Important Information for CUPE 3906 Unit 2 Members Regarding the Unit 2 Strike Vote and Strike Vote Special General Membership Meeting (SGMM), 2020

The SGMM is occurring on Wednesday, October 14^th, at 2:00 P.M. Strike Vote voting will begin immediately following the SGMM, and will be available online (via “Helios Voting”) until 5:00 P.M. on Friday, October 16^th, 2020. 

Due to the health and safety concerns presented by the COVID-19 pandemic and the Employer’s guidelines restricting access to the campus during the pandemic, there will be no in-person meeting and no opportunity to vote in person.  We apologize for any inconvenience this might cause.

• Who can vote in a CUPE 3906 Unit 2 [Sessional Faculty and Hourly Rated Sessional Music Faculty (HRSMF)] strike vote?

Only members of CUPE 3906 Unit 2 (Sessional Faculty and HRSMF) may vote in a Unit 2 strike vote.  The following members of Unit 2 may vote in a strike vote:

• Members who are working as Sessional Faculty and HRSMF this term;
• Members who hold an Appointment to teach as a Sessional Faculty and HRSMF from Sept 1, 2020-Aug 31, 2021; (please email staff@cupe3906.org to obtain a ballot; please note that we will request a copy of your appointment letter as proof of appointment); and
• “Political” members of the union (i.e., members who have held a contract work as a Sessional Faculty and/or HRSMF in the last two academic terms—i.e., winter 2020 or spring/summer 2020).

HOW DO I ATTEND THE SGMM AND VOTE?

• Unit 2 members will receive a link to pre-register for an online “Zoom” meeting via email for our Strike Vote SGMM on Wednesday, October 14^th, 2020, at 2:00 P.M. Please note that you must pre-register for the meeting.  If you do not find an email outlining how to preregister in your McMaster email account, please check your “spam” and/or “other” folder.  If you require further assistance, please contact us immediately at staff@cupe3906.org or mobilizer@cupe3906.org.
• Upon the conclusion of the SGMM Unit 2 members will receive a “voter ID” and password to vote via McMaster email from an online platform called “Helios”. [According to Article 12 (a) of our bylaws, voting must begin upon the conclusion of the meeting.]
• Helios is the most user-friendly and secure voting platform the Local has found. For more information about Helios, please visit https://heliosvoting.org/faq
• Once the polls are open, you will be able to log in (using your pre-registered link) and cast your vote either in favour or opposed to the strike vote question: “Do you give your CUPE 3906 Unit 2 Bargaining Committee permission to call a strike in the event that talks break down at the bargaining table?”
• Your vote will then be encrypted and logged anonymously. Your email and username will only grant you access to the polls and will not be associated with your vote, nor will it be used or sold by Helios voting thereafter.  Once the polls are closed, Helios will automatically tally the results. Two scrutineers will be elected at the Unit 2 SGMM.  These elected scrutineers will meet to review the results before results will be made known to members.
• If you have questions or concerns about this process, or if you did not receive a ballot from Helios via email to your McMaster email address, please contact us at president@cupe3906.org, chiefsteward_sessionals@cupe3906.org, or staff@cupe3906.org. Please check your McMaster email address “spam” and/or “other” unfocussed email folder for your registration link for the SGMM and for Helios balloting before contacting CUPE staff. Thank  you!

CUPE 3906 Strike Votes are governed by the Ontario Labour Relations Act and Article 12 of the Local’s bylaws, which are available at https://cupe3906.org/about-us/by-laws/

Dear Unit 2 Members,

Following two weeks of negotiations, the Unit 2 Bargaining Team (representing Sessional Faculty and Hourly Rated Music Faculty) has reached an impasse with the Employer due to a number of outstanding issues including improvements to job security and transparency in hiring, technological support for remote teaching, and reasonable working hours. The University is once again relying on Bill 124 to justify below-inflation wage increases, and is refusing to entertain alternatives to wage increases like paid training as a way to keep sessionals from falling further behind. 

