I agree with Paul that the intent of the motion remains unclear. It is true that "pursue certification" is not equivalent to "certify," as there must still be a vote on actual certification; but neither is "pursue" a neutral verb. If the second half of the motion is intended to convey the same exploratory fact-finding tone as the first half, then I would suggest a friendly amendment to the motion to change "pursue" to a more neutral verb such as "explore." Hence, the revised motion would read: "that SFUFA educate and inform members about unionization and explore certification under the Labour Code." (There is probably an even better verb, but this is what comes immediately to mind). I think that there are a number of faculty who are open to further discussion about unionization, but who would not feel comfortable yet in actively pursuing certification. Also, such a neutral motion could be adequately voted on in the context of a meeting. If, on the other hand, the intention is to identify whether there is already strong support in favour of actively pursuing unionization, then the motion as stated conveys that. However, in this case I would agree with those who raised concerns over whether a vote taken a mid-day, mid-week meeting in which many faculty are unable to attend would be appropriately representative of the general will.
Evan Tiffany Associate Professor Dept. of Philosophy Simon Fraser University
On 2013-11-05, at 2:45 PM, Paul W. Percival wrote: Brian's answer clarifies only one issue: A vote of 50% + 1 in favour will be a vote in favour of the motion. The second issue - just what we would be voting for - still remains unclear. Brian claims that a vote in favour merely authorizes the Executive to continue working on the issue, with a view to holding a vote sometime over the next year. If that is the intent, why doesn't the motion end with the word "unionization"? The second part of the motion, with added subject, reads: "SFUFA pursue certification under the Labour Code". That sounds like a vote for or against certification, despite Brian's assurance to the contrary. Paul Percival On 05/11/2013 2:20 PM, Brian Green wrote: Hi all.
The motion at the Meeting is as follows:
That over the next 12 months SFUFA educate and inform members about unionization and pursue certification under the Labour Code.
This is not a vote on certification. It is a vote to test whether members generally feel that SFUFA should move further down this road or not. It impacts to what extent SFUFA continues to look into this question and provide information to members, and directs the Executive to work towards a vote on certification if and when it appears a majority of members favour such a vote.
Under our bylaws, a vote passes if 50% plus one are in favour, and fails if 50% plus one are opposed. That is the constitutional provision, and is always in effect. Neil provided some commentary on how the Executive might want to interpret possible results - i.e. a vote of some 70% pro or con would be a pretty clear mandate; a vote of 51% pro or con would pass or fail, but couldn't be seen as a strong mandate in either direction. That is, Neil provided his personal opinion that SFUFA ought not to pursue certification unless a clear majority was in favour, and should not simply end the discussion unless a significant majority was opposed.
So, short answer - the vote itself is a simple 50% plus 1 as per our constitution and bylaws. The strength of the vote simply provides the Executive a greater sense of what member opinion is, and therefore impacts on how we proceed from here.
And this is in no way a vote for or against certification. It is a vote on whether the Executive ought to continue working on this issue with a view to holding such a vote sometime over the next year.
Hope this clarifies.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nancy Forde" <nforde@sfu.ca>
To: "Paul W. Percival" <percival@sfu.ca>
Cc: "Brian Green" <brian_green@sfu.ca>, academic-discussion@sfu.ca, "Neil Abramson" <nabramso@sfu.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2013 1:25:01 PM
Subject: Re: SFUFA General Meeting This Thursday, Nov 6: Should We Formally Study Certification as a Union
I completely agree, especially as a faculty member unable to attend this meeting in person!
Cheers,
Nancy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul W. Percival" <percival@sfu.ca>
To: academic-discussion@sfu.ca, "Neil Abramson" <nabramso@sfu.ca>
Cc: "Brian Green" <brian_green@sfu.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, 5 November, 2013 13:23:37
Subject: Re: SFUFA General Meeting This Thursday, Nov 6: Should We Formally Study Certification as a Union
Lisa raises an extremely important point. Is the intent of the motion
to seek approval for a campaign to "educate and inform members about
unionization", or is it to "pursue certification under the Labour Code"?
