Is it realistic confidently to expect that this administration, which negotiates hardball, will give us back our whole CA, *with the sole alteration of deleting the clause that says we can't strike,* so that we can then bargain with our new power?
I don't see how.
From: "Daniel Laitsch" <dlaitsch@sfu.ca>
To: "Ronda Arab" <ronda_arab@sfu.ca>
Cc: "Brian Green" <brian_green@sfu.ca>, "Barry Honda" <honda@sfu.ca>, "academic-discussion" <academic-discussion@sfu.ca>, "Evan Tiffany" <etiffany@sfu.ca>, "Harald Hutter" <hutter@sfu.ca>, "JD Fleming" <jfleming@sfu.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, 26 February, 2014 09:35:02
Subject: Re: Union Constitutions
This is in part what confuses me. As I’ve said before, I’m on the fence regarding unionization—but not because I oppose unions. On the one hand, I see no need for unionizing to leverage additional concessions from SFU administration. My understanding is that over the last 20 years, there’s only been two times that we’ve gone to arbitration, and that it really doesn’t matter anyway as interest based arbitration won’t be an improvement over what we have now. In addition, since the administration can’t generate substantial additional revenue (can’t change tuition levels), in general their hands are tied in negotiations. We can argue about shuffling the deck chairs all we want, but at the end of the day, we’re still just shuffling the deck chairs.
On the other hand, I do see a potential need for a unionized higher education sector that can act together to pressure the government to make change. Unlike our administration, the government can allocate additional resources and generate revenue if pressured to do so, and in that case I would argue we would want to retain the right to strike as that is the strongest tool we have in our collective tool box.
So, if we are unionizing to rearrange the deck chairs, I see no reason for change. If we are unionizing to join the rest of the sector and collectively pressure a change in provincial policy, then I can see a reason for change. If we plan to throw away the option to strike, then again, I see no need to unionize as that says to me we are unionizing for local negotiations only, not to leverage provincial change that actually could make a large scale difference.
The final question I ask myself is, “Are things so bad in the province that I see a need for collective sector wide labor action?” At this point, maybe not—but as I look at our crumbling infrastructure and read about the crumbling buildings at other campuses, and see a future of continued cuts or at best level funding, I don’t think that future is far off.
Dan
On Feb 26, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Ronda Arab <
ronda_arab@sfu.ca> wrote:
We write our own constitution. I've been talking with family members who actually work for CUPE, and my understanding is that the union can only penalize members for infractions within the framework of the constitution and the legally binding agreements with the employer. A union does not have power to "kick someone out" of the union if union membership is automatic with the employment. And it's beyond absurd to think that a faculty union could threaten someone's employment at the university; i.e., there is no such thing as "we're kicking you out of the union, and you have to be a member of the union to work here, so now you can't work here."
Such things as "trial procedures" for members are very rare. My close family member who has been a union rep for 20 years says that she has dealt with two over that period of time. They were NOT for such things as crossing a picket line! In both cases they were about money that had been stolen from the union.
That said, picket lines can create a lot of divisiveness among faculty members. It seems to me that the bylaws and constitutions over issues of striking are something that, if we unionize, we, as a faculty, will have to work hard on to get right. But it is in OUR hands. It seems like there are a variety of models to work from. UBC, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) waived their right to strike in return for Interest Based Arbitration, rather than the Final Offer Arbitration that we have. Other academics have worked this out. And other professionals, such as nurses, have very important professional responsibilities, have formed very strong unions, have gone on strike, and have made sure patient needs were taken care of. Personally, I hope that if we unionize, we will never face a strike situation.
Ronda Arab
Director MATE
Associate Professor of English
Simon Fraser University
8888 University Drive
Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6
ronda_arab@sfu.ca
778.782.8506 (Burnaby)
778.782.5164 (Surrey)
From: "Brian Green" <brian_green@sfu.ca>
To: "JD Fleming" <jfleming@sfu.ca>
Cc: "Barry Honda" <honda@sfu.ca>, "academic-discussion" <academic-discussion@sfu.ca>, "Evan Tiffany" <etiffany@sfu.ca>, "Harald Hutter" <hutter@sfu.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, 26 February, 2014 10:50:27
Subject: Re: examples of consequences for crossing picket lines? opting out of a union vs SFUFA
Hi James.
Two reasons, quite straightforward:
1) There are no provisions in our constitution or by-laws for any such threat.
2) Even when organizations put these in their constitutions, the only force they have is under those constitutions. They do not have any impact on the employment relationship.