As a result of the impasse, the Unit 2 Bargaining Team has called for a strike vote and requested the assistance of a government-appointed conciliator to try to keep talks moving. As Unit 2 moves toward the possibility of job action within the unprecedented context of a global pandemic, sessionals need our support more than ever. All members are asked to consider joining the Bargaining Support Committee so that we can begin to build the capacity we will need to support sessionals should job-action be necessary. If you are interested in joining, please send an email to our Member Mobilizer, Sylvia, at mobilizer@cupe3906.org. Please also follow us on social media and share our posts to help get the message out! 

Do you want to send McMaster the message that you support our Bargaining Team in demanding a fairer contract for Sessional Faculty? Sign the petition:

http://chng.it/S695QHKwcJ

The Next Bargaining Support Committee Meeting is scheduled for 2-3pm on Monday October 5, 2020. 

Sincerely, 

Your CUPE3906 Executive Team 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About a Potential Sessional Faculty/HRSMF Strike or Lockout at McMaster

STRIKE VOTE QUESTIONS:

• What is a strike vote and why is the Union calling for one? 

It is normal for a Union to ask for a strong “strike vote” during the process of any legal contract negotiations in Canada.  In fact, CUPE 3906’s TA and RA (in lieu) and Sessional Faculty/Hourly Rated Sessional Music Faculty (HRSMF) bargaining teams have asked for a strong strike vote from its membership in virtually every single contract negotiations in the past 35+ years, and there have only ever been 2 TA and RA strikes (and 1 “wildcat” Sessional Faculty strike) since our unionization in the late 1970s. 

A strike vote is called by the Union’s bargaining team when the Union requires more leverage at the bargaining table.  Generally speaking, the bargaining team feels that it has negotiated as much as it can with the Employer, and needs to demonstrate the membership’s support for the union and the membership’s bargaining priorities before any more progress can be made. 

The exact wording of the strike vote question may vary, but it always asks the same basic question: do you authorize your bargaining team to call a strike if negotiations fail at the bargaining table?  A strong “yes” to this question with as many members voting as possible is the best scenario: it says to the Employer that they have a “last chance” to return to the bargaining table and negotiate in good faith to get a deal or else the members are prepared to proceed to the “next steps” in the legal bargaining process: conciliation, mediation, and, finally, a strike.  

• Why should we vote yes if there’s a strike vote? 

It is important to vote yes during a strike vote for a number of reasons. First of all, more people voting yes means that we’ll end up with a strong vote. In this situation, a strong vote means that we have 80 – 90 percent of the membership voting “yes”. Based on past experiences, what we’ve seen time and time again is that when we have a strong strike vote, we end up with a strong collective agreement. It sounds counter-intuitive but the stronger the strike vote, the less likely we are to go on strike. This is because a strong strike vote sends a clear message to the employer that we mean business and are not interested in dragging things out at the negotiating table. 

Secondly, voting yes in a strike vote is a great way to be involved in the collecting bargaining process so as to ensure that your union works for you. Being a Sessional Faculty and/or HRSMF automatically makes you a part of the union but that is simply not enough. This is a way for your voice to be heard and for you to be a part of the decision-making process of your union. As with so many things in life, if you do not make a decision, someone else will end up making the decision for you and more often than not, the decision made for you is not going to be one that you like. 

Finally, a strong strike vote often leads to a strong collective agreement. Paying union dues is part of being a member of the union.  Put it this way: you’re already paying dues so why not be involved? Also, you will keep paying dues in the future regardless of what kind of collective agreement we end up with. If that is the case, don’t you want to ensure that you will be paying dues towards an agreement that you’re happy with? It makes more sense to pay dues towards a collective agreement that works for you as opposed to one that negatively affects you.

• Who can vote in a Unit 2 (Sessional Faculty and HRSMF) strike vote? 

Only members of Unit 2 (Sessional Faculty and HRSMF) may vote in a Unit 2 strike vote.  The following members of Unit 2 may vote in a strike vote: 

1. Members who are working as Sessional Faculty and HRSMF this term; 
2. Members who hold an Appointment to teach as a Sessional Faculty and HRSMF from Sept 1, 2020-Aug 31, 2021;
3. “Political” members of the union (i.e., members who have held a contract work as a Sessional Faculty and/or HRSMF in the last two academic terms—i.e., winter 2020 or spring/summer 2020).