The former is benign; the latter is a very serious matter that should
be brought to a vote of the whole membership, not just those of us who
are free to attend a particular meeting.
In my opinion the motion ought to be split into two.
Paul Percival
On 05/11/2013 12:44 PM, Lisa Shapiro wrote:
Neil,
I am bit confused about your claim here that "if the vote is really
close, I would want to bring the question of certification back to
another meeting."
I would expect that whether this vote is close or not, the question of
certification would be brought back at another meeting. I take the issue
being voted on is simply to explore further -- in the sense of research
procedures, pros, cons, etc -- whether to unionize. Any exploration of
the issue should keep the question of certification open. Otherwise, the
vote this week really is a vote for or against certification, a vote
which I take to be premature.
Please clarify the process going forward.
Thanks,
Lisa
Lisa Shapiro email: lshapiro@sfu.ca <mailto:lshapiro@sfu.ca>
Professor of Philosophy(o) 778.782.9025 or 778.782.3343
Philosophy Department(f) 778.782.4443
Simon Fraser University(h) 604.684.8688
Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6
On 2013-11-05, at 11:53 AM, Neil Abramson wrote:
Hi Ronda
We are introducing a motion from the SFUFA executive:
"That over the next 12 months SFUFA educate and inform members about
unionization and pursue certification under the Labour Code."
My interpretation is that if the motion passes, we will spend at least
the spring term, and possibly the summer term as well studying the
question and having events to help educate and/or inform.
If the vote is really close, I would want to bring the question of
certification back to another general meeting after everyone has had a
chance to inform themselves. I don't want to split SFUFA into factions
pro and con. I want most of us to be pretty sure, one way or the
other, if possible. Of course I am only one member (with 1 vote) of
the SFUFA executive and we work democratically there as well. Two
thirds is what I might hope for but it will be what the Executive decides.
Likely if SFUFA was going to start an actual certification drive
(collecting signatures), the earliest it could start would be next
fall. By then, I'll be past president.
Regards
Neil
Sent from my iPhone
On 2013-11-05, at 11:11 AM, Ronda Arab <ronda_arab@sfu.ca
<mailto:ronda_arab@sfu.ca>> wrote:
Hi Neil & Brian,
Can we clarify what it is exactly we are voting on tomorrow? We are
voting on whether or not SFUFA should support a unionization drive
(which would eventuate a vote yes or no for a union), is that right?
Obviously, at this point we are not actually voting in a union?
If I am correct on what we are voting, 2/3 does seem a high margin.
Thanks,
Ronda
Ronda Arab
Associate Professor of English
Simon Fraser University
8888 University Drive
Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6
ronda_arab@sfu.ca <mailto:ronda_arab@sfu.ca>
778.782.8506 (Burnaby)
778.782.5164 (Surrey)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Neil Abramson" <nabramso@sfu.ca <mailto:nabramso@sfu.ca>>
*To: *"Yildiz Atasoy" <yatasoy@sfu.ca <mailto:yatasoy@sfu.ca>>
*Cc: *"Brian Green" <brian_green@sfu.ca <mailto:brian_green@sfu.ca>>,
"academic-discussion" <academic-discussion@sfu.ca
<mailto:academic-discussion@sfu.ca>>
*Sent: *Tuesday, 5 November, 2013 10:48:04
*Subject: *Re: SFUFA General Meeting This Thursday, Nov 6: Should We
Formally Study Certification as a Union
Hey Yildiz
Check with Brian. We were hoping to provide ballots for people as
they came into the meeting. We had to check if this was
constitutionally ok. But if it is, you could come between classes and
vote if you're already decided.
All the best
Neil
Sent from my iPhone
On 2013-11-05, at 10:29 AM, Yildiz Atasoy <yatasoy@sfu.ca
<mailto:yatasoy@sfu.ca>> wrote:
Dear Neal and Colleagues,
I am writing this because tomorrow is my teaching and office day; I
will not be able to participate in the discussions. However, I will
still vote.
