York students do deserve better – That’s why instructors are on strike Reply

April 30, 2018

By Dana Phillips

It’s the refrain we hear over and over again: “those poor students, caught in the middle of persistent labour disruptions at York university.”  What follows is often, as in Martin Regg Cohn’s recent Toronto Star column, a rebuke of striking union workers for being so darn unreasonable, under the thin guise of balanced journalism.  Sure, goes the argument, teaching staff have legitimate concerns, and precarious work is a problem. But why does CUPE local 3903 insist on being such a troublemaker?

I would be the first to argue that students do deserve better, and I’m confident that my fellow CUPE members, by and large, feel the same way. Many of us are students ourselves; we are also experiencing disruptions to our programs of study, in addition to significant losses in income, and ongoing economic uncertainty. Nearly all of us work closely with students whom we care about and want to see succeed. This is no small part of the reason that we continue to stand up against an administration that is in the business of lining its own coffers at the expense of quality higher education.

Like all unions, CUPE 3903 has its own internal politics, and these have in times past been admittedly problematic (as has York’s own governance). But to suggest that the union’s grievances therefore have no merit is simply fallacious. CUPE 3903 is not an outlier, as Regg Cohn suggests—it is a sector leader.  The hard won rights of CUPE 3903 union members have set a precedent for precarious academic workers across the country at a time when the rapid corporatization of universities should be what has us all alarmed and outraged. This is why arbitration is not a good option for CUPE 3903; you can’t lead the way through a decision-making process that bends towards the status quo.

One of the biggest points of dispute in this strike relates to the job security of Unit 2 contract faculty. York argues that providing opportunities for experienced contract instructors to transition into tenure-track positions (in lieu of the usual open search process, but with the same high bar for granting tenure) threatens standards of teaching excellence for students. And yet, York relies on contract instructors in short-term, low-paid positions to teach more than a third of its classes (more than half if you count teaching assistants). If York is truly concerned about teaching excellence, one wonders why the administration is currently fighting to have more courses taught by full-time graduate students from Unit 1, who are generally less qualified than the Unit 2 contract instructors they would be replacing.  There is nothing good for students about having “professors” who are overworked, underpaid, and unsure of where their next paycheck is coming from.

CUPE 3903’s proposals for Units 1 and 3, meanwhile, focus on ensuring accessible and equitable access to graduate education for future students—i.e. current undergraduates.  While CUPE looks towards the future, however, York and much of the media remain fixated on the strike’s most immediate impacts, thereby losing sight of the deeper issues threatening public education for years to come.

One of the problems with opinions like those of Regg Cohn is that they assume that striking workers are primarily to blame for what is happening to students at York. This is nothing new; it comes up all the time on the picket lines.  Perhaps it should come as no surprise that it is easiest to blame those who are out in the cold day after day, physically obstructing the way to classes, degrees—business as usual.  It seems as though these are the people that chose to mess everything up for everybody.

What, though, about the choice of York administrators to refuse to come to the bargaining table for weeks on end, while CUPE remains ready and willing to negotiate? What about the economic and educational systems that place highly educated and skilled people—the people we hope our students will become—in the position of struggling to make ends meet? The ability of these causes to remain invisible is what gives them their power and privilege.

The university and the public are rightfully concerned about the well-being of York’s undergraduate students at this difficult time. Unfortunately, they seem much less concerned about the well-being of those who provide the bulk of those students’ education, and who, in many ways, reflect those students’ own precarious future.

Motion of non-confidence by Department of English in LA&PS Reply

April 19, 2018

NON CONFIDENCE
By Agnes Whitfield

The Department of English at LA&PS adopted the following motion of non-confidence in the York University Board of Governors and administration at its departmental meeting yesterday, April 18, 2018:

Given that the Board of Governors and the York University administration are completely disconnected from the York University community and have demonstrated their determined refusal to establish respectful dialogue with all university stakeholders, it is moved that the Department vote its non-confidence in the York University Board of Governors and administration.

Glendon is voting tomorrow on a motion of non-confidence in the Board.

It would be great to create a movement in departments across the university to express our dissatisfaction with this illegitimate, imbalanced and disconnected Board that is the source of our difficulties. It’s urgent to do so: Mr. Kaplan will be receiving documentation up until Friday, April 27. We have to stand up and be counted!

Here are some points to consider when putting forth similar motions of non-confidence in the Board and the York administration

1. The Chair of the Board comes from the banking sector well-known for its fierce opposition to unionization. This is not an acceptable attitude in a unionized public institution workplace (or anywhere else).
2. The Board has imposed a closed-shop and unaccountable managerial style at a publicly-funded university.
3. The Chair of the Board has expressed publicly sexist comments about women and his opposition to legislation for gender equality and diversity, positions incompatible with the function of Chair of the Board of Governors at a publicly-funded university.
4. The Board has consistently been unable to address issues of women’s safety. By its inaction, it is complicit in sexual assaults and harassment on campus.
5. The Board imposed the current administration after a closed search process and despite vast opposition from a cross-campus alliance.
6. The Board is functioning in flagrant opposition to important government policies and legislation to ensure wage equity, increase the number of women on Boards, prevent violence against women in the workplace, guarantee inclusiveness, and enhance students’ access to experiential learning (cutting 800 assistantships to our graduate students).
7. The Board has not respected its By-laws requiring broad community representation. All its external members are CEOs and corporate lawyers.
8. Vast sectors of society are completely unrepresented. Women constitute only 35% of external Board members and only 15% of members on the key Executive Committee.
9. External Board members come from only three faculties at York (business, law and engineering) accounting for only 5% of undergraduate enrollments.
10. Approximately 95% of York’s undergraduate students and the programs they are enrolled in, from education, media and performance arts, environmental science to social sciences, humanities, health, and science, are not represented on the Board.
11. A disproportionate number of external Board members are connected to the Schulich School of Business (5 even sit concurrently on the Board and on Schulich Boards) and there is a disproportionate allocation of university funds to Schulich (downtown campus, Markham campus).
12. There is no representation on the Board for part-time faculty.
13. The administration has brazenly denigrated its own part-time instructors, arguing publicly that the instructors of 60% of York courses are not ‘good-enough’ to be hired full-time.
14. The Board has usurped powers granted to the President and the Senate under the York University Act. The Board and the administration are actively undermining academic integrity.

*information based exclusively on publicly accessible data

Agnes Whitfield, Ph.D., c. tran.
Professor/Professeure titulaire,
Department of English/Département d’études anglaises
York University/Université York, Toronto (Canada)

Statement by Justin Podur, YUFA Chief Negotiator 2

April 18, 2018

York administration’s latest communication, “Two days of mediation produce no settlement”, sets up the provincial Industrial Inquiry Commission to fail.

The second paragraph of the communique says: “While agreement was reached on two issues – lactation and breast-feeding space and professional expense reimbursement – CUPE 3903’s other proposals continue to be well outside the range of anything the university can ever agree to.” (emphasis mine).

That is an extraordinary statement for an employer to make publicly during bargaining. That it is being made in the middle of a mediation attempt brokered by the provincial government makes it astounding. That it is being made in week seven of a strike makes it mind-boggling.

This particular strike has been defined by a very consistent and specific communicative approach by the employer. Before the strike even began, the administration communicated that it wanted CUPE 3903 to go to binding arbitration. In every single communication, several each week for the past seven weeks, the administration has repeated that message – arbitration, arbitration, arbitration, arbitration. The specific issues that separate CUPE 3903 and the administration are less frequently, and less consistently repeated than that message – that this should not be resolved at the bargaining table but at arbitration.

