[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SFUFA General Meeting This Thursday, Nov 6: Should We Formally Study Certification as a Union
That is correct. There is no vote on certification until and unless at least 45% of faculty sign cards requesting a vote.
The intent of the motion tomorrow is NOT to embark on a card signing drive at this time. It IS to get a sense as to whether members want us to begin considering that question more concretely.
----- Original Message -----
From: "JD Fleming" <jfleming@sfu.ca>
To: "Paul W. Percival" <percival@sfu.ca>
Cc: academic-discussion@sfu.ca, "Neil Abramson" <nabramso@sfu.ca>, "Brian Green" <brian_green@sfu.ca>, "Nancy Forde" <nforde@sfu.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2013 3:12:11 PM
Subject: Re: SFUFA General Meeting This Thursday, Nov 6: Should We Formally Study Certification as a Union
A point of clarification: As far as I understand, under the BC Labour Code, a vote to certify can be held only after the signatures of 45% of the members of the putative bargaining unit have been collected in support of having such a vote. Perhaps Brian or Neil can clarify whether this is correct; and, if so, whether or not the intent of tomorrow's motion includes beginning to collect signatures--in effect, beginning a certification drive. JDF
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul W. Percival" <percival@sfu.ca>
To: "Brian Green" <brian_green@sfu.ca>, "Nancy Forde" <nforde@sfu.ca>
Cc: academic-discussion@sfu.ca, "Neil Abramson" <nabramso@sfu.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, 5 November, 2013 14:45:35
Subject: Re: SFUFA General Meeting This Thursday, Nov 6: Should We Formally Study Certification as a Union
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.ca
percival@triumf.ca
http://chemistry.sfu.ca/people/profiles/percival
--
J ames Dougal Fleming
Associate Professor
Department of English
Simon Fraser University
778-782-4713
" Upstairs was a room for travelers. ‘You know, I shall take it for the rest of my life,’ Vasili Ivanovich is reported to have said as soon as he had entered it."
-- Vladimir Nabokov, Cloud, Castle, Lake