“I never came here asking for an efficient process.”
– The Employer, November 10th
The bargaining team met with the employer twice this week, including once with the conciliator present on Friday. While these meetings were slowed by frustrating discussions about process, we did receive our first monetary proposals on Friday!
Tuesday: Employer Counters
The Employer brought counterproposals about grievances, ticketed course directorships and associated reporting, as well as the Unit 2 Long Service Teaching Appointment (LSTA) program. Regarding the latter, the Employer wants to widen the pool of members eligible for LSTAs. We have asked for numbers about the proposed change’s impact, and raised concerns that it does could unintentionally slash equity provisions.
U1 members should note that the Employer declined to include the Intellectual Property (IP) protections found in U2’s Collective Agreement, citing that the work is too different across bargaining units. This is untrue: U1s can and do work as course directors, and U2s as tutors. We also raised the potential impact of AI on the Intellectual Property of all units.
Miracle in York Lanes: Monetary Proposal
Frustratingly, the Employer made several comments on Tuesday suggesting that it was too early to talk money. Yet, on Friday, they brought their first explicitly monetary counter proposal to the table: improvements to the health benefits! We are hopeful that the Employer will continue to bring monetary proposals to the table so that we can evaluate their offer holistically.
The Employer also asked the Bargaining Team, on both days, if they were prepared to unanimously recommend an agreement to membership. The answer “will the deal be good” was tepidly received.
Friday: Union Counters
The Union submitted a counter for Article 8 (just cause), reasserting that we don’t believe that third-party online sources (eg: RateMyProf) should be used to establish just cause for disciplining our members. We also filed our counter proposal on Health & Safety, and a list of questions about the Employer’s last submission on AI to make sure we can evaluate it thoroughly.
While we have made good progress on the definitions and classifications for different tutor categories, the Union remotivated several classifications designed to prevent overwork. Studio Instructors (T6s), for example, do three times the amount of live instruction that tutorial leaders are expected to do in a week, but this is not reflected in their pay. The fact that 70% of T6 Studio Instructors are women makes this a clear pay equity issue, and we are hopeful that the Employer’s stated commitment to DEDI will result in a good outcome for our members.
UHIP Fund and Other LMC Issues
Given the current disaster where international student members received $173 from the UHIP Fund, where before it would have been 100% coverage of the $948-$2844 premium fees, this was a top priority for discussion. The union is of the opinion that there is more money available in the Fund; we have asked the Employer to look into this as soon as possible. They did not have a response on Friday, however. We also raised the fact that people who are meant to advise members (i.e. Graduate Program Assistants, funding advisors at FGS) seem unaware of the changes the Employer has implemented.
Other Labour Management Committee (LMC) issues of note discussed this week include the continued wait times for accommodated work plans and communication issues at Employee Well-Being, as well as the ongoing mystery of how many ticketed course directorships were used during the lifetime of our last collective agreement (the Employer’s given us four numbers, ranging from 76 to 116).
We were extremely jazzed to be joined at the table by members all week, whether in-person or online, and continue to invite everyone to attend bargaining! We couldn’t do this without you.
In solidarity,
CUPE 3903 Bargaining Team (Units 1, 2, & 3)
bargaining@cupe3903.org
Click here to read previous BT reports, and check the calendar for upcoming bargaining-related happenings.