Since the administration returned very briefly to the bargaining table on March 22 only to walk away again and return to the “arbitration” line, it has made several other attempts to avoid bargaining. The supervised vote, announced on March 27th and resolved on April 9th, entailed nearly two weeks without bargaining. When CUPE 3903’s members rejected the employer’s final offer in the supervised vote, the administration admonished the membership, said it was “disappointed” in the vote, and suggested a new approach – arbitration. There is very little explanation behind this mantra. York’s president said in a radio interview that fundamental principles separate CUPE 3903 and the employer – these principles were the principle of open hiring and of students being able to receive funding without a work requirement. These principles have been bridged in past agreements with CUPE 3903. They have been bridged in other collective agreements. There are ways to fulfill CUPE’s concerns about job security and the benefits of union membership for MA students without sacrificing the employer’s stated principles – but only through negotiation.

If the administration had an interest in bargaining, they would have countered CUPE 3903’s proposals. On March 22nd, CUPE reduced their demands. The administration, instead of countering, publicly said that CUPE 3903’s demands were unrealistic. After the supervised vote, the administration reiterated that CUPE 3903’s demands were unrealistic. Over the weekend, meeting with the provincial investigator, CUPE 3903 again reduced their demands. The administration publicly repeated that CUPE 3903’s demands were well outside the range of anything the university can ever agree to. On three occasions, York could have countered and did not. That is contrary to the conventions of bargaining, as CUPE 3903 said in one of their communications. Submitting successive, reduced proposals is not good bargaining practice – it is called “bargaining against yourself”, and it is to be avoided. York has asked CUPE 3903 on three occasions to bargain against itself – or accept arbitration.

The administration’s approach is not explicable in terms of differences of principles. What can explain it is if avoiding bargaining is the principle. Union bargaining teams receive their mandates from their members. Employer bargaining teams receive mandates as well. Trying to reverse-engineer the employer’s mandate based on their behaviour, it seems to me that they care less about any particular proposal and more about avoiding the table altogether and settling any disputes through arbitration. Long-term, if this strike ends with CUPE 3903 surrendering – if enough violence occurs against picketers, if the demonization of union members succeeds, if they become weary enough to give up with no end in sight (and the administration’s communique explicitly states that it has every intention of letting the strike drag on throughout the summer) – then it will be counted as a major victory for the employer, regardless of the costs to York’s reputation and enrolments. The summer terms will drop one by one, fall enrolments will fall, and the administration hopes, CUPE 3903 will break.

The notion is (perhaps) that reputation and enrolment can be rebuilt, but breaking CUPE 3903 on campus will be a lasting achievement. But the truth is that a union can be rebuilt too, even after it is broken, though lasting damage can be done to morale and community through a forever strike.

Justin Podur, Chief Negotiator, YUFA

Statement from CUPE 3903 Member, Devin Clancy, at Senate Meeting Reply

April 12, 2018

I’m Devin Clancy, a student, teaching assistant, and senate representative for CUPE 3903.

First, I’d just like to express my gratitude to the Senate Executive for booking a room that can accommodate the public. It’s too bad that it took a student reclamation of the senate chambers in order for these meetings to even be open and accessible, but I’m nonetheless glad I don’t have to fight off a headlock from security to be here today.

I have a question for President Lenton and the executive, but it requires a little bit of context so bear with me.

While Rhonda has been expensing luxury headphones and first class accommodations, this institution has been under attack, an attack that is painted by the executive as “business as usual.”

But what is “business as usual” for York University?

Recent history suggests that it means cutting 800 GA jobs without warning, and unilaterally tearing $5,400 of TA funding out of our protected Collective Agreement.

It means offering an incoming MA student a unionized job with health benefits, only to deny it once they’ve accepted. It means this student is forced to drop out because of uncovered health costs, and it means that FGS now demands this student payback their fellowship.

It means denying students’ summer pay.

It means empowering a Bargaining Team who doesn’t understand that 2 conversions is less than 8.

It means a final offer that is full of concessions.

It means systematically failing to meet with our union’s health and safety committee and an accessibility office at Glendon that isn’t wheelchair accessible.

It means taking four weeks to respond to complaints of asbestos in our workplace.

It means failing to notify the community of bomb threats and hate graffiti.

It means inviting a dozen toronto police onto campus to violently detain someone using rubber bullets.

It means kicking someone out of Ross in the dead of night in winter for trying to sleep in a sheltered space.

It means a library roof that has leaked for years, a mouse and cockroach problem in Vari Hall, and an unpaid water bill.

It means an administration that spends hundreds of thousands on anything but bargaining in good faith with CUPE 3903.

It means meeting with the crisis management PR firm Navigator to mislead the public and tarnish CUPE 3903’s reputation.

It means purchasing radio ads that misrepresent our union’s bargaining positions and it means buying the back page of Excalibur for months.

It means charging CUPE3903.com to the Faculty of Graduate Studies, a website currently under investigation by the ministry of labour for redirecting web traffic to York’s own labour webpage.

It means spending thousands of dollars on private security to surveil and intimidate striking workers, and students that have reclaimed the senate. So much so, that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association reached out to President Lenton, imploring her to end these tactics immediately.

It means trying to ban metal gates and firebarrels on the picket lines, instruments that are essential to ensuring the safety of our members as they exercise their legal right to strike.

It means reinterpreting the York Act to disempower collegial governing bodies, and it means transforming the Senate Executive into a hollow mouthpiece for an unrepresentative corporate Board of Governors.

It means hiring Hicks Morley, a union busting law firm that gives lectures to employers on how to avoid liability in cases of critical injury or death of workers.

It means forcing workers out in the cold on strike for 40 days. And it means only coming back to the bargaining table for 1 day, only to walk away and force a bogus ratification vote.

And it means providing the ministry of labour with fake employee emails and incomplete membership rolls.

To be honest, I didn’t even know a president could be so corrupt and incompetent.

But let me tell you, workers are fed up with a profit driven corporation that uses “academic integrity” as a rhetorical shield while deepening academic precarity and exploitation.

And we’re fed up with a University that appropriates the language of social justice as a marketing tool, only to entrench unjust working conditions on 60% of the educational workers at York.

This union destroyed your bad offer, and voted 85% to reject the administration’s attempt to impose neoliberal austerity measures on our membership.

And now the Liberal government has abandoned your desire to impose back-to-work legislation.

You’ve lost Rhonda.

You’ve lost the strike, you’ve lost the confidence of the community, and you’ve lost the Senate, literally.

Don’t be foolish enough to lose the summer semester too.

So I ask: President Lenton, when will York University return to the bargaining table?

Second open letter to Minister Hunter Reply

April 10, 2018

The Honourable Mitzie Hunter
Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development
Government of Ontario

Dear Minister Hunter,

I am writing to you again, as a woman with a government led by a woman Premier, to urge you to restore legitimate governance at York University.

The Board of Governors is operating outside its By-laws. It has imposed a President whom only 11% of faculty approved, and has now usurped the powers of the university Senate.

I have held tenured appointments at two Ontario universities since 1980 and been a visiting professor at two other Ontario universities (University of Ottawa and Carleton) as well as at McGill University in Quebec. I have never ever seen a situation like this.

Students offered grades ‘on the cheap’ but pay full fees

Over 75% of courses at York University have not been given since the beginning of March, over five weeks ago! My students do not know where to turn.

