Thursday, November 19th 2009
Roy Campbell
OPINION
First, let me say that I’m glad the strike is over. I don’t think anyone enjoys a strike; we all want to avoid picket lines and having to walk way farther to get to the bus. The end of a strike should be a time when (theoretically) everyone is satisfied. The workers are pleased with the agreed-to terms, the employer is willing to provide said terms, and everyone else who is affected is glad to be rid of all the difficulties.
What stands out about the CUPE strike, however, is the fact that the student body seems to be showing contempt for the union. Throughout the strike and in the days leading up to it, people throughout campus and on the opinion pages of the Silhouette showed very little sympathy for the union, calling what they were doing “unwarranted” and “selfish.” Some people said that they supported the union, but felt that the strike was inconvenient and unfair to everyone else on campus.
I was never a saint in any of this, either. I grumbled about the picket lines and missed tutorials, I worried about a York-like situation and feared for my assignments, I wondered what the point of it all was, too. Nonetheless, I still felt that the union had a right to strike for better wages and benefits, so it was a bit unexpected when several people made some pretty harsh criticisms of the strike, some of which appeared in the Silhouette’s opinions section. These people mainly argued that the union was inconsiderate to the university and ungrateful for what it already had.
By definition, a union provides “power to the people” by working to ensure that employees are paid and treated fairly. It is meant to ensure that working conditions are acceptable to all current and future workers. This is why workers go on strike instead of simply quitting, as one commentator suggested they do, if they do not agree with their labour agreement. They feel that the conditions they work under are not fair, and they would not want anyone else who might take their job to work under the same conditions, so they feel that it is in all workers’ long-term interests to protest rather than permanently leave.
Some have argued that these people are completely selfish for protesting a $39-an-hour salary when so many people are out of work because of the recession. The first point to be clarified here is that while the hourly rate is high, it has been set to this rate because most TAs work roughly 10 hours per week, sometimes less. Because most of them are students whose time is spent on classes and assignments, a raise of roughly one per cent (¢40) is unlikely to help them pay a rising tuition, let alone offset the current inflation rate.
Secondly, while it’s true that many people are out of work, it is still important to maintain standards in the workplace. This economic situation has many people fighting amongst themselves. Rather than looking on someone who is striving to earn a decent wage with contempt, people should strive toward getting good wages as well. We are not in a race to the bottom, we should be trying (as it has been said) to “float all the boats as high as possible.” The fact that there is unemployment does not mean that everyone should be brought to a level where they are not earning what they should be. Rather, everyone should instead be working to ensure that all workers get what they need; focusing on this would help those who have lost their jobs get back on their feet faster. By insisting on a fairer contract, CUPE workers set an example of improving standards. The importance of a union is to ensure that everyone gets what they need, even when times get tough.
Some of the controversy about the strike revolved around the view that TAs were holding students’ educations hostage in exchange for benefits, however, the inherent point of a strike is to cause at least something of an inconvenience to an employer by refusing to work. There is, of course, a line between strike tactics and outright extortion, but I don’t think this strike ever crossed it.
The misunderstanding between students and TAs took the focus off of what the strike was actually about (wages and benefits) and placed it onto the picketers themselves. The resulting backlash against the union likely weakened their initiative and led to its workers feeling pressured into voting for an agreement that they may not have thought was completely fair, just to get it over with.
Hey, Did You Know?
You can be updated automatically when new comments are added using this RSS Feed. If you've never used RSS before, watch this to get started.
Loading ...
Thank you for writing this thoughtful piece. I would just like to respond to a few points.
“The first point to be clarified here is that while the hourly rate is high, it has been set to this rate because most TAs work roughly 10 hours per week, sometimes less. Because most of them are students whose time is spent on classes and assignments, a raise of roughly one per cent (¢40) is unlikely to help them pay a rising tuition, let alone offset the current inflation rate.”
As I understand it, TA jobs are meant to offset the cost of an education, not pay for it. Most graduate students have other sources of funding that track the rate of inflation (of course, this differs from department to department). Most undergrad students also have off-campus employment and OSAP to make up for the slack. If we consider about a TA-ship from this perspective, then the picture changes considerably.
“Rather than looking on someone who is striving to earn a decent wage with contempt, people should strive toward getting good wages as well. ”
I see it differently. I think we are responsible to society and taxpayers at large. When we demand more wages, someone has to pay for it (most of the university’s funds come from the government of Ontario). If everyone lives with a sense of entitlement, then society has to pay the price. I don’t think that’s being fair to society. Whenever a wage increase is demanded, I would want to ask some very probing questions — have we improved our productivity in order to deserve this, or are we just asking for more money because we can?
As responsible members of society, we ought to be able to say, you know what, I can get by — I am getting decent wage for the amount of work I’m doing. I don’t need to be squeezing the public coffers for more money. Yes, I know there is money available, and yes, I understand that the senior executive remuneration at McMaster is controversial. And I don’t speak for TAs who are genuinely underpaid (I understand there are many in the humanities… it really is unfortunate. I would be in favor of actually setting up overtime fund or something — but it would have to be done on a case-by-case basis). But I am merely standing up for my principles when I say that a wage increase really is uncalled for in this instance. I do however think that there should be certain protections like class caps etc.
I also think that the model of unionism we have in Canada is unproductive because it is inherently adversarial (it is influenced by the notion of a class struggle). There is no shared vision between the employer and the union — which leads to a fairly uncreative union whose purpose is to fight for the workers, instead of to work together with the employer to advance the organization. I believe there are better models of negotiation and representation, e.g. co-operatives, or a Polder model consensus drive union-employer relationship.