BT and Executive Unanimously Recommend Rejecting Final Offer

Posted on by

The bargaining team for Units 1, 2, and 3, as well as the Executive Committee unanimously voted to recommend that CUPE 3903 REJECT the employer’s final offer. Several concessions remain on the table, most notably the destruction of the Conversions program and Graduate Assistant jobs and the increase in ticketed Course Directorships.

The full proposal package for the three units can be found here:

Summary of Final Offer

All Units

Health Benefits

The employer has suggested an increase of $40,000 to the Extended Health Benefits Fund, and refused to increase dental, vision, or paramedical care.

Sexual Violence Response

The employer has offered a hard no to funding the Sexual Violence Survivors Support Fund. The response on training to respond to sexual violence is to include it in the 10 hours of training that Teaching Assistants receive.

Childcare

Employer offers a $60,000 increase to the Childcare Fund. They refused a letter of intent to discuss the feasibility of childcare facilities at Glendon and Markham campuses.

Wages

The employer has moved to %2.1 in 2017, %2.2 in 2018, and %2.3 in 2019.

Anti-Racism

No meaningful engagement with the anti-racism proposals.

Unit 1 (Graduate Students with Teaching Contracts, mostly Teaching Assistants)

Summer Funding

On Tuesday night, there was some progress on summer funding, where the employer expressed that it would be possible for members to indicate in writing, by August 10, that they wish to receive their minimum guarantee as four installments in the summer. This is not a win, but rather a return to the status quo of what we had before the roll out of the fellowship model.

However, on Wednesday evening the employer tabled further language regarding the minimum guarantee, which would allow them to apply summer funding towards tuition, thus potentially negating the movement made on Tuesday.

Resisting Clawbacks

York has completely refused to entertain our proposal to limit their ability to reduce the funding of Unit 1 members if they receive large scholarships or other forms of additional funding.

Deadlines and Penalties for Late Payments

York has completely refused to discuss setting strict deadlines, with penalties for late payments. This proposal was largely motivated by incidents such as the one where every Teaching Assistants in the Lassonde School of Engineering were not paid for a month, and York did not see themselves as responsible for any penalties. Meanwhile, if we are even a little late on our tuition, York applies interest to our student accounts.

Ticketed Course Directorships

The employer is asking for an increase of 20 course directorships taught by Unit 1s (“tickets”). These tickets are poorly remunerated, and take work out of Unit 2.

Letter of Intent on the Fellowship Funding Model

The membership clearly directed the Bargaining Team to make sure that the fellowship funding model could not be used to take work out of Unit 1 the same way it has been done for Unit 3. There is some good news in that we were able to agree on some language that would strengthen the priority pool. However, the employer has refused a Letter of Intent which would clarify the amounts of the fellowship payments. This means that these payments, which remain a large part of our funding, are not protected and can be arbitrarily changed.

Combining Grant-in-Aid and Graduate Financial Assistance

The Bargaining Team had indicated willingness to combine the Grant-in-Aid (GIA), which is part of monthly paycheques, and the Graduate Financial Assistance (GFA), which is paid out once a semester. The combined payment would be paid out once a semester. The Bargaining Team felt this was an appropriate compromise. However, the membership should be aware that while this does not decrease the total amounts received, it does significantly decrease the monthly paycheque.

Unit 2 (Contract Faculty)

Conversions

The employer is suggesting 2 Conversions (tenure-track positions for high-seniority Unit 2s) per year. This is a concession, as there were 8 per year in the previous contract. The Conversions Program has been very successful since 1988 in matching qualified candidates to full-time work and having these candidates achieve tenure. The employer was unable to justify their attack on this very successful program.

“Special Renewable Contracts”

They are also suggesting 6 “Special Renewable Contracts” (SRCs) per year. These are not the SRCs that already exist in our collective agreement and YUFA’s, which is a program that is meant to give the longest-serving members of Unit 2 access to more stable employment. Rather, York’s “SRC” program is essentially a Contractually-Limited Appointment (CLA) that is harder to renew. Moreover, discussing these “SRCs” is moot, as YUFA would have to agree to them, and several provisions in the employer’s language are incompatible with YUFA’s CA. York appears to be offering a program that they have no power to apply in order to say that they have made movement on job security.