For so many of them, obtaining advanced education is already a challenge. They have to work part-time or full-time to pay their fees. They have young families or family care-giving responsibilities. For many it is a daily struggle to pay for housing and food. Under these conditions, meeting assignment deadlines is already challenging and they do not have the time to do their best work. I know, because I encourage my students to communicate their situation to me so that I can provide whatever assistance I can to help them complete their courses successfully.

But what are York students to do now? They have plans for graduating, for applications to other programs, for summer employment. Everything is on hold. They have paid full fees for their courses with their hard-earned money. Why should they have to pay all their fees when they don’t have timely access to all their courses?

The University administration is suggesting they take a grade for 60% or 70% of their work, that they accept some kind of grade ‘on the cheap.’ Will future employers look down at their York diploma? Will they still be able to get jobs? Why is the administration degrading its own degrees?

A Board of Governors completely disconnected from students, staff and faculty

This dire situation has arisen because a small group of people from big business and big banking have taken control over the Board of Governors and are usurping powers normally held by the President and the University Senate.

The Board runs the show behind closed doors according to its own hidden agenda, consulting only with union-busting lawyers and corporate public relations firms. There is no discussion, no dialogue, no respect of rules, no sense of community, and no sense of what a university is. This is not how a university should be governed. What kind of example is this for our students?

I received a shameless email yesterday from info@yorku.ca. The email wasn’t signed. I don’t know who wrote it. As a faculty member, I simply receive these anonymous emails from ‘above.’ Often the messages, addressed to us by our first names, are intimidating or contain misleading information.

I have never ever in 38 years of university teaching in Ontario seen such a radical disregard and disrespect on the part of a university Board and administration for its university’s students, staff and faculty. I have never seen such havoc and injustice wrought on a university because of a Board so completely disconnected from the people and principles of the university it is supposed to foster.

A Board of Governors in breach of its By-laws: No representation for vast sectors of the public

I wrote to you on March 19, 2018 to draw your attention to these grave governance issues at York University. I pointed out the Board of Governors’ disrespect by of its own By-laws requiring broad community representation on the Board, the Board’s failure to ensure gender equity on the Board, and the Board’s lack of representation of approximately 95% of York students and their programs. My email was copied to the Secretary of the Cabinet.

I received no response from you or your Ministry. I can understand that this is a busy time for you, since elections will be held on June 7. But I don’t see how your government can sit by and allow such hardship to continue at Ontario’s second-largest university, with46,400 undergraduate students and 5,900 graduate students, and 7,000 faculty and staff (http://about.yorku.ca/).

A Board of Governors opposed to equity for women

Your government is to be commended for having taken important steps to ensure gender equality and to prevent violence against women. Your program ‘GET ON BOARD – Ontario’s Implementation Plan to Promote Women in Corporate Leadership’ has set targets for the number of women on corporate boards.

Many Provincial Boards and Agencies have surpassed the 40% Target, achieving over 50% representation of women (https://www.ontario.ca/…/get-board-ontarios-implementation-…).

How then can your government accept that at York University, where 59% of undergraduate students are women, women constitute only 35% of external members on the Board and only 15% of the members of the Board’s central Executive Committee?

Chair of the Board makes sexist remarks in the Financial Post

How can your government accept that the Chair of the Board of Governors of an Ontario university has publicly expressed in the Financial Post his opposition to government legislation on gender equality and his sexist belief that if there are not more women on boards it’s because there are not enough qualified women? (http://business.financialpost.com/…/managing-in-the-grey-sc…)

The Board appoints its own external members. How can your government support a Board that has stubbornly refused to appoint an equal number of men and women?

A Board working against your government’s legislation on wage equity and women’s safety

Your government has put in place measures to ensure wage equity. How can it support a university Board who is actively widening the wage gap by refusing to improve working conditions for contract faculty, the majority of whom are women?

Your government has taken major steps to prevent violence against women. How can a Board that cannot even appoint an equal number of women possibly exercise appropriate oversight on university health and safety policies to prevent violence against women? Indeed, York University has a long history, under former President Shoukri and the same kind of sexist Board, of lack of concern for women’s safety.

A Board who does not represent 95% of York’s Undergraduate Students

The Ontario government funds universities through a complex formula that reflects enrollments. At York University, three faculties, Schulich (business), Osgoode (law) and Lassonde (engineering), represent about 5% of undergraduate students.

Yet, ALL the external members of the Board of Governors have degrees in these three fields. Five external Board members sit concurrently on advisory Boards at Schulich. In other words, NO external Board members represent the programs and disciplines of 95% of York University undergraduate students.

How can a Board skewed towards only three small faculties make informed and responsible decisions about programs in the eight other faculties? How can such a Board ensure that the public funds and student fees the university is receiving for these programs, where 95% of York University’s students are enrolled, are actually going towards these programs? The answer is that it cannot make, and is not making, responsible decisions for all York students.

A Board who pays lip service to experiential learning then cuts 800 graduate assistantships

Graduate assistantships provide valuable professional experience to students. They are proud to put their assistantships on their résumé and their work experience at York University helps them obtain employment after graduation. Through these positions, students receive professional mentoring, participate in dynamic research projects and contribute to research at the university

Your Ministry has made strong efforts to increase Ontario students’ access to experiential learning and on-the-job training and has asked Ontario universities to outline the experiential learning opportunities they offer to students.

How can your Ministry support a Board that has outlined these opportunities to you then, behind your back, cut over 800 experiential learning positions for its own graduate students?

The Ontario government cannot allow a small, illegitimately appointed corporate Board to cause so much suffering and injustice at a public university

I believe that your government has an obligation to redress the enormous disconnection at York University between the Board of Governors and the administration it has put in place, on the one hand, and students, staff and faculty, on the other.

Students, staff and faculty at York University are under great duress. It is an exceedingly stressful situation. York University is a publicly-funded institution. Boards have an obligation to be accountable to the public they serve, but this Board at York is not answering to anyone.

I am deeply disappointed in this Board’s failure to respond to longstanding calls to respect its own By-laws and include members from a broad range of diverse sectors in society.

On the contrary, it has just infringed more regulations and laws in flagrant disregard for the very principles of mutual understanding and respect, on which universities are founded. This is not how a university should be governed.

I am deeply distressed by the inhumane actions of this Board. It has consistently and shamelessly trampled over the interests of students, staff and faculty. It has made every effort to degrade the collective intellectual and creative spirit of York University. It has not shown one iota of regret for the real suffering it is imposing on real people.

Your government has to take responsibility urgently. It must hold the Board accountable for the actions that are putting York University and the education of its students at risk. It cannot allow a handful of individuals who have appointed themselves to the university’s Board and function as a closed shop to sabotage a public institution of higher learning.

I am urging you, because it behooves you as Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development, to 1) place York University temporarily under government supervision, 2) disband the current illegitimate Board of Governors, 3) annul its appointment of Dr. Rhonda Lenton as President, and 4) appoint an interim Chairperson of the Board of Governors tasked with undertaking the renewal of the university’s governance structures.

