Until this round of bargaining, taking pictures of the employer (during and outside of bargaining) has never been a problem. Here is Barry Miller and Rob Lawson, shared on Twitter in 2015.

Threatening CUPE 3903 members for expressing themselves about union matters is completely unacceptable. Similarly unacceptable is the fact that this needs to be stated at all.

On Monday, November 13, the York University bargaining team walked into our bargaining meeting and immediately started berating the bargaining team (BT) about pictures of the employer’s team shared on Twitter.

The BT and executive committee members present had no idea what they were talking about. While our own account is often critical of York’s team, we have not shared pictures of their bargaining team following a conversation on that exact topic on October 16. The agreement that pictures of the employer’s bargaining team would not be shared was already a major concession to the employer’s restrictive definition of respect. In previous rounds, pictures were common and there were no complaints.

It was eventually clarified that they were upset that rank and file members had tweeted picture(s) of them at a previous meeting. It is ludicrous for the employer to suggest that the union can or should control what individual members are sharing on social media.

The union’s BT members take their positions seriously and do not appreciate derailing of discussions on the table (as outlined in the agenda sent in advance to the employer, as established on opening day). If the employer would like to discuss rules of engagement, they are welcome to openly communicate this in advance by adding it as an agenda item. Sidetracking bargaining in this way is designed to exhaust our BT before we even get started.

What is most disturbing about this, however, is the threat which was levelled against our members. The BT clarified once more that open bargaining was part of the protocols approved by the membership. The employer responded with a threat: if the BT was unwilling to somehow prevent individuals from using social media, the employer would take action against those members as either an employment issue (presumably an Article 8 discipline case) or a Student Code of Conduct issue.

This is outrageous. It is bad enough to threaten to discipline someone for utilizing social media in a way that is perfectly legal (there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public meeting). The idea of targeting our members, for union activities, through their student status is beyond the pale, as it would strip them of the union representation they would at least be guaranteed in an employment discipline process. Every member of a union should be entitled to protections while working for or talking about their union or their employer. Anything else would be a reprisal.

This tactic is an intimidation power play from our employer. Our bargaining team was not intimidated. The CUPE 3903 BT and Executive Committee will not be telling anyone what they can and can’t tweet or otherwise share on social media. But we do commit to defend any member who is unfairly targeted by our employer, to the fullest of our capacities.

On Monday, November 6, the CUPE 3903 and York University bargaining teams met to continue discussing CUPE 3903’s equity proposals and to present the Unit 2 job security proposals (numbered 50 through 74 in CUPE 3903’s bargaining proposal package). Overall, we are disappointed that the employer does not seem to take equity proposals seriously. We are also very far apart when it comes to job security.

Thank you to the rank-and-file members who attended the meeting. Open bargaining and membership mobilization are the source of our strength. The next meeting will be on Monday, November 13 at 10 am in the Harry Crowe room, 109 Atkinson. The employer will be presenting the details for their Unit 1 funding plan.

Outstanding Labour Management Issues

The ongoing issue of Continuing Sessional Standing Program (CSSP) payouts has finally been addressed by Rob Lawson of Faculty Relations, who confirmed that members who are owed a payout will receive it with the November paycheck.

CUPE 3903 highlighted another example of the employer contravening the Collective Agreements and failing to provide required information to the union. Departments have been inconsistent in meeting the CA requirements to post lists of hiring unit appointments for Units 1, 2 and 3 to departmental bulletin boards as well as providing them to the union. Rob Lawson has indicated he will email departmental administrators, reminding them of this requirement.

Another labour management matter is that the employer has suddenly stopped paying for the dependents of UHIP recipients. Previously, dependents have typically been covered. This change is a violation of two parts of the Unit 1 and Unit 3 CAs (15.14/15.20 in U1 and 20/23 in U3). Mario Verrilli (FGS) says they can no longer cover these costs due to a growing international student population. However, he failed to reference the two CA funds mentioned above which are available to cover these costs. We requested the accounting of the funds and the employer has agreed to provide us with this information.

Continuing our discussion on Article 22 and the employer’s failure to produce phone numbers and emails for the majority of members, Rob Lawson now claims the data can in fact be pulled, and will request that this information be pulled for the union. The bargaining team and staff have spent multiple sessions prior to and in bargaining, asking for this information.

Equity Proposals Continued

Continuing last week’s negotiations on equity proposals, the union provided revisions to proposals 82, 82 and 90 to provide greater clarity on our benchmark for equity hires based on the GTA census data.

The employer continued to rehash matters the union thought were settled in the previous meeting. These included questions about the current availability of breastfeeding facilities on campus. The employer pointed to inadequate facilities such as two daycare centres on campus. Our members need more accessible facilities (one example being a site at Glendon). The same attitude was taken when addressing our proposal for ASL interpreters, with the employer suggestion a computer program fitted to convey ASL online. Our proposals exist because the current institutional resources are not meeting people’s needs. York needs to take this seriously if they are to tout their commitment to equity.

