention policy.
“As the coordinator of a service, the only service specifically meant to address sexual violence, I was never once consulted or brought in to talk about that situation,” Heaton said. “Students have not been consulted on what the policy should look like.”
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
