Archive: January, 2009

January 24, 2009

York University Back-to-Work Legislation Round-up

categories Strike | comments 1 Comment

January 24th statement by Premier McGuinty:

The strike is also at the point where the academic year is in jeopardy for York students. In challenging economic times, when we need all our people at their best, we simply cannot afford to delay the education of 45,000 of our best and brightest young people. [Link]

Toronto Star: McGuinty to recall the Ontario legislature for 1 pm, Sunday January 25th, 2008 to introduce back-to-work legislation (BTWL)

Earlier today I was advised by Mr. Pearson that there is no reasonable prospect of a negotiated settlement between York University and CUPE Local 3903,” McGuinty said. “The sides are in a clear deadlock, and despite our best efforts to bring the sides together, that has not changed. [Link]

CBC News: Backgrounder on back-to-work legislation

Back-to-work legislation is generally used to end a strike – or lockout – in an industry that the government decides is essential to the operating of the economy. It can also be used to end an illegal strike, either by a group that is deemed essential and is therefore prevented by law from going on strike, or workers who have gone out in violation of an existing contract.[Link]

When will classes begin?

Update, 11:30am, Sunday: Toronto Star: Feb 2nd return date.

York officials said that means classes could not begin until Feb. 2, extending the school year until June 2, and costing students one of the four months they have to work or study in summer. [Link]

Update, 2:50 pm, Saturday:Toronto Star: NDP will delay BTWL; Thursday is the earliest return to class.

Hampton said CUPE’s willingness to continue talking — despite York’s refusal to budge — proves that bargaining should continue. That’s why the NDP is opposing the back-to-work bill. [Link]

Update, 2:15 pm, Saturday: Reading unconfirmed reports (blog comments right now, so caveat emptor) that the NDP will not be supporting the BTWL. If this hold true, then BTWL will take somewhere in the range of a week to pass all the readings. In addition, the union executive, flying squad and strike committee are meeting this afternoon. I’m expecting to hear something from them later in the day.

11:15 pm, Saturday: NDP & BTWL. This time it will be political: The NDP passed the TTC BTWL without holding it up. Will this hold true for the York BTWL? Not necessarily so: because there is a leadership contest and 25% of the leadership vote comes from affiliated unions. Andrew Steele, writing for his Globe and Mail blog, suggests that this means:

As a result, each of the four leadership candidates will compete to be the most against back-to-work legislation.

Not only will that mean failure for the government to secure the unanimous consent of the Legislature to dispense with debate of the legislation, but a potential filibuster that could extend the debate far beyond a few days. [Link]

Coleman on Campus: Conjecture from early January as to why McGuinty would not introduce BTWL & how long it would take to return to class:

It will take a minimum of 24 hours to recall the legislature and will take the better part of a week (if not longer) of sitting in the house to pass back-to-work legislation, which will also face opposition from the NDP. [Link]

What is the union’s reaction to this?

10:00 am, Sunday: In a posting last night, CUPE 3903′s Bargaining Team and Executive  released a statement within which they write that they are rejecting binding arbitration:

We are convinced that by rejecting binding arbitration, we are keeping members’ best interests in mind. We lose very little by refusing binding arbitration. We have rejected binding arbitration since bargaining began, and it would be inappropriate to accept it now. We considered carefully the larger political implications of our decision. We want to continue to bargain on our own terms. We refuse to undermine the dignity of our members by accepting an offer that our members already rejected. [Link]

I’m not quite sure how, once BTWL is passed, they’re going to do this beyond a symbolic gesture. They could decide to defy the BTWL, but the union’s spokesperson has said they wouldn’t be doing that:

Tyler Shipley, spokesperson for the striking CUPE employees, said the union will instruct its members to return to their jobs despite the possibility of challenging the law in court. “We’re certainly not going to encourage our members to do anything illegal,” he said. [Link]

According to today’s CUPE 3903 Strike News, picket lines will be up this week, 7am – 5pm.

CUPE 3903 is organizing a grievance and work-to-rule campaign (WTRC) when classes resume. The details of what this will look like are very loose at this time. 3903 WTRC in the past , like all WTRC, have involved following the contract to the letter. This has meant, for example, that TAs would not answer student email as it is not required by the contract. What I’m hearing is that this WTRC will try to be more disruptive than WTRC in the past. How this will affect students, if it is enacted, is difficult to say for two reasons: the first is that no details have been given. The second is that, in my experience, implentation by individual union members will be uneven.

2:15 pm, Saturday: There is a 3903 protest planned for 1pm 12pm tomorrow (at Queens Park, I would expect) in front of Queens Park. So, this will get a lot noisier…

Could the BTWL be challenged in court?