I think that it is way too high to seek a two-thirds majority
before certification. (I realize that this is Neal's personal
opinion.) I would argue that a simple majority vote, or 55 per cent
at the most, is a significant enough majority.
Sincerely,
Yıldız
Dr. Yıldız Atasoy
Professor of Sociology,
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, BC, Canada V5A 1S6
E-mail: yatasoy@sfu.ca <mailto:yatasoy@sfu.ca>
Tel: +1 (778) 782-5520
Fax: +1 (778) 782-5799
http://www.socanth.sfu.ca/people/yildiz_atasoy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Green" <brian_green@sfu.ca <mailto:brian_green@sfu.ca>>
To: sfufa-members@sfu.ca <mailto:sfufa-members@sfu.ca>
Sent: Monday, 4 November, 2013 16:07:44
Subject: SFUFA General Meeting This Thursday, Nov 6: Should We
Formally Study Certification as a Union
The following is sent on behalf of SFUFA President Neil Abramson.
----------------
Dear Colleagues;
Over the last 6 months, SFUFA has organized a series of 7 events
seeking to inform members about the pro and con of certifying SFUFA
as a union. This has been in response to a member resolution passed
at our last Annual Meeting directing us to do so.
The SFUFA Executive now plans to introduce a motion at the November
6 General Meeting that SFUFA lead a formal study of this question
over the next 12 months, with the intention of applying for
certification.
So far we have had a debate, 2 coffee klatches, 3 pub gatherings,
and 2 lunches at the DAC. I've also heard by email from about 80
members expressing both positive and negative views, and tried to
answer all of them personally.
We have been keeping an informal poll of the 200-plus members we
have talked to, or heard from. This is over 20% of our membership;
probably more than has ever responded to any previous SFUFA
initiative. The most responsive Faculty has been Communication where
we have the opinions of 37.5% of members. On the other hand, we have
only heard from 9% of members from Business.
So far, 132 members (roughly 61.5%) have expressed support for
certification. Only 16 (about 7.5%) have said they are opposed.
Another 66 (just under 31%) have asked for more information before
they can come to a decision.
How many are enough? This is the question we are thinking about.
Personally, I think we need two thirds to really recommend
certification. So the Executive has decided to recommend formally
studying the issue for up to the next 12 months. If most of those
still undecided end up supporting certification, then that will be
enough. If most of the undecided eventually decide against, then
certification will not be appropriate.
Similarly, at the November 6 meeting, we should also ask how many
should be enough for this motion. My own view is that if the motion
passes but the vote is close, then we might bring the question back
to a formal vote at another General Meeting after the study process
is completed.
But suppose the motion is voted down but 45-50 (minus 1) do support
it. Then, because so many do support it, we should still continue to
discuss certification. We should aim for a decision, yes or no, that
two thirds support - either way. That strikes me as our least
divisive course of action.
There are good reasons both for and against certification. I would
like to review a few of each.
Against Certification
First, against. Do we really need certification? It's true that 90%
of Canadian faculty (and librarians, lab instructors, etc.) are
unionized. It's true the UBCFA has been unionized almost 15 years.
Royal Roads is unionized. UVic is in process. UNBC is apparently
about to be in process. All the teaching universities' associations
belong to the same union. We look to be the last non-unionized
faculty association in BC.
Many universities, however, have quite conflictual relationships
with their university administrations. We have a much stronger and
more positive relationship with our administration. And I personally
have found our administration responsive to issues of concern to
SFUFA since I became president-elect and reached out to see what we
might accomplish together this year.
For example, we stated that gender pay equity was an important
issue for us. President Petter responded by making it a strategic
priority for SFU. A committee has been struck to research pay
inequity and propose solutions.