----- Original Message -----
From: "JD Fleming" <jfleming@sfu.ca>
To: "Brian Green" <brian_green@sfu.ca>
Cc: "Barry Honda" <honda@sfu.ca>, "academic-discussion" <academic-discussion@sfu.ca>, "Evan Tiffany" <etiffany@sfu.ca>, "Harald Hutter" <hutter@sfu.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 7:43:01 AM
Subject: Re: examples of consequences for crossing picket lines? opting out of a union vs SFUFA
Brian, you mean that you know that a unionized SFUFA would not threaten its members? How can you know that, when union after union in BC, including our own TSSU, does exactly that? In my view this is an issue you should be acknowledging in an impartial way, as Executive Director, for the full information of SFUFA members. JDF
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Green" <brian_green@sfu.ca>
To: "Harald Hutter" <hutter@sfu.ca>
Cc: "Barry Honda" <honda@sfu.ca>, "academic-discussion" <academic-discussion@sfu.ca>, "JD Fleming" <jfleming@sfu.ca>, "Evan Tiffany" <etiffany@sfu.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, 25 February, 2014 22:07:59
Subject: Re: examples of consequences for crossing picket lines? opting out of a union vs SFUFA
Hi Harald.
Short answer - no. That is not the case now, and would not be the case after certification.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harald Hutter" <hutter@sfu.ca>
To: "Brian Green" <brian_green@sfu.ca>
Cc: "Barry Honda" <honda@sfu.ca>, "academic-discussion" <academic-discussion@sfu.ca>, "JD Fleming" <jfleming@sfu.ca>, "Evan Tiffany" <etiffany@sfu.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 9:58:59 PM
Subject: Re: examples of consequences for crossing picket lines? opting out of a union vs SFUFA
Hi Brian,
thank you for this information. This raises a probably entirely hypothetical question - I'm just curious.
I quote from your email below
> When people join the university as faculty members or librarians, they automatically become members of SFUFA, and must remain members in order to be employed.
This doesn't quite answer the original question
> Do all faculty members and librarians have to be members of a unionized SFUFA?
This is how I interpret your answer: If SFUFA becomes a union, all faculty members become members of the union and "must remain members in order to be employed" - correct - or not?
Question:
Can this union through possible sanctions, such as the ones apparently imposed by other unions as quoted in previous emails (see below for relevant passages) - threaten to terminate someone's membership in the union - and therefore indirectly somehow terminate employment at SFU?
(even if there is no legal basis - as far as you know)
I'm not aware that SFUFA can do this now, or?
Thanks,
Harald
(quote from an earlier email to academic-discussion <academic-discussion@sfu.ca>)
>
> -------------------
>
>
> BCGEU
>
> A member commits a breach of duty when they ...
>
> (f) cross a picket line of the BCGEU or another union ;
>
> ... If the charges are sustained, the hearing panel may impose a penalty that fits with the breach of duty, ... A penalty could include temporarily suspending or ending the respondent’s membership, imposing terms of membership, placing conditions on the member’s ability to hold office, fine, or some other form of discipline .
>
>
> CUPE
> If the accused is found guilty, the Trial Committee will decide any penalty and what, if anything, the accused must do or not do. The decision may include:
> (iii) a suspension or expulsion from membership
> (vii) any other order that the Trial Committee finds
> appropriate.
>
> BCTF
> 8. expel from membership in the local and BCTF.
_______________________________________
On 2014-02-23, at 6:45 PM, Brian Green wrote:
> Hi Barry.
> Here is the answer to your question about membership - this is on the SFUFA website as one of the FAQs.
> -----
> Do all faculty members and librarians have to be members of a unionized SFUFA?
>
> Automatic and required membership in SFUFA is not a product of certification, but it does currently exist and would be expected to continue. This is not something that arises from certification or from the Labour Relations Code, but does arise from the agreement in place between SFUFA and SFU.
>
> The Labour Code ensures that no one is required to choose to join a union – i.e. when the question of certification is raised, all those who would be covered by the bargaining arrangement have a right to vote either yes or no. However, the law also allows – allows, but does not mandate – membership in the union to be a condition of employment, and therefore mandatory to all who accept employment in a given workplace. This is already the case at SFU. When people join the university as faculty members or librarians, they automatically become members of SFUFA, and must remain members in order to be employed.
>
> There is one exception to this, and that is addressed in both our current agreement and in the Labour Code. There are certain religions that do not allow members to join collective organizations such as unions or professional associations. The right to religious freedom allows these individuals to opt out of union membership. They must continue to pay the same amount of deduction as a regular dues rate, but this money can be re-directed to a charity. This provision does not mean that these individuals are not bound by the collective agreement, but simply that they are, as religious objectors, released from mandatory membership in the organization – their dues equivalent goes elsewhere, and they give up the right to vote at general meetings or participate in elections. The Labour Board has the authority to determine whether an objection to membership on these grounds is or is not valid.