Dear Unit 2 Members,

After two weeks of negotiations with our Employer, the McMaster University Administration, we are disappointed to inform you that the parties have reached an impasse and we are seeking both the assistance of a government-appointed Conciliation Officer and a strike vote from our Unit 2 members.

The Union and the Employer made some progress at the table over the past few sessions.  For instance, we removed conditions that would limit members to teach two courses per term, and made some gains to supplemental fees for large classes.

 Unfortunately, that progress was cut short by a few fundamental disagreements:

-improvements to job security and transparency in hiring.  Job security was a top priority for members according to our survey.  We continue to propose improvements to the existing first consideration appointment system and to transparent and fair hiring processes, but the Employer is not agreeable to any substantive changes.

-money.  The Employer states that it is limited to a 1% increase to wages and benefits due to the regressive legislation put forward by the Ford Conservatives last fall (Bill 124).  Paid training is not contemplated by the legislation, however, and we believe that members should receive extra compensation for health and safety training and/or professional training in addition to normal course preparation and delivery.  This is an opportunity for the Employer to offer gains outside of the restrictions of the legislation, and we think our members are worth it.

-proration of 3-unit courses.  The Employer has included a proposal that would allow members in one of our departments (MELD) to be paid 1/3^rd of the value of a 3-unit course by claiming to have altered the workload of the course to 1/3^rd of the workload of a “regular” 3-unit course.  This is an attack on our members, and we are concerned that, if we agree to this language, the Employer would be permitted to reduce compensation in any of our 3- or 6-unit courses.  The Employer also wants the Union to withdraw outstanding grievances on proration and job security as a condition of the agreement.

-technological support.  Especially given the move to online teaching due to the COVID-19 pandemic, members require additional technological support for the tools and resources they need.  The Employer is having difficulty finding ways of facilitating this (although the Union has proposed several options).

-3-year contract. Given the uncertainties created by the pandemic and current legislation (Bill 124), we had hoped the employer would agree to a two-year agreement. This would have allowed both sides to go back to the negotiating table at a time when things hopefully have stabilized and some uncertainties resolved. However, the Employer is insisting on a three-year deal.

-Preventing job loss.  The Union requested that the Employer commit to not reducing the number of jobs as a result of any move to online teaching because of the pandemic (e.g., increase the student to instructor ratio to create online, “mega” classes).  The Employer did not agree to commit to this, and has already done this in at least one department.

-Guidelines on reasonable hours of work.  The Union proposed language to make sure that members were not required to provide instruction or student consultation between the hours of 10 P.M. and 8:30 A.M..  The Employer did not agree to this language.

More information about an impending strike vote and dates for conciliation will be forthcoming.

Please continue to check your email for information about your rights and your opportunities to be heard at meetings and consultations.

We remain open to meet with the Employer to arrive at a negotiated agreement.  This does not change in spite of our request for assistance from the membership and a Conciliation Officer.  We did not make this decision lightly, and we regret having to take this course of action given the pandemic situation.

Sincerely,

Your Unit 2 Bargaining Committee

We are pleased to announce that your Unit 3 (Postdoctoral Fellows) Bargaining Team has reached a Tentative Agreement with McMaster University for the Unit 3 Collective Agreement, the contract that governs your rights as CUPE 3906 Unit 3 members at McMaster.

Details of the Tentative Agreement will be presented to Unit 3 members at an upcoming Special General Membership Meeting (date, time, and location to be announced).

In the meantime, details of the Tentative Agreement will remain confidential out of courtesy to members and to the Employer.

Thank you for your support and interest in this process.  We will provide more details about the ratification process as soon as possible.

In solidarity,

Nathan Todd
President, CUPE 3906

-November 19th, 2019-

Response to McMaster’s No Board Report claims

November 8, 2019

As many members of the McMaster community know, CUPE Local 3906 (Unit 1) and the
University jointly requested a ‘no-board’ report following a day of conciliation that failed to break an
impasse and provide the meaningful gains that Teaching Assistants and Research Assistants (in lieu)
deserve. More information about this can be found at www.bettermac.ca.