After the lunch break, the union expressed its disappointment with the employer and negotiations thus far. The union expected sign-offs for equity proposals presented the week before for which the employer raised no questions or concerns. The lack of movement on proposals that would simply bring our Collective Agreements in line with existing legislation and human rights rulings is disappointing.

Job Security

Unit 2 members of the bargaining team delivered a presentation on job security, proposals 50 through 74. The presentation was framed in the context of Bill 148; the “Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act”, and York University’s Academic Plan 2015-2020, which details York’s stated commitment to increasing the number of full-time jobs. U2 BT members addressed the reality of precarious work for contract faculty, along with the lack of respect and representation U2 members are afforded within the broader university. U2 BT members brought data on the gender and sessional wage gaps, pointed to York’s stated commitment to “seven Inclusive Excellence Principles to advance equity, diversity and inclusion on campus and in society” – brought forward by the Universities Canada’s Board of Directors and Education Committee – and touched on the continuing success of the Conversion program.

The employer is standing firm on Contractually Limited Appointments (CLAs) as an alternative to the Conversion program. The employer’s attempt at trading off conversions for CLAs, which are temporary positions, is a major concession.

Setting the Stage for Unit 1 Funding

Finally, the employer provided the union with some documents on the proposed new funding language for Unit 1 along with their position on teaching evaluations as the session came to a close. We expect to pick up these two issues next session.

There are currently two committees with vacancies: the Accessibility Committee and the International Graduate Students Committee. A description of each committee can be found below. If you would like to get involved, sitting on a committee (or two!) is a great way to contribute to your local. Every committee position includes an honorarium.

The nomination period is open until November 20, 5 pm. To nominate yourself, email Hossein at cupe3903vpu1@gmail.com. Contested positions will be elected at the November 21 General Membership Meeting.

Continue reading →

Are you interested in CUPE 3903’s bargaining, but not sure where to start? Do you love writing, tweeting, making memes, or expressing yourself in any way? Or do you have something you’re just itching to say? The CUPE 3903 Communications Committee would love to hear from you!

The CUPE 3903 Communications Committee is looking to start a new initiative to get more different voices from our local heard and keep everyone informed.

We are looking for members of CUPE 3903 who do not hold an official position (including committee members and departmental stewards) and are willing to attend bargaining or mobilization events and produce communications materials (e.g. report backs, memes, rants, tweets, e-mails, social media posts). We want to hear from members from all departments, units, social positions, and therefore we would only review for truly unacceptable language or personal attacks. Anything else goes!

We are currently trying to gauge interest in this initiative. If there is interest, we would attach an small honorarium in recognition of the time commitment involved in keeping up with bargaining. If you would like to participate, please leave your name and email address in the form below.

**Please be advised that this initiative is not connected with the Rank and File Network. If you would like to get involved with the Rank and File Network, please contact them directly.**

Rank and file bargaining commentators

[English follows]

Créé en 2016, le Comité du bilinguisme du Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique section locale 3903 (SCFP 3903) a le mandat d’identifier et de combler les besoins de notre syndicat en ce qui concerne l’inclusion des membres francophones, y compris la traduction.

Cette année, le comité entreprend la création d’une politique de bilinguisme pour le SCFP 3903. Pour ce faire, nous vous demandons de nous aider en identifiant vos besoins. Veuillez s’il-vous-plait prendre quelques instants pour répondre à notre bref sondage.

Sondage sur le bilinguisme au sein du SCFP 3903

Continue reading →

On Monday, October 30, the CUPE 3903 and York University bargaining teams met to discuss CUPE 3903’s equity proposals (numbered 76 through 94 in CUPE 3903’s bargaining proposal package). Thank you to the rank-and-file members who attended the meeting. Open bargaining and membership mobilization is the source of our strength. The next meeting will be on Monday, November 6 at 10am in the Harry Crowe room, 109 Atkinson.

Labour Management Issues

At the beginning of the meeting, CUPE 3903 requested that the employer address the problem of late Continuing Sessional Standing Program (CSSP) payouts. In past practice, issues that are normally dealt with at Labour-Management Committee (LMC) meetings were addressed at the bargaining table since the LMC does not function during bargaining. York’s lawyer, Simon Mortimer, quickly tried to shut this discussion down. He failed to do so, and the issue was brought to the attention of Rob Lawson, Associate Director of Faculty Relations. It was also established that ongoing labour management issues would be discussed at the bargaining table.

