In 2016, the University of Manitoba Faculty Assocation @UMFA_FAUM went on strike for 21 days. Central to the collective agreement that came out of that job action was that the opening of negotiations regarding salary and benefits would begin this year, in 2020, ahead of the end of the collective agreement, which is expires spring of 2021.
In 2016, the provincial government improperly interfered with negotiations, requiring public sector unions, including UMFA to accept contracts that offered no increase in salaries or benefits. This edict came down during negotiations, resulting in the administration retracting the benefits offer that was already on the table. Following the end of our strike, the 0% increase was left in place pending legal challenges to the province's interference
In the following year, the provincial government tried to codify this restriction through legislation: the Public Sector Sustainability Act (PSSA). The PSSA was never fully enacted into law, but nonetheless has made clear the province's intent. Under cover of 'austerity', they were intent on 'balancing the budget' on the backs of public sector workers, not only University academic staff, but public school teachers, police/fire/paramedic services, doctors, nurses, healthcare workers, social workers, public utilties providers, such as garbage collection, recycling collection, sewer and water maintenance and on and on.
In June of this year, the PSSA was ruled unconstitutional (and described as 'draconic') as an unwarranted infringement on freedom of expression and assembly. As in 2016, ours is the first public sector union to enter negotiations under these conditions.
The current provincial government, and especially the current Premier, is openly hostile to higher education (having said publically that the Province should not be funding any program that doesn't offer direct job training). He is, like many oligarchs, openly hostile to unions in general, and has demonstrated contempt for public sector workers multiple times.
The pandemic is being used as an excuse to continue this 'draconian' program, despite the PSSA having been struck down absolutely. The argument that the pandemic driven downturn in the economy has driven the 0% increase mandate is unsupportable. There was no such reason in 2016. It was clear through current negotiation that any increase to salaries or benefits, the only issues on the table this year, would be vehemently resisted by the administration in fear of reprisal from the province. (This, I think, is a reasonable fear, given the climate.) How this
So after months of 'negotiation' there had been no movement at all from the administration. Early in November, the union authorized a strike vote, empowering the bargaining committee to bring the threat of strike to the table. The authorization passed with something over 80% of the vote. The union described it as the strongest mandate ever provided, and by the largest % of members voting. The administration's negotiating team remained incalcitrant. The union responded with a strike vote, authorizing a strike to begin on Nov 16 if there was no progress in negotiation.
This move forced the administration to accept mediation, which I have described earlier. Mediation began on Thursday (or Friday) and continued through Saturday. There being 'some' progress, mediation was continued through Sunday. The result was the 'offer' that was on the table Thursday night, the night of the ratification vote.
This offer consisted of:
- a one-time COVID-19 stipend of $1950 to every member, with the provision that the member could convert that stipend into untaxable travel and expense funds
- retention of our rights to court-ordered remedies stemming from the PSSA decision
- the immediate application of schedlued performance and promotion increments, which were withheld as of April 2020 due to the state of negotiations
- a study on the salary grid and job classification in a report to be comleted before June 30, 2021, to address discrepancies within the UofM's salary structure, and inequities between us and the other research universities
I'm not going to lie, I could use $1950. The result is a total outlay of under $2,425,880. Which is a lot of money, but represents less than one percent of the university's available (unrestricted) funds , i.e the current budget discretionary surplus. And having gone as far as 2.4 million and change, going to a full $2000 for the 1244 members comes to 2.488 million, still less than 1% of the university's $254 million, and a difference of just $62,200. The figure is just suspicious.
Offering a COVID stipend in place of an actual salary or benefits offer is flat out insulting. Most universities, we are informed, have provided similar COVID stipends, including extra payments for dependent care, just as part of the transition to on-line teaching necessiated by the pandemic. Offering, in place of any discussion of salaries or real benefits, a figure like $1950 rather than $2000, when that is still less than 1% of the available funds. No one is saying we should get a big chunk of that money. There are, after all half a dozen other unions on campus that will need to be negotiated with. But if they started with the idea that they could spend 1% of the available funds, $2000 would at least sound like they were not trying to nickel and dime us over $50.
Had the offer not been accepted, negotiations would resume. The strike authorization would remain, with the potential of a strike as early as 23 Nov. This won't happen. The union's board, or whoever, will decide when would be the most effective time to begin a strike. The last three weeks of the term is probably not going to be it. So they're floating the beginning of the winter term, in time for students to withdraw and potentially apply to coursework elsewhere. This term, in spite of the pandemic and the move to almost 100% online delivery, enrollments are up 3%. They were up a bit over 11% for the summer term(s).
So that's basically where we are. Negotiations are over, and will not resume until spring next year, when the whole collective agreement expires. By avoiding as strike, we avoid taxing the good will of students, who would surely be less supportive facing two strikes in two years. (Although by all accounts, the student bodies support UMFA's position and in fact endorsed our move to job action if required.)
On the other hand, salaries and benefits, rather than having been settled, become one of at least a dozen major areas that will be open for negotiation. So the next fight will be even harder, and the need for some kind of job action potentially more dire.
On the third hand, rejecting the offer would not inevitably have triggered a strike. As long as negotiation was ongoing, and remotely productive, strike action could be delayed indefinitely, as demonstated by the scheduled strike beginning Nov 16 was avoided by the administration's agreement to enter mediation.
This is where I move into solidly personal opinion:
- I think accepting the offer makes us look weak, and we need to turn that into looking strategic
- The PR firm (or communications specialist or whatever) the union hired needs to get out in front of this, with information about why this is a strategic move, and express our frustration with inappropriate and possibly illegal government interference
- Wab Kinew and the NDP (official opposition party) needs to do something to trigger a confidence motion in the legislature, if they have any hope at all of winning it, and get Pallister and his more-for-the-rich-nothing-for-anyone-else cronies out of office
- Given the administration's stand (on the province's mandate), there was never going to be a 'good' outcome to this, for anyone. The administration needs to grow a spine and stand up to the province (and be seen doing it) and the provinicial government needs to learn to respect is public sector employees
- I think there's no way to avoid a very rough battle, with a long, long strike, unless things change a lot between now and April
No comments:
Post a Comment