One of the key priorities identified by members in our bargaining survey was access to paid TA
training. The importance of said training was reinforced when Unit 1 members returned a historic and
record-breaking strike vote of 87% after McMaster University failed to agree to the Union’s proposals
on this item. Let us be clear: in highlighting the lack of paid TA training, the Union is referring to
university-wide training that would help TAs to become more effective at their jobs. Specifically, the
Union proposed five paid hours for pedagogical training and an additional three paid hours for anti-oppression training.

The employer addressed this issue – which we had already tabled as a priority– on June 24th,
in their eighth set of proposals to the Union. Specifically, they proposed using the following language
in a letter of understanding: “The parties agree to establish a joint committee for the purposes of
exploring the feasibility of establishing an Institution-wide or Faculty specific training program(s) for
new employees.” This would certainly suggest that there is not university-wide (or even faculty specific)
training for new employees.

On November 5th, when the employer provided the union with a “comprehensive proposal,”
they made no mention of university-wide paid TA training on pedagogy or anti-oppression.
For these reasons, you can imagine the Union’s surprise when we read the employer’s
statement on requesting a ‘no-board’ report. In it, they assert that “McMaster also funds benefits
programs and paid training for Teaching Assistants.” To be clear, the University is now claiming that
they fund paid training for Teaching Assistants. Our questions is this: “Oh, really?”

We are left wondering which paid training they provide to TAs – be it pedagogical, anti-oppression,
or both. If we are to take the University’s statement at face value, it is unclear why they
would have refused our above mentioned proposals, let alone why they themselves proposed
“establish[ing] a joint committee for the purposes of exploring the feasibility of establishing an
Institution-wide or Faculty specific training program(s) for new employees.” So we ask again, to which
paid TA training are they referring?

Perhaps they are referring to health and safety training. The Occupational Health and Safety
Act mandates this type of training, so citing it when we have clearly been bargaining over anti-oppression and pedagogical training is disingenuous to say the least. Perhaps they are referring to
training mandated by the Access for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, which the employer is required to
offer to employees. We know that the Faculty of Engineering launched a pilot project to provide training to its graduate TAs. If this is what they were referring to, it is unclear why they would not want
to include such an important provision in their proposals, especially in response to our proposals for
paid university-wide TA training.

There is existing language in the Collective Agreement mandating that “the Employer will
provide an orientation… to all newly hired Unit 1 employees in order to provide them with information
about the general operation of the University and resources available to employees that may be of
assistance in the performance of their duties. Employee orientation may include information about
such things as instructional courses and professional development resources that are available to
employees.” This language might tell TAs and RAs in lieu about what is available, but it does not
provide pedagogical or anti-oppression training. Neither party is looking to amend this language, so
surely this is not something worth highlighting. At the department level, some departments carve out
minimal paid training for TAs, but this simply comes out of their allocation of hours, thus leaving less
time for marking and student contact. To us it seems that providing additional paid hours for training
is the least the employer could do, considering that most of our members take home less than $5,ooo
in wages per year once we account for the cost of full-time tuition – the payment of which is a
condition of their employment.

We would urge all TAs to call or e-mail their Department Chairs, the University’s Vice-Provost
and Dean of Graduate Studies (who also happens to be Chair of their bargaining team), as well as the
Associate Vice-President and Dean of Students to inquire about the paid training opportunities we are
supposedly afforded. Some helpful contact information can be found below. We would love to hear the
responses to these inquiries!

• Doug Welch, Vice-Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies: 1-905-525-9140 x 24205 or
deangrad@mcmaster.ca
• Sean Van Koughnett, Associate Vice-President and Dean of Students: 1-905-525-9140 x 27455
or avpstud@mcmaster.ca

We have always been clear about the fact that TAs and RAs in lieu both demand and deserve
paid pedagogical and anti-oppression training. We also know that our students deserve TAs who have
been trained in ways commensurate with the University’s emphasis on excellence in teaching.
McMaster’s recent statement is either embarrassingly uninformed or deliberately misleading, and we
hold that the only correct course of action would be for them to immediately offer a retraction and
apology.

Sincerely,

Nathan Todd

President of CUPE 3906

Following the outstanding support we have seen from members, Unit 1’s bargaining team came to the table today ready to move negotiations forward. We came to the table with a firm commitment to removing all concessions and to securing significant and meaningful gains on priorities you have continually endorsed throughout this process.