Yours sincerely,

Agnes Whitfield, Ph.D., c. tran.
Professor/Professeure titulaire,
Department of English/Département d’études anglaises
York University/Université York, Toronto (Canada)
http://people.laps.yorku.ca/people.nsf/researcherprofile…
Founding Director/Directrice fondatrice, Vita Traductiva
http://yfile.news.yorku.ca/…/english-prof-launches-new-tra…/
Visiting Professor/Professeure invitee, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, 2017
Bilingual Joint Chair in Women’s Studies, Carleton University, University of Ottawa/Chaire conjointe bilingue en études des femmes, Université Carleton, Université d’Ottawa, 2009-2010
Virtual Scholar, Heritage Canada/Chercheure virtuelle, Patrimoine canadien, 2006-2007
Seagram Visiting Chair in Canadian Studies, McGill University/Chaire d’invité Seagram en études canadiennes, Université McGill, 2003-2004
Présidente, Association canadienne de traductologie /President, Canadian Association for Translation Studies, 1995-1999

Letter to our Students from Colleagues at the Faculty of Education Reply

April 9, 2018

On April 5th, 2018, colleagues from the Faculty of Education, York University, met to discuss our ongoing concern with the Administration’s troubling tactics during the labour dispute. These tactics reverberate through all levels of collegial governance and democratic process, and affect every aspect of our work. Having entered into its fourth week, the Administration embarked on the dangerous wager of forcing ratification and, in the meantime, has done little to improve the climate of negotiation between itself, the university community, and CUPE 3903.

Within this context, we want to express our support and solidarity with our students and colleagues of CUPE 3903. We do so as a commitment to our responsibility as faculty for the well-being of the University, and against the unfair and precarious situations of employment at the University. As professors, we feel it is our duty to protect the University’s educational principles and to support our students and colleagues by adhering to 1) collegial governance, 2) principles of academic integrity, and 3) our responsibility as educators to our students. We reaffirm our role and responsibility as faculty because these three aspects have been under threat during this dispute.

As scholars, professors, and instructors of education, we are uniquely positioned to gage the damage that recent events pose for academic integrity and scholarly innovation that are the hallmarks of York University’s highly regarded reputation. Our worry is that this dispute is not merely about providing fair conditions for workers, but increasingly about the Administration’s re-alignment of faculty governance. It seems to us that the University is being run less and less by professors and students, who are invested in educational and academic concerns, and more by people in management and commerce, guided by the Board of Governors, with little or no experience in or sense of responsibility for academic and educational matters. Such a re-alignment betrays the longstanding right to have educational and academic autonomy from the Board of Governors for which faculty and others have previously fought. This managerial and economic trend will not serve faculty and students well.

As professors of a Faculty of Education who have long-standing experience and engagement, sharing with multiple stakeholders, in public schools, communities, and educational sectors, we roundly reject the Administration’s rush to undermine faculty governance and educational authority. Our position aligns with those expressed in numerous universities and by school teachers worldwide, some of whom are protesting in the streets today, the devastatingly failed project to make education profitable. Rendering education a commercial project, and putting financial concerns before pedagogical ones, privileges the few while denigrating the promise education holds for so many. Our students, young people, and children stand to lose the most from the reckless actions of the Administrators and the Board of Governors. These managerial actions, lacking foresight, have caused so many teachers, educators, and scholars everywhere to take a decisive stand for the idea and ideals of education, academic integrity, and free enquiry underlying the right to public education in just and democratic societies.

We urge the Administration to respect collegial processes and return to the bargaining table, in good faith and fair play, to lessen the turmoil, confusion, and conflict we are all experiencing. Labour disputes are important events that help us to think about ourselves and the society in which we want to live; they also take the temperature of our foundational institutions and the core values driving them. A strike gives us pause to reflect on the state of our academic organization and how we belong and commit to it. For many of us at York University, this dispute exposes the deliberate collapsing of collegial structures into managerialism, and how our talents, which defy economy, are exploited for their serviceability to the bottom-line. A strike also reminds us (because we all tend to forget) that nothing in life is given. Our lives are all precarious (in different ways) and, in a democratic society, we have a right to speak of our needs and a responsibility to take care of each other. Our Administration needs to remember — indeed, we all need to remember — that when you give people a living, dignifying wage, and treat them like people with minds and dreams and the promise of a shared and sustainable present and future, rather than seeing them as economic “units” and income generators, we provide the fundamental conditions for education to be possible.

In solidarity with teachers and students everywhere,

Steve Alsop,
Sarah Barrett
Warren Crichlow
Roopa Desai Trilokekar
Mario DiPaolantonio
Nombuso Dlamini
Lisa Farley
Jen Jenson
Joy Mannette
Aparna Mishra Tarc
Naomi Norquay
Gillian Parekh
Tina Rapke
Theresa Shanahan
Kurt Thumlert
Laura Wiseman

On the Matter of “Open” Searches, Academic Excellence, and Student Success: A Radical Proposal Reply

April 2, 2018

On the Matter of “Open” Searches, Academic Excellence, and Student Success: A Radical Proposal

A Discussion Paper

Lykke de la Cour
Department of Social Science
York University

The “Open” search process for academic appointments is heralded in the university community as a central pillar, if not the flagship marker, that undergirds the achievement of research and teaching excellence at universities  – and indeed so it should be … in an ideal world.

Data repeatedly demonstrates, however, that despite decades of equity initiatives,  academic “open” searches regularly re/produce structural inequalities linked to gender, race, class, sexual identity and disability, evidenced by the fact that these groups remain under-represented among tenured faculty and, when appointed to tenure-track positions, they tend to be disproportionately concentrated in lower ranks of the profession, are often paid less than their peers, and are only marginally included in programs such as Canada Research Chairs.[1] What this suggests is that academic appointment processes are not, in all instances, as impartial, objective, or unbiased as the term “open” suggests. Instead, all too frequently hiring practices replicate particular forms of power and privilege, with attendant knowledge production and pedagogic practices, styling this as a demonstration of academic “excellence.” “Open” academic searches, hence, are not as unfettered as sometimes implied.

Similarly, exhortations around the importance of “open” searches are neither unencumbered nor innocent when raised in the midst of a labour disruption that centers on the problem of precarious academic employment. In such moments, refrains around the inviolable principle of “open” academic searches become deeply political, chiefly deployed to reinforce divisions between tenured and contractualized faculty, while perpetuating a stigmatized association with appointment processes connected with contractual academic work.

Just look at how many times in the current labour disruption at York the administration has deployed references to “open” searches in its communications relating to Unit 2’s job security proposals. Each message from the administration, including letters from the President and the Interim Provost to OCUFA, etc., have repeatedly underscored “open” hiring practices as a “hallmark” of academic appointment processes that absolutely cannot be breached by permitting greater numbers of conversions at York. In the administration’s most recent March 27th communication on a supervised (forced ratification) vote, they make this point even more fully:

We have made every effort to reach a fair and equitable agreement with CUPE 3903 while preserving and protecting:

  • Academic excellence,
  • Student success, and
  • The vitally important role of open searches for full-time tenure stream faculty.

What are the issues?

We have offered CUPE 3903 the best pay and benefits package of any university in Ontario, but there are two key non-monetary issues on which we can’t compromise:

  1. The number of tenure stream positions that will be given to CUPE 3903 members without an open search: York is committed to the principle that in all but exceptional cases, full-time tenure stream appointments must be made through open searches as they are at all other Canadian universities. To balance this principle with CUPE 3903’s interests, York is offering six tenure stream positions for contract faculty over the life of the new collective agreement. This is being done through the conversion program, which is unprecedented in the country … [2]

Count the number of times that the phrased “open” search is referred to in this statement. Apparently, over the past several months, the administration has also devoted considerable time informing departmental chairs and other tenured faculty at York that any promises around potential new hires would, of course, be mitigated by the number of conversions negotiated CUPE 3903. Talk about playing the two faculty groups off one another.