Continuing Sessional Standing Program

For the Continuing Sessional Standing Program (CSSP), a program to stabilize work for mid-seniority Unit 2s, the employer has suggested to increase the eligibility to 5 years. However, they did not respond to our proposals to make sure that the program actually operates as it is meant to. Several departments have not been participating in the CSSP. The program needs to be functional in order for this to be a meaningful improvement.

Long Service Teaching Appointments

On Long Service Teaching Appointments (LSTAs), the employer is suggesting a 3 to 5 year term, but otherwise does not want to make improvements to the program.

Professional Expense Reimbursement

The employer has suggested what at first looks like a modest increase in the Professional Expense Reimbursement (PER). In reality, however, their language eliminates the ability to have the amount roll over from year-to-year and therefore it would actually be a decrease in funds for most members.

Qualifications and “Career Advancement”

The employer has refused to move on ALL non-monetary qualifications proposals, including the ones specifically for the School of Nursing. They also proposed to fund their Career Advancement Program (CAP) out of the Professional Development Fund (PDF). Essentially, the union would be funding a program to train Unit 2 members for jobs that do not exist.

Unit 3 (Graduate Assistants)

Graduate Assistant Jobs

The employer has suggested a Graduate Assistant Training (GAT) Fund of $60,000, which would allocate up to $2000 to a Principle Investigator to aid in hiring a Graduate Assistant. This is not a solution to the more than 800 GA jobs that York has eliminated. This elimination was done in part by inflating the costs of GAs by around $6000. Offering faculty members $2000 is not a meaningful offset. For context, York has warned faculty that their changes would make it hard for faculty members’ grants to be approved if they hired GAs.

Combining Grant-in-Aid and Graduate Financial Assistance

The Bargaining Team had indicated willingness to combine the Grant-in-Aid (GIA), which is part of monthly paycheques, and the Graduate Financial Assistance (GFA), which is paid out once a semester. The combined payment would be paid out once a semester. The Bargaining Team felt this was an appropriate compromise. However, the membership should be aware that while this does not decrease the total amounts received, it does significantly decrease the monthly paycheque.

Increasing Graduate Assistant Funding

Graduate Assistants receive $10,000 per year in funding. The employer refused to discuss an increase.

Bargaining Gains.

Our bargaining team has been able to secure some improvements to our contracts:

  • 6 weeks of paid sexual or domestic violence leave
  • Increases to the Ways and Means and Trans Funds.
  • Online databases for work histories and job postings
  • Seniority credit for bargaining team members
  • Identification of LGBTQ as a fifth equity-seeking group
  • Continuation of library access and email for a year past the last contract
  • Additional paid training for Health and Safety
  • Some protections to the Unit 1 Priority Pool

While all of these are good, only the last one (protecting the priority pool) was identified as a “red line” i.e. a proposal that the membership deemed crucial to an acceptable contract.

All Units Solidarity

No Unit has been offered a good deal, and the vote from the Bargaining Team and Executive Committee was unanimous based on this fact. We do want to note, however, that an attack on one unit is an attack on all units. The attacks on Unit 3 jobs, particularly, weaken our collective power to bargain good agreements for Units 1 and 2. The way in which Unit 3 was decimated (through changing funding models) is also cause for alarm as the same could be done to Unit 1. Unit 2 jobs are often the future jobs of Unit 1 and 3 members. United we bargain good agreements – divided we beg.

Final Offer Meeting TOMORROW

On Friday, March 2, the membership will meet starting at 11:30 am in the Tait McKenzie main gym in order to accept or reject this offer. There will be presentations, further documentation, and ample opportunity for Q&A. The Bargaining Team and Executive Committee ask that you please consider what accepting concessions will do to our contracts and vote to reject the offer.