We spent over 12 hours communicating with our conciliator and the employer and provided significant movement on our proposals in an effort to keep negotiations moving. Sadly, around 9pm, after we had dedicated several hours to a comprehensive and meaningful pass, we were informed that over half of the employer’s bargaining team – including their Chair – had already left. Beyond causing us significant frustration, we take this as a sign of minimal serious engagement in the process on their part.

Despite this development (or lack thereof), we tabled the proposal we had completed thus far, including a firm re-commitment to our consistent stance on removing all concessions from our contract and the need for significant movement on your stated bargaining priorities as they were ratified prior to the commencement of negotiations.

The few members of their bargaining team who remained then signalled to the conciliator that they were not willing to meaningfully consider our priorities. Both parties then jointly filed for a No Board Report, thus triggering movement into a legal strike/lockout position prior to the end of November.

Filing a No Board Report puts pressure on both the union and the employer to reach an agreement prior to this deadline, provided that both parties are willing to negotiate.

We have secured a mediation date on November 19^th and are working to secure more. We hope that by then, McMaster will realize that offering de facto pay cuts and concessions on job security to already precarious employees is not the way to a Brighter World, nor to a #BetterMac. It would also be prudent of the employer to recognize that given the rising cost of living for our members, protections against tuition increases would offer much needed security in an increasingly unpredictable economy. Further, we hope the employer will recognize that paid pedagogical training is not only a simple and reasonable request for any employee group, but that it is specifically reasonable for Teaching Assistants within a world-renowned university.

We remain eager to reach a fair agreement that reflects your priorities ahead of this deadline, and hopeful that the employer’s entire bargaining team will come to the table on the 19^th ready to do the same.

In the meantime, we will be proceeding with all necessary preparations to ensure that we can be in the best possible position to defend our members’ interests in the event of a strike being called.

One of the best ways to avert a strike is by making the Employer feel the pressure of an engaged membership. We’re already off to an amazing start with an 87% strike vote — a historic mandate for Unit 1. Today we are asking that you help us build on this momentum by informing the University Secretariat and Board of Governors of your support for the CUPE 3906 Unit 1 bargaining team and the priorities ratified by our members. Consider taking 5 minutes out of your day to let the “right” people know it will be in the University’s best interests to negotiate a fair deal ASAP:

• Call the Secretariat at 1-905-525-1940 ext. 24337 or
• Email the Board of Governors at boardofgovernors@mcmaster.ca.

You can also use social media to share our most recent bargaining infographic (attached to this email) and/or stories about how your TAs have helped you. Keep us in the know by using #BetterMac or by tagging us @CUPE3906. TAs make the university tick, and ideally McMaster will come to realize this fact without us having to show them through a work stoppage!

We will continue to inform you of our progress at the bargaining table as much as possible. For a complete list of bargaining updates, please visit https://bettermac.ca.

In solidarity

Unit 1 Bargaining Team

It’s no secret that academics love their pets! Less known, though, is the fact that our pets have been some of our strongest and bravest supporters in the current round of bargaining with McMaster. Be they dogs, cats, or guinea pigs – they’re all fed up with how the University has handled its negotiations with Units 1 and 3 and they’re not afraid to say it!

If you have a pet who loves TAs and postdocs, we’d love for you to participate in this campaign! There are several laminated signs in the union office (KTH B111) for folks to borrow. Some are specific to dogs and cats and some speak to key bargaining priorities such as TA training, 5th year TA guarantees, better wages, and closing the pay gap between undergraduate and graduate TAs. We will also be making printable PDF versions of these signs available in a separate post.

Templates:

GOOD DOGS FOR PAID TA TRAINING

GRUMPY CATS AGAINST 2 TIERED CBAS

TEACHING CONDITIONS ARE LEARNING CONDITIONS

SOMEONE I LOVE IS A POSTDOC

GRUMPY CATS AGAINST BAD WAGES U3

GRUMPY CATS AGAINST BAD WAGES U1

GRUMPY CATS AGAINST 2 TIERED CBAS

GOOD DOGS FOR 5 YEAR TA GUARANTEES

GOOD DOGS AGAINST BAD WAGES-4

GOOD DOGS AGAINST 2 TIERED CBAS