But let’s unpack the administration’s statement even further.

First, it presents yet another misrepresentation, this time not about the number of conversions offered as being “not concessionary,” but about the process surrounding conversion appointments. In their statement, the administration writes that tenure stream positions “will be given” to CUPE 3903 Unit 2 members. Will be “given”?

At York, contract faculty have always had to participate in a competitive selection process to get a conversion appointment and, if fortunate enough to be selected, what they are actually then “given” is a probationary tenure stream position whereby they will be required to fulfill the same criteria for tenure and promotion as any new hire. Tenured positions are not being benevolently doled out here – and let’s be clear, any modicum of meaningful job security provision (including conversions) that Unit 2 has managed to obtain over the years has not been “given” to them. These have been hard fought for gains, often only attained by going on strike.

The second problem with the administration’s statement concerns the association constructed between “open” searches, academic excellence, and student success. Again, the logic is not clear here.

In the context of a rapidly collapsing faculty infrastructure, where new tenure-stream hires are not keeping apace with TT faculty “departures” – and haven’t been for quite a while, despite enrollment growth[3] – how on earth will a handful of new hires selected through “open” searches be able to achieve the goals of academic excellence and student success?  The university is either going to have to dramatically increase class sizes and introduce other pedagogic innovations in order to cope with enrollment growth in a setting where TT faculty attrition is significant. Or York is going to have to continue to rely on a large cadre of precariously employed contractualized academic staff. Neither of these options is optimal for academic excellence or student success … and, in either case, it leaves a diminished proportion of TT faculty responsible for fulfilling the university’s required service obligations.

In her recent article in The Globe and Mail, Simona Chiose notes:

After hovering between 55 and 60 hires for the past several years, next year York plans to hire 88 tenure-stream professors, according to numbers provided by the university, renewing just under 6 per cent of its total permanent faculty ranks.[4]

Where did these numbers come from?

According to York’s Multi Year Budget Plan 2017-18 to 2019-20, the administration is projecting only 65 new hires for next year. When faculty departures are taken into account, this will yield an overall increase of 33 faculty to the TT complement. The figures are roughly the same for the following year, 2019-20.  The overall ‘in-year’ increase/decrease to YUFA faculty ranks, however, is 27 and 28 when the reduction of 19 and 23 CLAs, respectively, over 2018/19 and 2019/20, is taken into account.[5]

 

Screen Shot 2018-04-05 at 12.07.32 PM.png

Source: Finance Department, York University, “Budget Highlights,” Multi Year Budget Plan 2017-18 to 2019-20

What this chart doesn’t capture is that an increase of 33 faculty to the TT complement still leaves faculty numbers below what they were in 2008/9 (1,424) – and faculty FTEs were already significantly depleted even by 2008/9. As “A Sixteen-Year Snapshot of York University” demonstrates, undergraduate and graduate enrollments at York grew 36% to 38% respectively over the course of the 2000s, but tenure stream faculty increased by only 20%.[6] Data suggests that the TT faculty collapse at York dates at least to the mid-1990s.[7] The above chart also obscures the fact that, in recent years, York has relied on an unprecedented number of contractual positions (CLAs) to artificially boost tenure-stream faculty numbers.  As the table below indicates, CLA positions have increased significantly over the past four years, but not the number of TT faculty. The increase in CLAs has simply facilitated a ‘smoke and mirrors’ game,[8] giving an overall impression of TT faculty complement growth when in fact, since 2008/9, there has been none:

       
YEAR TT CLAs Total
2008/9 1424 104 1528
2009/10 1379 86 1465
2010/11 1364 102 1466
2011/12 1368 107 1475
2012/13 1382 98 1480
2013/14 1389 134 1523
2014/15 1373 155 1505
2015/16 1362 186 1548
2016/17 1381 183 1564

 

Source: York University Fact Book 2015-16 and York University Quick Facts 2016-17

The Report on Appointments, Tenure and Promotion, presented last October to the Board of Governors by the Chair of the Academic Resources Committee, paints a worrisome picture as well.[9] In this document, the Appendix D chart on “Changes in Tenure Stream Complement 2009-10 to 2017-18” indicates a total of 65 appointments made or in progress for 2017-18 (not the 98 projected hires cited in the Multi Year Budget Plan). Eighteen searches (beyond the 65) are listed as “Failed/Deplayed/Cancelled Searches” [sic], which does bring the total number of authorized new hires up to 83, but still not 98. However, these 65 new appointments pale when weighed against confirmed departures, which for 2017-18 are reportedly 45.[10] So 65 – 45 = 20 additions to the faculty complement for 2017-18. Add 20 to the total number of TT in 2016/17 and you get 1401 – still below the TT complement numbers in 2008/9.

If this is the end result when the university says that hiring plans hovered around 50 to 60 new hires the past few years, what will happen in 2018-19 and 2019-20 when budget projections forecast, respectively, only 27 and 26 new hires?

What further complicates the situation around the TT faculty complement, of course, is student enrollments. While TT faculty numbers have declined significantly at York since 2008/9, both undergraduate and graduate enrollments have remained fairly stable – 46,079 undergraduates in 2008/9 versus 46,320 in 2016/17 (an increase of .5% over the period)[11] and 5,837 graduate students in 2008/9 as opposed to 5,798 in 2016/17, a decline of 39 graduate enrollments.[12] No doubt contractual faculty, both within CUPE 3903 Unit 2 and YUFA CLAs, have been deployed to fill the gaps in undergraduate teaching created by the constriction of TT faculty over these years. But it is when we look towards the future – indeed not even the too distant future – that the picture becomes even more fraught if we are truly concerned about academic excellence and student success at York.

As noted above, there are no major plans to increase the number of TT faculty at the university over the next few years. Yet, York’s administration is projecting significant enrollment increases, at least with respect to undergraduate and MA enrollments. It is anticipated that enrollments in each category will rise 12% by 2019/20.  Only a 1% increase in PhD graduate enrollments is predicted by 2020, however.[13] There is also, of course, the opening of the Markham campus in 2021, with an enrollment target of 4,200 students. Advertising for the new campus states that “400+” jobs will created at Markham, but it is not clear how many of these positions will be academic.[14] Similarly, the children of the “echo boomers” (i.e. the grandchildren of the baby boomers) are set to begin enrolling at universities in Ontario in the early 2020s.[15]

So who is going to teach all these students?

Here is where we get to the crux of the CUPE 3903 strike, especially with respect to Unit 2 job security proposals: the administration’s utterly inflexible position on conversions, in my estimation, is fundamentally about the erosion of tenure through a simultaneous process of atrophying new TT hires (precisely in a period where both student enrollments and TT faculty departures linked to retirements are expected to grow) while inhibiting mechanisms through which contractualized faculty can be shifted into tenure-track positions.

In addition to misrepresenting conversions as something benevolently granted to contract faculty and, ultimately, antithetical to academic excellence and student success, the other recurrent theme in the administration’s messaging around Unit 2’s conversion program is about the uniqueness of this program, calling it “unprecedented in the country.” However, the only aspect of CUPE 3903’s conversion program that differentiates it from similar programs at other universities (such as Queen’s University Faculty Association’s collective agreement provisions around Continuing Adjunct Appointments[16]) is that the CUPE 3903 program transfers successful applicants into probationary tenure-stream positions, thereby bolstering tenure-track ranks. In this sense, yes, the CUPE 3903 Conversion Program does stand out as exceptional. But this extraordinariness does not mean that the program should be dispensed with. Rather, isn’t this a program all university faculty unions should embrace in response to the growing problem of precarious academic labour? Could this, perhaps, be the real reason that the province is not intervening and pushing York University to resolve the strike?