Update Saturday, 12:30 pm: Supreme Court decision (Health Services and Support – Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia) that was touted as the reason why BTWL wasn’t an option. Now it is suggested that the exception of a “clear deadlock” has been met, which is why the BTWL is a reality.

Even where a s. 2(d) violation is established, that is not the end of the matter; limitations of s. 2(d) may be justified under s. 1 of the Charter, as reasonable limits demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.  This may permit interference with the collective bargaining process on an exceptional and typically temporary basis, in situations, for example, involving essential services, vital state administration, clear deadlocks and national crisis. [Link] via Torontoist

Doorey’s Workplace Blog: Legal analysis as to why any BTWL could be challenged by CUPE

So there is little doubt that, if McGuinty ordered a legislated end to the York strike, the government would face a new complaint before the ILO, which it would no doubt lose.  This hasn’t frightened governments in the past, because the ILO’s only power is public embarrassment, and our governments have not cared about that.  But now the stakes are raised, because in addition to the ILO complaint, the McGuinty government could also find itself facing a Charter challenge.  Were the government to lose that argument, and the Court find that Section 2(d) protects a right to strike, governments across Canada could then find themselves unable to use back to work legislation in other cases–garbage strikes, transit strikes, etc. [Link]

January 23, 2009

Mining the National Film Board of Canada’s Archives

categories Video | comments 1 Comment

The NFB (National Film Board of Canada) has begun making their vast library of films available on-line. And I couldn’t be happier. Some of my best memories as a kid involve the moments in class when the film projector was wheeled-in, the film was removed from its cannister, mounted threaded through the projector (it was always best to see a large-diameter reel get mounted–that meant more time watching) and we escaped the normal classroom to watch what would inevitably be one NFB production or another.

Here’s the first thing I looked up Log Driver’s Waltz (3 min). The refrain is currently swirling in my head:

And while I was really looking for The Rise and Fall of the Great Lakes, here’s another Bill Mason classic, Waterwalker (86 min):

No sign of Project Grizzly, my all-time favourite documentary, though.

January 20, 2009

Implications of CUPE 3903 rejecting forced ratification

categories Strike | comments 0 Comments

At the brink

Quickly trickling down my network of contacts is the news that members of CUPE 3903, of which I am a member, have rejected the offer that was put to a forced ratification vote.1

Also surfacing, in the form of a press release, is York University’s President York President & Vice-Chancellor Mamdouh Shoukri. When York has anything to say, it’s usually done through spokesperson Alex Bilyk, so Shoukri getting a voice now is especially noteworthy. And what does he have to say?

“We made it clear before the vote that we were making a fair, reasonable and comprehensive offer to settle the contract, especially in this worsening economic climate. The Union characterized our offer to its members as a negotiating tactic, but it was not. We have no intention of negotiating for the sake of appearance. This is our offer for settlement. Now it is up to the Union and its members to reconsider their demands and step back from the brink.”

‘Dems fighting words, no? Shoukri goes on to say “the clock has run out on CUPE” (whatever that means) he’ll make plans to shorten or cancel the summer term.

I’ll make the quick point that the University is just as much a part of this brinkmanship as the union they’re blaming. It seems that we’ve now moved into the phase of the strike were the University tries to union bust.

For some context, in the often quoted 2000-2001 strike, the University forced a rejection vote, received a no vote from two units withing the union and within less than a week, there was a new offer and a settlement. I say often quoted because this is the same logic the union was using to, in part, convince members to vote no to this forced ratification. A no vote would force the University back to the bargaining table.

Here where the past doesn’t map to the present: I don’t think the administration of the University feels it has anything to gain from making concessions to the union. This means no quick settlement. I, obviously, have no proof of this beyond their actions for the past seventy days. Yet, they have shown me by negotiating for only seven eleven days in the past seventy, by sending out a deal to be ratified that was wholly underwhelming (and likely to be voted down by the union), by upping the economic rhetoric and by playing the media game almost perfectly, that they’re in no rush to come back to the bargaining table.

Image: “At the edge of the glacier.” Creative Commons License.  Thanks to Beppie K.

I hope I’m proven wrong; that there is a quick return to barganing and a new, negotiated contract. A return to the classroom to teach and the posibility of finishing degrees (undergrad and grad and grad alike). I’m writing this hunch down because I’m frustrated by the President’s statement and the brink we’ve both come to. That he lacks the ability to see the other side is just more proof that we’re nowhere close to being done this strike.

  1. The official results: 63% overall, 61.7% from Unit 1 (TAs), 59.3% from Unit 2 (Course Directors) & 70% from Unit 3 (Graduate Assistants) [↩]