CUPE 3902 Vote and Its Impact

On Friday, members of CUPE 3902 Unit 1 voted to send the latest offer by the University of Toronto to a ratification vote for February 29th, March 5th and 6th. I spoke with members of CUPE 3902 who feel that the latest offer by the university administration is not a good deal and will have wider implications beyond U of T. CUPE 3902 represents teaching assistants, post-doctoral fellows and part-time lecturers.

Carolyn Shapiro is a first-year Master's student in Philosophy and a Teaching Assistant in CUPE 3902.

Alan Wai Kiat Tang is an undergraduate student in Political Science and History at the University of Toronto - Scarborough Campus and Assistant Invigilator with CUPE 3902.


  Cupe 3902 by FTGU

Partial Transcript:

Q: How does this new offer by the university differ from the one they offered in January?

CS: On our bargaining point of trying to create tutorial and lab caps, the administration has proposed that we create a working group. However there are some problems with the solution because all recommendations made by the working group are subject to the Provost. 

What that means is we set up another bargaining table between the union and the administration, but it’s one which has no leverage. We can come to a head at the end if they disagree over what those recommendations should be. In the last round of bargaining, we created a working group and that has not been successful. It has not prevented tutorial and lab sizes from ballooning and so we don’t need a working group, we really need a solution which is caps in our opinion.

As to the graduate funding that is being replaced by (Research Assistant positions), the administration has also proposed a working group, whose recommendations are also subject to the approval of the Provost. They have given us a one time payout of $150,000 for 2012 and 2013.

It’s important to pay attention to the language in the contract that says one-time only because virtually what this means is that we are accepting a bribe from the administration to not bring up this issue at bargaining again, that the issue is closed and that we’re not plugging the loophole in the contract which stipulates that we can be paid through these taxable and non-dissertation RAs.

The third is the Doctoral Completion Grant. The administration has proposed again another one-time payout  for 2012 and 2013. That payout is $250,000. If we were to divide that between every upper year student in five and six that really only represents $312 and a doctoral completion grant is usually worth between $4000 and $6000, so that is a significant loss. This is one-time only issue so it prevents us from bargaining around it or closes that door for the future.

As for the compensation around our wages, the administration has proposed to up our wages a tiny bit 1.5% for 2011 so that it would be retroactive; 1.75% in 2012 and 2% in 2013. But ultimately this falls below the inflation rate which means that we are losing wages every year.

Q: How does this agreement differ from the last agreement in 2009?

The Doctoral Completion Grant use to cover senior students and it no longer does. The quality of education is declining and out working conditions are deteriorating. We're doing more work for the same pay. We are being overworked because we are responsible for more students all the time and at the end of the day we're making less because our wages are decreasing in that they are not matched to inflation. We've lost a lot since the last bargaining round.

Our demands are extremely modest. Our demands is to fight for what we had before. It's an insult to me that the administration won't take our demands seriously because we're not demanding that we get more, that we be paid more or that we deserve more. We're telling the administration that they have taken away something from us. They have taken away from the quality of education at U of T, not just for graduate students but also for undergrads. 

Q: What impact will this have beyond U of T? 

CS: In the age of austerity, there’s have been a huge push on the part of many corporate bodies including universities to try to impose measures on their workers which basically asks for concession and to take less and to tighten their belts. We’re seeing that here at U of T right now with the position that the administration has taken. This affects not just our bargaining round but also the bargaining taking place at many workplaces including York with CUPE 3903. I know that the TAs and contract workers there are engaged in a round of bargaining. If we take concessions, then we're empowering the employer at York to also push concessions on their workers.

Q: Why is this issue important to undergrads?

AT:  Given the context of the unpopularity of the labour movement where the perception of the public is that the union is for their membership and for themselves and not really as a community as a whole, the proposal that we put out, mainly centered on the slogan- our working conditions are undergrad's learning conditions.

We're trying to get across to undergrad students is that the reality in this job market is that a lot of undergrads who want to pursue their careers in their discipline won’t be able to do so with an undergraduate degree. The reality is a lot of them will go on to graduate and  post graduate studies to pursue their discipline.