CUPE 3903 Equity Proposals and Employer Response

CUPE 3903 tabled several proposals meant to hold York accountable for their failures to accommodate members with disabilities, and address equity issues that emerged during the last contract period. These proposals include adding language to establish accommodations based on marital and family status, to strengthen and protect disability-based program extensions, and an accommodation procedure with firm timelines. The employer’s bargaining team seemed to conflate the issues of accommodations and extensions. There was an overall failure on the part of York’s bargaining team to address the blatant CA violations that these proposals were drafted to address.

Continue reading →

CUPE 3903’s efforts to negotiate fair collective agreements with York University has always been a struggle. We have tried to ensure fairness not only for our members, but for the entire York community, especially the students we teach. Another round of bargaining has begun, and it is with the same eye towards fairness that the union heads to the negotiating table.

Direction and videography: Amin Toyouri

Check out the Bargaining tab, and follow us on Facebook and Twitter for up-to-date information on bargaining.

After the exchange of proposals on October 16, we released a report that states that the employer’s proposals are concessionary in nature. In the name of clarity, this post seeks to provide more information on what concessions are, as well as why CUPE 3903 considers the employer’s proposals to be concessionary.

In the context of collective bargaining, granting a concession means accepting a contract in which important elements that were won in previous rounds of bargaining are lost. CUPE 3903 does not accept concessions; this is why our contracts are so strong. From round to round, we build on what was won before.

To say that proposals are only concessionary if they involve a decrease in wages or a loss of benefits, as York has, implies that wages and benefits are the only proposals that truly matter. This is clearly not true. A fair contract involves many non-monetary issues, such as equity, class sizes, protections from harassment and discrimination, job security, and the overall quality of employment. Concessions can mean a significant loss even if wages and benefits remain untouched.

The next sections explain why we consider some of York’s key proposals to be concessionary. In sum, it is clear that York is in fact asking CUPE 3903 for concessions. We commit to providing facts and well-reasoned arguments to justify our position. It would behoove York’s commitment to transparency and good faith bargaining to do the same.

Continue reading →

During the bargaining meeting on October 16, the Bargaining Team (BT) raised a serious concern with the use of the CUPE 3903 logo by the employer to promote their bargaining website. The ads had been allowed to run for more than a week on the LCD screens that line the corridors of the Keele Campus.

This is especially upsetting since the use of our logo seemed to imply that CUPE 3903 endorsed the contents of the site. Nothing could be further from the truth. York’s bargaining webpage is a transparent PR maneuver, and does not reflect the real tone and content of bargaining. For example, nowhere on the site are they honest about their desire to destroy the Conversions Program for contract faculty. The PR might be slick, but it is very light on the truth.

The context in which our logo was used makes this a serious violation. It could be read as an attempt to undermine the credibility of the updates provided by the union. Consequently, the BT, supported by the Executive Committee, requested that a public apology be issued on as many platforms as is feasible, with a clear statement that CUPE 3903 does not endorse the contents of the employer’s bargaining website.

This was a very reasonable request. If York was serious about its stated commitment to respectful dialogue and transparent and accurate reporting, they would have jumped at the opportunity to rectify what they assure us was an honest mistake. Instead, they tucked a short post on their site, did not advertise it, and did not even inform the BT or Executive of its existence. The post does not state that CUPE 3903 does not endorse the contents of the site, which was the single most important element of the request.

York University had a chance to show us their good faith by adding a single line to their “apology” and promoting it a bit more broadly. They chose not to. Do better, York.

Yesterday morning, Glendon Campus was evacuated by York University Security and the Toronto Police Service after receiving an anti-Semitic graffiti bomb threat. This type of discriminatory anti-Semitic threats have unfortunately become commonplace at York University in the past couple of years.

Anti-Semitism – prejudice against Jewish people on the basis of their faith or ethno-religious identity – is a hateful, discriminatory ideology. It is reprehensible and inexcusable. Threatening violence against the Jewish community here at York University is equally reprehensible and inexcusable. This incident clearly crosses the line that separates protected free speech from hate speech and incitement to anti-Semitic violence.

CUPE 3903 stands with York University’s Jewish community. We reaffirm our commitment to fighting prejudice and discrimination in general, and anti-Semitism in particular. We unequivocally condemn anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic statements, graffiti, violence, and threats of violence.

We will work with York University’s Jewish community, and its various representative organizations, to fight against anti-Semitism and make York a better, safer place for its Jewish students and employees.

Finally, we call on York University, our employer, to take this incident, and this trend, seriously. There has been an increase in the last couple of years in anti-Semitic incidents on campus, as well as other forms of discriminatory incidents – Islamophobia, anti-Black racism, white supremacy, sexism, homophobia and transphobia, among others.York University’s administration must do its utmost to guarantee that its campuses are safe for its diverse community of students and employees.