The route that many universities in Ontario have followed to deal with the tenure-track “faculty crisis” is to create non-tenured teaching-stream positions. Half of the twenty publically-funded universities operating in the province have done so, variously designating these positions as “Instructor Employees,” “Teaching-Focused Faculty,” “Continuing Lecturer,” “Professional Teaching Positions” and, in York’s case, “Alternate Stream.”[17] Of the ten universities that have a specially designated teaching stream, only three have established these streams within the tenure-track faculty complement: Lakehead, Wilfred Laurier, and York.[18] In each of these instances, the teaching stream mirrors professorial appointments with respect to collective agreement rights and protections, such as sabbaticals, PTR, benefits, etc. The main differences are a somewhat lower salary and a higher teaching load, which fluctuates between a 4.0 course workload at Lakehead, 3.5 at York, and 3.0 at Wilfred Laurier. At York and Laurier teaching-stream faculty can also engage in scholarly academic (not just pedagogic) research for tenure and promotion reviews and other professional assessments. Article 15.7.5(c) of the Wilfrid Laurier University Faculty Association Collective Agreement 2017-20 states:

Any assessment of the scholarly activity of a Member with a PTP shall recognize the Member’s additional teaching beyond the teaching load norms and variations prescribed under 18.2.1 for Members not holding a PTP. A demonstrated record of excellence in teaching, or teaching and service, may be used to lessen the standards required in scholarly and/or professional activity.

Something unique to York, however, is Article 12.13 in the YUFA Collective Agreement which permits faculty transfers from the Alternate Stream to the Professorial Stream in “exceptional circumstances.”

This past January, OCUFA submitted a pre-budget report to the Ontario government, Time for renewal: Investing in the future of Ontario’s universities. This report comes at an opportune time as we ponder how to effectively resolve the strike at York. While the overall thrust of the document is to call for a reinvestment of public funding in Ontario’s college and university system, the theme of faculty renewal stands critically at the center of this report as the only way to really improve the quality of post-secondary education in the province. Its recommendations for reviving Ontario’s faculty complement, however, emphasize not only a reinvestment in new tenure-track hires, but also the creation of “pathways” to full-time secure positions for contract faculty at Ontario universities:

Universities should acknowledge their ongoing reliance on contract work by creating pathways for contract faculty to secure full-time faculty position [at their institutions] …reducing the reliance on contract faculty in the system as a whole.[19]

In the context of the current labour disruption, we have a moment here at York to do exactly what OCUFA is recommending. CUPE 3903 has two specific Unit 2 bargaining proposals on the table that are essentially the “pathways” that OCUFA recommends – and the good news is that neither of these pathways has to be “created” at York, they already exist: the CUPE Conversion Program and the SRC Program (Special Renewable Contracts).[20] With respect to the latter, all that needs to be changed are the dates under Article 12.32 in the YUFA collective agreement. But as both CUPE 3903 and YUFA have repeatedly stated, these dates can only be changed with the agreement of YUFA and by bringing YUFA and CUPE 3903 Unit 2 together into formal tripartite negotiations as part of current round of negotiations. Both unions are willing to do this, but the employer has steadfastly refused.

The “version” of SRCs that the employer has proposed to CUPE 3903 in this round of bargaining, represents a degraded variation of the old SRC program. It is this version which YUFA will never accept. However, the SRC program that YUFA did accept, back in the late 1990s, was very different and had considerable more integrity than what York is now forcing Unit 2 to vote on.

Negotiated in 1999, the SRC program was developed for Unit 2 AA pool members with fifteen or more years of teaching contributions to the university, who had taught at an intensity of at least 2.5 courses over the previous five years. These were contractual appointments, not tenure stream positions within YUFA. The initial term of the contract was five years, with a renewal option for one additional five year term and then a final further three year term. All SRCs were entitled to one sabbatical over the duration of the thirteen years. Faculty appointed to SRC positions had a teaching workload of three courses per year, with the same expectations around university service as required of TT faculty. SRC salaries were negotiable and, thus, comparable to YUFA members’ wages. All other provisions of the YUFA collective agreement, with respect to protections, rights, benefits, and opportunities, applied to SRC faculty.[21] From 1999 to 2004, approximately forty Unit 2 members were transferred to SRC positions in YUFA.[22]

In 2002, CUPE 3903 agreed to suspend the program to allow the remaining members in the pool to transfer into YUFA. A letter of understanding was drawn up at this time that indicated that the employer would examine alternative job security programs over the course of 2002-2005. This never materialized. Then in CUPE 3903’s 2008/9 negotiations, when Unit 2 proposed re-establishing the SRC program, the employer came back with a horribly corrupted TSA proposal (Teaching-Stream Appointments). These were to be 10 new full-time five-year renewable appointments (overall) within YUFA, with a 4.0 course load for $60,000 a year, and no progress-through-the-ranks (PTR) adjustments, no sabbaticals, etc. Only five of these positions were earmarked for members with ten years of more of teaching service. In the forced ratification vote of January 2009,  Unit 2 resoundingly and rightly rejected the employer’s TSA proposal.[23] YUFA similarly rejected the TSAs at an SGMM in 2010 when the employer inserted this proposal into the union’s side-bared workload negotiations.

And so here we are, years later, really no further ahead, with a low number of conversions being offered to CUPE 3903 Unit 2 and yet another butchered version of the old SRC program on the table. Only one  thing has changed over this period: there now are 220 Unit 2 members in the AA Pool, while there were only 83 in 2008/9.[24]

In the current round of negotiations, CUPE 3903 originally proposed 20 conversions and 10 SRC appointments per year over the next three years. That adds up to a total 90 Unit 2 members who could be transferred into YUFA – 60 through conversions to either professorial or alternate stream tenure-track appointments and 30 into five to thirteen-year contractual SRC positions.[25] That’s nearly half of CUPE’s AA pool.

But could we perhaps even be bolder here? Why not bring the whole AA pool into YUFA?

While this suggestion indubitably may seem radical to some, it is nevertheless worth considering given the situation we find ourselves in at York.  First, shifting the Unit 2 AA pool would inflate YUFA faculty numbers overnight and put us in line with other universities in the province where members of the full-time faculty association outnumber academic staff working on eight- and four-month contracts. As well, think about all the service work that this experience pool of faculty could begin to undertake as YUFA members.

Second, dealing in a meaningful way with CUPE 3903’s AA pool and Unit 2 job security demands would most certainly result in greater labour stability at York University. We’ve had three strikes in less than ten years. In each of these strikes, conversions and SRCs have figured centrally in Unit 2’s aspirations during contract negotiations. Each time that Unit 2 has gone out on strike it has been when the employer’s proposed offer does not deal with the matter of precarious employment in a serious manner. While the administration obviously thinks it can bully CUPE 3903 into some sort of submission with this round of negotiations, given the way the employer has handled bargaining and the strike, my sense is that CUPE 3903 is a union that is not so easily intimidated. We are only going to face more labour unrest at York if we don’t start to deal with the problem of precarious academic employment in a significant and meaningful way.

