捆绑SM社区

Does this mean I could be forced into s union membership against my will and forced to go on strike if the union so decides?听听That would be a huge reduction in my autonomy as we have seen with the tenured faculty.

听

As a member of the bargaining unit (Faculty) you are not forced to be a member of the bargaining agent (union). However, there will nevertheless be a deduction from your pay equivalent to whatever the union dues are, as determined by the union. The collective agreement would apply to the bargaining unit, including those not members of the bargaining agent (union). I assume that you would be on strike with the others of the bargaining unit that are on strike.

I think all 捆绑SM社区 faculty should unionize and the MAUT should transform itself into an organization that brings about this change. Otherwise the unionized groups will multiply at 捆绑SM社区 (the trend is clear) and the multiplication of unions will weaken 捆绑SM社区 staff. MAUT鈥檚 importance will wane until it becomes irrelevant.

听

Some of the different models of representation were presented at the Spring MAUT GM. A summary can be found in the minutes of the MAUT Council meeting of September 25, 2024 and in the Fall MAUT Newsletter

I am writing in response to the invitation of 1 October 2024 to provide questions regarding the 4 models for MAUT going forward. My question:

Will any of the proposed models re-orient MAUT toward more inclusive representation and advocacy for all faculty?

I am full supportive of the right to collective bargaining and for units to pursue this where it has sufficient support. I ambivalent about unionization for my faculty (Science) and wish to contribute my thoughts on the current context and concerns about unionization to the discussion.

Some of these workload-related problems could be addressed through collective bargaining. However, three of the principle causes of these problems are 1) the poor overall financial condition of the university, 2) a management culture that does not engage in any serious policy assessment and is allergic to all forms of accountability, and 3) our deferred maintenance and infrastructure problems. I do not believe any these can be improved through unionization, because they are related to external (political) and internal (administrative dysfunction) factors that collective bargaining simply cannot effectively address.

My second concern is related to research. I am very concerned about the potential for disruptions to research caused by future labor actions. This is based on 2 observations: 1. The administration has demonstrated itself to be maximally obstructive and obstinate when engaging with unions, making strikes seem inevitable. 2. The administration is also maximally punitive toward union members during strikes.

Like most academics, I do not view my research as work done on behalf of my employer. It contributes to my broader field and my personal reputation as a scientist, which travels with me if I leave. My research agenda is not set, overseen, or meaningfully assessed by my employer. I do not get the sense that the administration would particularly care if I stopped doing research altogether, and I desire neither their approval or commendation for the research I do. The direct costs of my research are funded by external granting agencies. Because I use these grants to pay my students鈥� tuition, I am effectively paying 捆绑SM社区 for the ability to do research. However, the bureaucratic reality is that 捆绑SM社区 owns or administers all research-related resources and controls my access to them. It is intolerable to imagine a situation where a labor action results in the loss of access to my laboratory and my ability to continue to participate in my field (apply for and review grants, submit and review papers, travel to conferences, perform experiments and supervise the research activities of graduate students, etc.). Many of us in the natural and health sciences do work where even a minimal disruption of days or weeks can have enormous impacts on our research progress and competitiveness for funding. For example, when Stewart Biology closed for a couple of weeks due to flooding and asbestos, many labs lost weeks or months of work.

My sense is that unionization would inherently involve categorizing research activities as work done for the employer, and I am certain 捆绑SM社区 would use the leverage it gains from controlling these resources to undermine bargaining and negotiations. For me to support unionization would require a guarantee that labor actions would be exclusive to teaching and university service activities, and a guarantee that access to research facilities and related resources (ability to apply for grants, approve purchases, email, IT resources, etc.) would be undisturbed during such actions. I would strongly oppose any bargaining position or collective agreement that did not explicitly contain these provisions, and I would encourage my colleagues in laboratory-based research to do the same

听

Hello, just a note that I strongly support unionization at 捆绑SM社区. I do so because of several reasons:

1. Unionization is the norm in Quebec.

2. Generally speaking unionization is increasing in North America at this moment, and it is a good thing to have in place for a more just workplace environment.

3. We have seen multiple times during and after the pandemic that 捆绑SM社区 administration can make unilateral decisions and impose them on us faculty members and staff with no explanation. These decisions have affected almost every aspect of our teaching and workplace experience at 捆绑SM社区 - from how we teach to what we teach (this has been less pronounced but there are many warning signs that in the future what we teach will become an ideological battleground) to when and where we teach, to our salaries and the possibilities of future hiring and the health of our disciplines.

a. In stating this, I do not take the view that the 捆绑SM社区 administration is acting maliciously or even cynically or opportunistically. Rather, I think that the leadership is severely dysfunctional. Because many of the administrative positions at 捆绑SM社区 seem to lack training or clear incentivization, it's just bad leadership over and over. There is also a tradition of a lack of transparency, and the decisions often seem hasty and ill-considered, in part because most of us faculty do not have access to the contexts in which they were made. Particularly given the difficult financial situation, budget decisions should be available to us, the employees, for true consultation. This has never really been the case.

In sum, unionization is the only way forward. I am not going to mourn the demise of MAUT if it is replaced by a union that actually has teeth.

1.) No, MAUT is not seeking to transform itself to a union. MAUT constitutional changes would be necessary if this were envisioned (see below). 2.) Yes, the succeeful unionization drives in Law, Education and Arts were conduted independantly of MAUT. Similalry, we only know of rumours of efforst by Dentistry and Engineering to unionize. In all cases of unionoization, MAUT was only informed after the successful union drives, although individual MAUT members from these Faculties knew. There was no advanced notice or discussions, thus taking many MAUT members including some colleagues in Law, Education and Arts by surprise. This was arguably not a collegial process. Note: We cannot vote on a constitutional amendment at a GM unless the notice for the GM includes a statement of the proposed amendment. Amendments to the Constitution must be presented at a General Meeting (GM).
Notice of the GM would need to include a statement of the proposed amendment(s).
Only Full Members (not Associate Members or Retired Members) may vote at the GM.

For further info, please see Articles XIV and VII s4 of the MAUT Constitution听