I have been requested to forward the following info as well......

*******

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!