Shifting the Unit 2 AA pool into YUFA would be a good first step in correcting the gross historic wrong that has occurred here at York and the university’s unprecedented over-reliance on contractual academic faculty compared to other universities in Ontario.[26] It would begin to restore our reputation and image as a university that is committed – not just in rhetoric but in practice – to social justice. It conveys to the public and students that social justice is not just something we say, but something we actually do.

Can York afford to do this?

In their budget plan report, last June, the Board of Governors’ Finance and Audit Committee highlighted “the significantly improved financial status of the University over recent years,” emphasizing a $1.1 million in-year surplus and a “positive” in-year variance to the 2016-17 budget of $20.2 million.[27] The university’s statements on revenues and expenses have registered healthy surpluses for the past four years, $36.4 million (2017), $23.3million (2016), $19.9 million (2015) and$4.3 million (2014). Expenses have not outpaced revenues since 2013.[28] Where did monies come from? According to the committee’s report, from increased  tuition  fees  and  higher  international  enrolments, which “provided  some  additional operating income overall,” and the fact that “[c]ost  pressures  largely associated with salaries and benefits declined due to lower compensation settlements.”[29] So, in other words, students, faculty and staff have largely funded these surpluses. Should we not then have a say as to how these monies are spent?

In responding to CUPE 3903 on the matter of budget surpluses, the administration noted that the University “remains committed to allocating any such one-time surplus amounts to its Strategic Investment Fund, used to support the University’s key priorities of excellence in teaching and research and providing an enhanced student experience, as embodied in the University Academic Plan and related strategic planning documents.”[30] This fund, known as the Academic Strategic Investment Contingency Fund, was established in 2014/15 to transfer excess monies from internally restricted net assets to pay for academic and strategic initiatives at the university.[31] Since 2014/15, $75.91 million has been transferred into this fund. In 2016/7, $500,000 of these monies were directed to York’s Branding Campaign. $300,000 was devoted to the Presidential Search (spread out over 2015/16 and 2016/17) and $25 million has gone towards the SHARP Implementation.[32]

It is from this fund that monies were allocated towards the costs associated with the higher number of CUPE 3903 conversions over 2014-2017. In 2015, 2016, and 2017, $270,000 was allocated each year to cover the expenditures associated with CUPE conversions. In total, $810,000 was paid out of the Academic Strategic Investment Contingency Fund to cover 24 conversions. You can do the math here – but basically converting even the whole AA pool would amount to about a third of what has been allocated towards the implementation of the SHARP  budget model plan and less than a fifth of the total projected cumulative ending balance by 2019 ($40.41 million). York can afford to do this – and what better way is there, really, to support one of the university’s key priority areas of enhancing student experience?

We have the “pathways” here at York for dealing with the academic employment precarity that faculty organizations, such as OCUFA, are urging Ontario universities to create. The rationale for doing so is not just about “doing the right thing” with respect to contractualized faculty, but it is also about recognizing that divided neither contract nor tenured faculty are winning much here in the era of the corporatized university. Working together we will all be that much stronger, and together we cannot be so easily played off one another.

 

[1] Mary Fox,Carolyn Fonseca,Jinghui Bao. “Work and family conflict in academic science: Patterns and predictors among women and men in research universities,” Social Studies of Science (2011) Volume 41, No. 5, 715-735; L.A. Renzulli, L. Grant, S. Kathuria. “Race, gender, and the wage gap: Comparing faculty salaries in predominately white and historically black colleges and universities,” Gender & Society (2006) Volume 20.  No. 4, 491-510; Judith S. White. “Pipeline to pathways: new directions for improving the status of women on campus ,” Liberal Education Volume 91, No. 1 (2005), 22-27;  Yonghong Jade Xu. “Gender Disparity in STEM Disciplines: A Study of Faculty Attrition and Turnover Intentions,” Research in Higher Education (2008) Volume 49, No. 7, 607–624; Katherine Side and Wendy Robbins. “Institutionalizing inequalities in Canadian universities: the Canada Research Chairs Program,” NWSA Journal (2007) Volume 19, No. 3, 163-181; Frances Henry, Enakshi Dua, Carl E. James, Audrey Kobayashi, Peter Li, Howard Ramos, Malinda S. Smith. The equity myth : racialization and indigeneity at Canadian universities  Vancouver ; Toronto : UBC Press, 2017.

[2] York University Requests a Supervised Vote  http://labour.yorku.ca/2018/03/27/york-supervised-vote/

[3] 43,235 in 2000/1 to 53,347 in 2016/17

[4] Simona Chiose. “York University, contract professors no closer to ending strike which could impact graduation for thousands,” The Globle and Mail, March 25, 2018.

[5] Finance Department, York University, “Budget Highlights,” Multi Year Budget Plan 2017-18 to 2019-2, p. 98.

[6] Craig Heron, updated by Murray Cooke, CUPE 3903, “A Sixteen-Year Snapshot of York University,” 2000-16.

[7] Full Time Academic Staff 1976/77 Through 2015/16, York Fact Book  2015-16, p181.

[8] For another interesting example of ‘smoke and mirrors’, see QS World University Rankings where York lists its Academic Faculty Staff at 2,357. https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/york-university#sub

[9] Henry Wu,  Chair, Academic Resources Committee,  October 2017 Report on Appointments, Tenure and Promotion, ,memorandum to Board of Governors, October, 3, 2017.

[10] Ibid., Appendix D.

[11] There have been a few notable surges in enrollments, however, over this period. From 2010 to 2014, the number of undergraduates enrolled at York increased by roughly 2,000. Students Registered At York, York Fact Book 2015-16.

[12] York Fact Book 2015-16; York University Quick Facts, 2016-17.

[13] Finance Department, York University, “Fiscal Context,” Multi Year Budget Plan 2017-18 to 2019-2, p. 102.

[14] http://markham.yorku.ca/quick-facts/

[15] Louise Brown, “Ontario university enrolment down for first time in 15 years.” The Toronto Star Sept. 22, 2014.https://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto/education/2014/09/22/ontario_university_enrolment_down_for_first_time_in_15_years.html

[16] Article 25.1.3.2, 2015-2019 Queen’s University – QUFA Collective Agreement.

[17] I have drawn this information from the various collective agreements of faculty associations across the province.

[18] Ryerson does not have a teaching stream but two levels of teaching intensity within faculty ranks.

[19] OCUFA. Time for renewal: Investing in the future of Ontario’s universities, January 2018: 17, and 20-21.

[20] For details on the conversion program, please refer to my March 20, 2018 discussion paper, “To Convert or Not To Convert, That is the Question: The CUPE 3903 Strike and Precarious Academic Labour.”

[21] See Article 12.32 in York University Faculty Association Collective Agreement.

[22] CUPE 3903 Unit 2 Chronicle, January 2009, p. 3.

[23] Cupe 3903. “Key Outstanding Issues of the Strike,” January 2009; Tyler Shipley, “Demanding the Impossible: Struggles for the Future of Post-Secondary Education,” Socialist Project  (May 10, 2009), https://socialistproject.ca/2009/05/b215/

[24]Academic Employee Relations, Summary of AA Pool, December 22, 2008.  CUPE 3903 Conversion List 2015-16

[25] https://3903.cupe.ca/files/2017/02/CUPE-3903-Bargaining-Proposal-Package-2017-Oct-16.docx.pdf

[26] This is really what has been “unprecedented” in the sector, but the employer’s communications never cite this precedence.