>
> It is important to note the distinction between a member of the bargaining unit and a member of the union. Certification governs membership in the bargaining unit. All affected employees are under law members of the bargaining unit, whether or not they are also members of the union. That is, they are bound by the terms of the collective agreement, bargaining is done on their behalf by the organization, and the organization has a duty to fairly represent them in the case of an employment dispute. Membership in the union or association is what allows people to participate in the organization’s decision making. In the vast majority of workplaces – SFU included – the two things overlap for all except those who belong to particular religious organizations that explicitly preclude union or association membership.
>
> The short answer, then, is that certification does not have an impact on whether one must be a member of SFUFA, or the specific allowable reason to opt-out. This arises from the agreement in place between the bargaining agent and the employer.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Barry Honda" <honda@sfu.ca>
> To: "Brian Green" <brian_green@sfu.ca>
> Cc: "academic-discussion" <academic-discussion@sfu.ca>, "JD Fleming" <jfleming@sfu.ca>, "Evan Tiffany" <etiffany@sfu.ca>
> Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 3:15:22 PM
> Subject: examples of consequences for crossing picket lines? opting out of a union vs SFUFA
>
> Could someone report on what substantive consequences (short and/or long term?) have been visited upon union members (CUPE, BCTF, faculty unions at other universities?) who have chosen to cross a picket line? I'd be particularly interested in news of how strikes at places with unionized faculty have played out, and whether having a union was helpful or not.
>
> A related question for you, Brian--- it's my understanding that in the past, some faculty have chosen to opt out of SFUFA and their union dues have been donated elsewhere. Would those faculty members have the same option if we became unionized?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Barry
>
>
> Barry Honda, Professor
> Molecular Biology and Biochemistry
> Simon Fraser University
> 8888 University Drive
> Burnaby BC V5A 1S6
> Canada
> tel: 778.782.4804
> fax: 778.782.5583
> email: honda@sfu.ca
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Green" <brian_green@sfu.ca>
> To: "Evan Tiffany" <etiffany@sfu.ca>
> Cc: "academic-discussion" <academic-discussion@sfu.ca>, "JD Fleming" <jfleming@sfu.ca>
> Sent: Sunday, 23 February, 2014 14:35:10
> Subject: Re: picket policy
>
> We should be clear on the distinction.
> These kinds of policies are political - they exist where people put them into their constitutions and by-laws, and they are only enforceable under those constitutions and by-laws - that, within the political framework of the organization itself.
> They are not 'illegal' but they are also not legally enforceable. For example, an organization can set rules on who can run for election, and stipulate that members in bad standing can't run. They might set a 'fine' to be considered once again in 'good standing'.
> But those sanctions cannot be legally enforced. That is, outside of the constitution, they are not enforceable.
>
> Illegal? No. Legally enforceable? No. Policies such as these are recognized as political mechanisms, not legal ones. This is recognized by the organizations themselves. The article below is a few years old, but relates to the BCTF - one of the union's mentioned on this forum. You will see that the union leaders themselves acknowledge they have informal mechanisms, but cannot compel members to honour a picket line.
> http://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/crossing-the-picket-line/
>
> Hope this helps!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Evan Tiffany" <etiffany@sfu.ca>
> To: "Brian Green" <brian_green@sfu.ca>
> Cc: "academic-discussion" <academic-discussion@sfu.ca>, "JD Fleming" <jfleming@sfu.ca>
> Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 2:08:56 PM
> Subject: Re: picket policy
>
> Brian,
>
> Can you elaborate, please, as I am confused. James has cited several examples of unions that seem to have clear policies that compel respecting picket lines on pain of a number of penalties including monetary fines and expulsion from the union. Can you elaborate on the distinction between a "political" and a "legal" mechanism. Are you claiming that the policies of these unions are in fact illegal?
>
> It seems that either (1) they are not illegal, or (2) they are illegal. If (1), then, as James suggested, the answers provided in the FAQ are false. If (2), then this implies that union leadership is sometimes willing to go so far as to ignore labour law and impose its own illegal policies in order to further its own agenda. In either case, I think you can see why many people would find this troubling and a potential downside to unionization.