For example, I expressed concern about the situations of First
Nation faculty at SFU. I have consulted on First Nation issues for
over 30 years. I discovered President Petter shared the same
concerns. AVP Jon Driver and I are now engaged in a joint endeavour.
For example, I approached the administration with the hope that
SFUFA could have "interest arbitration" rather than "final offer"
arbitration. This was because after UBCFA received a higher salary
settlement using interest arbitration than we did with final offer,
many SFUFA members felt that we were stuck with an unfair,
inequitable, win/lose form of arbitration.
In my last email, I reported that the administration had refused us
interest arbitration. Since then, the administration reached out for
further discussion, and offered to re-consider the possibility of
giving us interest arbitration for the next contract negotiation. I
found their attitude very reasonable. They are concerned that they
don't want a process that our members think is unfair or inequitable,
and we are hopeful we might in fact be able to reach agreement on
this important issue after all.
So the argument against certification is whether it is really
necessary. If the administration is responsive to our issues, then do
we need to unionize?
In Favour of Certification
On the other hand, there are arguments in favour of certification
as a union. At our first lunch, we did a small questionnaire. We
found that our members main issues were:
#1: Salaries and Benefits
#2: Working Conditions
#3: Governance Issues
On salaries, when I came to SFU about 21 years ago, salaries were
top quartile for Canadian universities. Now they are bottom quartile.
On average our salaries are about 30% less than at UBC. I have it on
good authority that for our Business Faculty, our salaries are about
40% less.
And our salary scales are so low that I understand that in all 6
faculties, it is difficult to hire any new faculty without offering
market differentials. These days we have terrible salary inversions.
The highest paid faculty members are full professors and new hires.
The lowest paid are associate profs who have been at SFU a few years.
And we shouldn't forget lecturers and senior lecturers who are paid a
lot less than research tenure tracks. And librarians needed a big
jump in the latest contract but I think they may still be getting
less than at many other universities.
The point is that we have little ability to influence our salaries
and benefits as an association. We might have more influence as a
union. Certainly that has been the experience of other unionized
faculty associations in Canada. If a strike vote authorizes a strike
- it needs 85-90% support - suddenly a more generous offer is
received. This happened most recently at the University of Manitoba.
The issue was not salary, but a strong strike vote did result in the
university moving on the issues that we most important to faculty
members.
Work load issues, and governance issues are similar in that as an
association, SFUFA cannot negotiate them unless the administration is
willing. If they are not willing, then nothing can be done. If SFUFA
was a union, its bargaining rights would be recognized by the Labour
Relations Board rather than voluntarily granted by the SFU
administration. If the latter refused to discuss a governance issue,
SFUFA would have the right to mediation. We have no such right
presently. So, for example, with the recent Learning Goals issue, we
asked to discuss it and were refused. Only Senate opposition by
colleagues forced the current implementation delay.
Conclusion
Many members fear that if SFUFA was certified as a union, the
entire Framework Agreement would be renegotiated, and we would lose
rights we already have. This is actually very unlikely.
From the time we began a certification drive, the Labour Relations
Board disallows any change to existing policies. No change is allowed
for 4 months after certification succeeds. In the case of UBC, the
existing framework agreement was simply rolled into the first
contract. I understand that across Canada, in all sectors, no
corporate management or administration ever required re-negotiation
of existing working conditions after certification.
I am confident, given the excellent relationship between SFUFA and
our SFU administration, that SFU would not be the first Canadian
institution ever to demand renegotiation of all working conditions.
I encourage everyone to attend our General Meeting this Wednesday,
November 6. It is at 2:30pm at IRMACS (ASB (10900). Members can also
join the meeting electronically at both Surrey (SUR 5200) and
downtown (HC 2250) campuses. Voting will be by secret ballot.
All the best
Neil R Abramson, President
SFUFA
-- Dr Paul Percival Professor of Chemistry Simon Fraser University and TRIUMF percival@sfu.capercival@triumf.ca http://chemistry.sfu.ca/people/profiles/percival
|