[27] Finance and Audit Committee, Budget Plan and Financial Statements, Minutes, York University Board of Governors, 27 June, 2017

[28] York University, Financial Statements,  April 30, 2017, p. 5

[29] Ibid., p. 2

[30] http://labour.yorku.ca/just-the-facts/one-time-budget-surplus-significantly-less-than-cupe-3903-claims/

[31] http://www.yorku.ca/finance/documents/Financial_Statements_April_30_2015.pdf

[32] Chair, Finance and Audit Committee, Update to the Multi-Year Budget Plan for 2016  -17, Memorandum to Board of Governors, June 28 , 2016 , p. 77.

VOTE NO! YUGSA Recommends Its CUPE Members Reject York’s Latest Offer Reply

March 30, 2018

CUPE 3903 members have entered a new phase of the strike: this week, York University requested that the Ministry of Labour supervise a forced vote by the CUPE 3903 membership on York’s latest offer. Through their request, the York administration continues to reject the process of bargaining constructively with CUPE 3903.

We agree with the CUPE 3903 Bargaining Team’s recommendation that the membership vote to REJECT this offer. The BT has explained in more detail why all units should reject this offer. Overall, York’s offer is the worst deal the membership will see. If members reject it, York may be forced to table a better deal out of fear of risking the income from the summer semester. The BT stresses to members that it is better to negotiate a deal through collective bargaining. In addition, York’s offer contains no back-to-work protocol, meaning that there is absolutely no guarantee that members will get paid for the work they do to wrap up the term after the strike is over. The only way to guarantee this back pay is to settle this dispute at the bargaining table, where in the wake of previous strikes CUPE has been successful in ensuring its members receive between 85 – 100% of their pay upon returning to work.

YUGSA is particularly disturbed that the York administration stated in their supervised vote request: “Our graduate students strongly support our Fellowship model.” As a body representing graduate students, we have heard overwhelmingly from our members that they want GAs to be restored. York’s cut to GAs means that hundreds of students do not have access to CUPE 3903’s benefits package, nor the health care plan and support funds that they offer, including their Extended Health Benefits Fund, Trans Fund, Ways and Means Fund, Child Care Fund, Sexual Assault Survivor Support Fund, etc.. It also means that the work previously done by GAs has been downloaded onto unpaid internships for undergraduate students, or, to YUFA members now robbed of their valuable GAs.

These are some of the reasons why CUPE 3903 members ought to reject York’s current offer. What York has done to GAs they are trying now to do to TAs by using the fellowship model of funding to detach funding language from the collective agreement, thereby loosening the union’s ability to bargain over TA funding. This loss will have serious consequences for the York graduate community.

YUGSA Condemns Violence at the Senate Chamber

YUGSA condemns York University’s response to students and workers outside and inside of Senate Chamber on Thursday, March 22, 2018. Seeing the widespread desire for students to enter the Chamber, the York administration had two viable options, which were both ignored:

1) They could have followed the Rules of Senate, which state (in Article I. Principles, 2.) that, “Senate is open to the University community unless it duly resolves to move into closed session.”

2) If the Senate Chamber was filled beyond fire code capacity, they could have resolved to move the meeting to a larger space to accommodate students, which they ought to do going forward.

Instead of pursuing these options, York put members of CUPE 3903, various undergraduate student groups, and members of CUPE 1356 into direct conflict, instructing security guards to keep students out of the chamber. The result was horrific. Senator Devin Clancy was put into a headlock by a security guard upon attempting to enter the chamber; the YUGSA senator was on the receiving end of aggressive remarks and even at one point, physical force by the secretary of senate for protesting the senate executive’s actions and for insistence on remaining at the senate chamber entrance to bear witness to how students and members were being treated. We also heard reports that members of 1356 were injured in the process. There was no security challenge to justify such actions. The students and supporters who were in the hallway, some of them members of the Senate, presented no physical danger to anyone. This highly securitized approach is not welcoming and accommodating — fundamentally, it is not what a university should be about.

Such actions revealed York’s administration goal: for the sake of political expediency, and to forge the strike in their interest, they are willing to put any and all students and workers at risk. They want to pit the members of community against each other: unions against unions, brothers and sisters against brothers and sisters, students against workers, etc. It is only by uniting that we can win our differing but interrelated demands for fair wages and working conditions, collegial governance, the abolition of tuition fees, and more.

How to Engage in Solidarity Actions with CUPE 3903

YUGSA sees three ways that the York community can engage in solidarity actions with CUPE 3903:

1) Sign the petition now to President Lenton and York administration to bargain a fair deal! (CLICK HERE)

2) Join the Cross-Campus Alliance (CCA), comprised of labour and student unions on campus, for their weekly solidarity visit to the picket lines. The next visit will be on Wednesday, April 4 from 12:00 – 2:00 pm on Main Gate (Keele St. and York Blvd.) in conjunction with the Fight for $15 and Fairness’ Day of Action for Equal Pay for Equal Work (RSVP HERE).

3) If you’re interested in organizing further solidarity actions, feel free to connect with us (e-mail campaigns@yugsa.ca), or get in touch with undergraduate students who have been occupying the Senate Chamber since March 22, which has quickly become a 24/7 organizing space around the demands that York negotiate a fair deal with CUPE 3903. The occupation shows how some students are increasingly frustrated by the York administration’s actions, particularly in disrupting the democratic and collegial governance processes at the Senate. These students are demanding that York be held accountable for their incompetence by immediately refunding the semester’s tuition for all students. York’s move to hire private security to constantly surveil picketers has also been applied to the occupiers, who are being intimidated by over-securitization on campus. You can get in touch with them via studentsforcupe3903@gmail.com, or by going to their Facebook page (click here).

Open letter from Osgoode Strike Support Committee Reply

March 28, 2018

Rhonda Lenton, President and Vice-Chancellor, York University Lisa Philipps, Interim Vice President Academic and Provost, York University Leslie Beagrie, Senate Chair, York University Lucy Fromowitz, Vice Provost, Students, York University

Osgoode Students Support the ongoing Senate Reclamation at York University

Dear York Administration:

The Osgoode Strike Support Committee endorses the ongoing occupation of the York University Senate chambers by our fellow undergraduate students in support of striking CUPE 3903 members. We affirm the constitutional right to freedom of association, expression, and assembly enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The undergraduate students occupying the Senate chambers demand that the university get back to the bargaining table and find a fair resolution to the ongoing labour disruption. We support these demands and echo their calls. The members of CUPE 3903 are the workers who make York university work; they bear 60% of the teaching load and deserve a fair deal which honours and compensates the labour they put into the university as a centre of teaching and research.

We are in daily communication with the undergrads inside the Senate chambers. We are concerned by the university’s use of private security guards–a worrying trend we first observed during the Aramark strike in 2015. We see this as an attempt to intimidate students, and break the solidarity and support extended by workers and students from across the city. We are concerned by the blatant power imbalance between the undergrads and the university administration.

Students at York and across the globe have always been at the forefront of struggles for social, political and economic justice. Indeed, we are reminded of the successful student reclamation at York University which resulted in the implementation of the university’s first sustainability policy. These were hard earned victories accomplished through successful student mobilization and direct action.

We will continue to lend our political and moral support to the undergraduate reclamation of the Senate chambers. We echo their voices and urge the university administration to get back to the bargaining table.

–  Osgoode Strike Support Committee

 

Statement by YUGSA: York must bargain a fair deal with all units of CUPE 3903 Reply