A MESSAGE BACK AT YOU – FROM CUPE 3903 (clarifying the university’s latest propaganda)
Why are there no talks currently underway between the University and CUPE 3903?
York University says:
That the mediator “has not scheduled further negotiation dates.”
CUPE 3903 responds:
Basically the university is blaming the mediator for the fact that negotiations have stopped. President Shoukri iterated this same argument at the university’s Senate meeting this past week. Clearly there is a serious problem that top administrator’s at the university either do not understand or are purposely misrepresenting the role of mediators in labour negotiations. Mediators advise.
It is the parties on both sides of the negotiating table who either agree or refuse to engage in bargaining. On November 27th the CUPE 3903 bargaining team requested a few days to adjust our proposals, and then met with the mediator to arrange a resumption of negotiations. The mediator took this message to our employer, and bargaining still has not resumed. So let’s be clear – it is the university who is refusing to return to the bargaining table. Stop blaming the poor mediator! And, yes, it is only TWICE in the now nearly two months of the strike that York's negotiating team has appeared briefly at the bargaining table!
Has the University's proposal for binding arbitration prevented negotiations?
York University says:
That their preference for binding arbitration has not prevented negotiations.
CUPE 3903 responds:
Are you still making this argument? Have you not read our reasoned responses to your proposal for binding arbitration? Even many YUFA members agree that the only reason the university ever pursues binding arbitration is when they think the employer will win. This was the main reason the UNIVERSITY REFUSED binding arbitration in the 1997 YUFA strike when tenured faculty suggested binding arbitration on outstanding issues. CUPE 3903 has shown movement on its proposals. Of course, if you’re not coming to the bargaining table then it is easy to dismiss this. Unlike the university, we do not think it is best practice to bargain in public.
Is the University stonewalling to "wait out" CUPE 3903?
York University says:
No. CUPE 3930’s demands still total in excess of 20% over two years and this is “unrealistic, unaffordable and unsustainable.”
CUPE 3903 responds:
Given that our membership has not received any wages for two months, it is hard not to see this basically as “starving” us out to force a poor settlement. Other tactics, such as the threat of back to work legislation, speculative fear mongering about cancelling the whole academic year and, again, the refusal to engage in actual negotiating, feel pretty much like stonewalling from our end!
Why weren’t the wage increases of 20% to 43% given to top administrators at the university over the past three years deemed “unrealistic, unaffordable and unsustainable.” Oh yes, let’s not forget either the over $7,000,000 that has been saved to date by not paying us wages and benefits during the strike! Yes, our proposals still come in over what you are willing to pay, but (a) negotiating has to happen for costing to be discussed; and (b) the standard process in bargaining is to aim high since employer’s rarely give unions everything they want.
What will it take to get the parties back to the bargaining table at this time?
York University says:
That CUPE 3903 already enjoys one of the best contracts in the country and we are being unreasonable in our demands.
CUPE 3903 responds:
Our contracts have been a leader in the university sector. But this best is relative. As many studies show, universities and colleges have increasingly relied on the cheap labour provided by teaching assistants and contract faculty who are generally amongst the poorest paid in the educational sector. Many program secretaries earn more annually than what contract faculty make teaching 2.5-3 courses, the standard teaching load for tenured faculty. And program secretaries have job security, which CUPE 3903 Unit 2 members don’t. A burgeoning literature on the casualization of academic labour is showing that universities are increasingly devolving undergraduate teaching to the ranks of contract faculty, while reserving tenured positions for researchers who pull in
the big grants and who will do graduate supervision. Recently, some contract faculty have begun teaching graduate classes due to the shortage of tenured positions. How is asking for job security, liveable incomes for graduate students, and indexation of benefit funds to match membership growth within our union unreasonable?
Has the university asked for any concessions from CUPE 3903?
York University says:
No.
CUPE 3903 responds:
Then why has the university refused to discuss in negotiations the continuation of the conversion program, the only existing program that to date recognizes the teaching contributions of long-service contract faculty at the university?
Has the University provided a meaningful offer to address job security for contract faculty?
York University says:
Yes, that it has offered 10 new teaching stream appointments over the life of our next contract.