>
> Let me add that I am not anti-union. In fact, I am still leaning in favour. But I think it would help to be completely forthright about potential risks. I can't think of a single important issue about which there aren't genuinely good argument to be made on both sides; and in these situations it is a matter of deciding on which side the preponderance of the evidence lies. Perhaps the right thing to say here is that "Yes. It is possible for unions for punish picket-crossing. Or, yes, sometimes union leadership does try to strong-arm its membership. But in this particular case (i.e. an SFU union), this would be unlikely because it would take a vote of the membership." But I find that most of your replies to the worries raised by James and others tend to make me less inclined toward unionization, rather than more, as they come across as evasive rather than responsive.
>
> Evan
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Green" <brian_green@sfu.ca>
> To: "JD Fleming" <jfleming@sfu.ca>
> Cc: "academic-discussion" <academic-discussion@sfu.ca>
> Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 10:43:08 AM
> Subject: Re: picket policy
>
> Hi James.
> Hi James.
>
> Under the law, how one approaches a picket line is a matter of conscience, and a union cannot compel its members to act in any way with regard to a picket. I expect you are coming across political mechanisms that are designed to encourage people to take particular actions. My understanding is such mechanisms - ill-advised, in my personal view - are entirely political and have no legal force.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "JD Fleming" <jfleming@sfu.ca>
> To: "Brian Green" <brian_green@sfu.ca>
> Cc: "academic-discussion" <academic-discussion@sfu.ca>
> Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 10:06:01 AM
> Subject: picket policy
>
>
>
>
> (With apologies to all disinterested colleagues for being such a pain on this issue:)
> Dear Brian,
> In looking through the "Certification FAQs" on the SFUFA website, I find the following:
>
>
> "If we were certified, could we be forced to honour picket lines of other unions?
>
> No. The decision to cross or not to cross a picket line is a matter of individual conscience, and no organization, unionized or not, has any ability to compel an individual to decide one way or other."
> Among many slanted or misleading statements in the FAQ, this one seems to me flat-out false. The BCGEU, CUPE, and the BCTF all claim--and, I assume, enforce--the power to discipline members who cross picket lines of other unions. The penalties range from shaming to fines to expulsion--which, in the case of the teachers at least, is equivalent to getting fired. (The relevant sections from those unions' constitutions are below.) I don't know if these are the only unions in BC or elsewhere that claim this power, but I doubt it. Perhaps you, as a long-time and politically committed trade unionist, have more information.
>
>
> In any case, I am deeply puzzled by the statement above in the FAQ. I think it should be clarified or removed.
>
>
> Best wishes,
> JD Fleming
>
>
> -------------------
>
>
> BCGEU
>
> A member commits a breach of duty when they ...
>
> (f) cross a picket line of the BCGEU or another union ;
>
> ... If the charges are sustained, the hearing panel may impose a penalty that fits with the breach of duty, ... A penalty could include temporarily suspending or ending the respondent’s membership, imposing terms of membership, placing conditions on the member’s ability to hold office, fine, or some other form of discipline .
>
>
>
> CUPE
>
> If the accused is found guilty, the Trial Committee will decide any penalty and what, if anything, the accused must do or not do. The decision may include:
>
> (i) a reprimand
>
> (ii) a fine
>
> (iii) a suspension or expulsion from membership
>
> (iv) a ban against holding membership or office
>
> (v) an order to stop doing the act or acts
>
> complained of
>
> (vi) an order to correct the act or acts complained
>
> of
>
> (vii) any other order that the Trial Committee finds
>
> appropriate .
>
>
>
>
>
> BCTF
>
> 1. determine appropriate publication of the finding of such breach;
>
> 2. issue a warning to the member;
>
> 3. issue a reprimand to the member;
>
> 4. impose a monetary fine on the member ;
>
> ...
>
> 7. suspend the right of the member to hold office or
>
> membership in, or receive specified benefits from, the BCTF and/or
>
> any subsidiary bodies for a specific period of time;
>
> 8. expel from membership in the local and BCTF .
>
> --
>
> J ames Dougal Fleming
> Associate Professor
> Department of English
> Simon Fraser University
> 778-782-4713
>
>
> Burnaby ~ British Columbia ~ Canada
>
>
>
> 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 Naboko v , " Cloud, Castle, Lake'
>
>
>
> --
> Evan Tiffany
> Associate Professor
> Dept. Philosophy
> Simon Fraser University
_________________________________
Harald Hutter, Department of Biological Sciences
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada
phone 778-782-4803, email: hutter@sfu.ca
--
SFU Faculty Association
778-782-8181
brian_green@sfu.ca
--
J ames Dougal Fleming
Associate Professor
Department of English
Simon Fraser University
778-782-4713
Burnaby ~ British Columbia ~ Canada
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 Naboko v , " Cloud, Castle, Lake'
--
SFU Faculty Association
778-782-8181
brian_green@sfu.ca