CUPE 3903 responds:
We have already clearly articulated that the current proposal on the bargaining table ($60,000 for teaching 4 courses): (a) has clearly been rejected by YUFA; and (b) does not offer any meaningful job security for contract faculty, and (c) does not afford a workload which will allow us to pursue research which many of our members are keen to do. This is precisely why many of our contract faculty want job security and reasonable teaching loads so that we can engage with research and writing Also, since many of Unit 2 members have been teaching
4-5 courses annually at York University for 10, 15 and sometimes over 20 years, what is your problem with automatic renewals? If only 10 teaching appointments are made in our new contract, it will take nearly twenty years to convert the current pool of contract faculty with 10 years or more of teaching service to the university. Needless to say, many of these members will be already retired or dead by the time they gain a teaching-stream appointment. Clearly, our long-term presence at the University is an indication that we can teach and contribute to the university. The salary we are proposing ($75,000) is still far below what a tenure stream appointment would start at (approximately
$90,000 today). Principles of department and decanal decision making in hiring and renewal process are fine if you are dealing with the permanency of tenure. But these are renewable teaching contracts that we are seeking, not tenured positions!
Has the University offered to continue tuition protection?
York University says:
Yes.
CUPE 3903 responds:
But this only deals with one small aspect of Unit 1 and 3 members’ income concerns.
What has the University proposed regarding fund enhancements?
York says:
It has responded fairly to CUPE 3903 proposals.
CUPE 3903 responds:
Our funds were seriously depleted by the 28% growth in our membership over the past three years. The numbers of CUPE 3903 contract faculty teaching at the university has alone increased from 500, in 2002, to nearly 900 today, a 74% increase. York University is earning significant profits over the increased use of contract faculty for teaching purposes in lieu of tenured faculty appointments. Yet they are refusing to fairly compensate our benefits and support funds for our membership growth. Based on the projected tuition fees for 2009/10 (which are estimated on University’s own website to be $5,524 for 5 courses next year at York), large first and second year courses with student enrolments of 225 plus, which are more often than not taught by contract faculty, will generate upwards of a quarter of a million dollars in tuition revenues per course for the university. Out of this, a CUPE 3903 Unit 2 Course Director is paid $13,838.00 (current 2007 wage rate). York University is making
significant profits off the backs of its contract faculty, 60% of whom are women. Let’s critically examine who is really being unreasonable here!
Is the University operating at a large surplus and can the University afford CUPE 3903's demands?
York University says:
We’re poor!
CUPE 3903 responds:
York administrators said exactly the same thing in the 1997 YUFA strike! YUFA was basically told that an end to mandatory retirements (a key issue in their strike) would “bankrupt” the university. It didn’t happen. The “but we’re poor” argument gets trotted out by York administrators in every single labour dispute and negotiation. However, research indicates that York is not poor.
Currently, the York Foundation fund is estimated to be at over $160 million, as a result of their ‘York to the Power of 50’ campaign. As well, revenues generated from graduate and student enrolment, which constitute an important revenue stream for the university, have increased over the past ten years. Last year alone, income derived from tuition fees rose from $316 million to $332 million at York. It is estimated that increases linked to provincial graduate funding amounted to $38,000,000 in 2007. This amount will grow in the coming years alongside increased graduate enrolment and rising tuition fees.
The 2% budget cuts? Weren’t they already planned before the strike, as a
mechanism to divert funding away from departments into strategic hires to further develop professional programs and applied sciences? Isn’t the economic problem at York more related to the fact that, since the early 2000s, academic spending has declined from 63% to 55% of the university’s operating budget. Funds have been diverted into new building construction, administration, and media relations, such as the re-branding of the university. A significant portion of monies have been used to subsidize the exceptional salary increases that York’s top administrators have received over the past three years – as well as the $750,000 interest-free loan that the new President was given to
purchase his Toronto home ($50,000 of which is “forgiven” from the principle each year he occupies his position). Outside of financial considerations, the terms of this loan are downright embarrassing at a point in time when more and more students are accumulating huge student loan debts that are not interest free. Also, when students are unable to pay their tuition fees in August, why are they abruptly de-enrolled from courses instead of “forgiven” and shown some leniency with a tuition payment plan?
There is no solid evidence that the current global economic crisis will have a tremendous or devastating effect on York’s or other universities’ revenues. Indeed, if you read the papers or listen to the news, many individuals who have either lost or fear losing their employment, talk about returning to university to up-grade their academic qualifications, or to pursue graduate studies to enhance their specialization. Since the current market-driven emphasis on credentialism does not appear to be waning, more students are likely to return to school. What universities might see is a shift from full to part-time students on account of tuition costs, but it is doubtful that either undergraduate or graduate enrolments will decline in the near future. As well, the spectre of some form of new coalition government at the federal level, has raised hopes that some of the spending package will include investments into post-secondary education. Indeed, the winds of change both in Ottawa and south of the border tend to give a modicum of anticipation that the political landscape is shifting. So let’s see some winds of change at York University!