One of the positives in the initial mobilization by the union in reaching out to the undergrads and the broader Uof T community has been to take a more social union approach - taking demands that are relevant to everyday working students. Based on my anecdotal experience, I work out of U of T Scarborough campus. The composition of that campus is more representative of working class, more people of colour; this constituency that has been more positive to our proposal because  they are centered around their learning conditions and the fact that they will be future workers as well.

I generally think that's the approach that needs to be taken by the broader labour movement. If we are going to have any relevance, we need to take a more social community unionist approach which looks to take care of its membership but also acknowledges that the broader community and articulate a point that organized labour, even though its a small section of the working class can be a lever for better social change and wages in our community. 

National Day of Action for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women

About 200 people turned out for the 7th annual National Day of Action rally for missing and murdered indigenous women. The rally called for the United Nations Committee to End Discrimination Against Women to investigate missing and murdered indigenous women in Canada. The Committee’s last investigation was into missing and murdered women in Juarez, Mexico.

The Native Women Association of Canada’s research under the Sisters in Spirit Program reported over 600 murdered or missing indigenous women over the past 30 years. The rally was also an opportunity to remember and honour the lives of indigenous women who have been denied justice and whose stories are often neglected by the mainstream media.

The federal government and the justice system have been indifferent and complicit in the disappearances and deaths of indigenous women. In 2010, the federal government cut funding to the Sisters in Spirit program, which conducted researched and raised awareness of the high rates of violence against Aboriginal Women.

The rally was organized by the February 14th organizing committee which includes No More Silence, The Native Youth Sexual Health Network, and the Native Women’s Resource Centre.

Racism Free Ontario Campaign

Racism Free Ontario by FTGU

The Racism Fee Ontario Campaign is an initiative organized by the Council of Agencies Serving South Asians (CASSA). In its second year, the campaign launched last December on International Human Rights Day and ends March 21st on the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. I spoke to CASSA’s Executive Director Neethan Shan about the campaign.

Q:   What prompted CASSA to launch the Racism Free Ontario campaign?

NS: The main focus was that we were noticing that it was becoming increasingly difficult to talk about racism in Ontario. It was covered within the discourse of multiculturalism. The root cause of racism and the fact that it was taking place. It was difficult to have those conversations. It was difficult to get acknowledgement and recognition of those issues.  

The other objective was those who were doing work against racism - anti-racism activists and advocates are often finding challenging to confront racism. In order to motivate, learn and share and collaborate, people need to know who is doing what in the field.  

Other people need to know that there are people in the field doing anti-racism activism, that we do similar work and face similar challenges.

One of the goal is to connect and celebrate anti-racism activism.

Q: How does this campaign define racism?

NS: We define racism as institutional, structural, that marginalizes individuals because of their skin colour or racial origins. We don’t follow a particular definition of racism per se because there’s multiple definitions out there. But we wanted to look at structural, institutionalized, the marginalization of individuals and the continuing legacy of those marginalization.  

Community Activist Panel on Mining Injustice and Bill C323

On February 9, 2012, the  Mining Injustice Solidarity Network hosted a panel on the injustices caused by Canadian Mining Companies overseas including Latin America and Africa. Bill C-323, introduced by NDP MP Peter Julian, would allow people anywhere in the world to bring civil action lawsuits against Canadian companies. The Federal Court of Canada would hear cases and lawsuits against Canadian companies who violate international human rights, labour rights, and environmental protections overseas. The panel was part of a series of events for Latin American and Caribbean Solidarity Month.

Members of the Mining Injustice Solidarity Network spoke of the crimes that Canadian mining companies commit with the assistance of the Canadian government.

Christine Mettler spoke about the violations of human rights and the environment degradation committed by Canadian companies such as Gold Corp, Pacific Rim and Barrick Gold and the violence, murder and rape towards local anti-mining activists. Human Rights Watch reported gang rape by security forces hired by Barrick Gold in Papua New Guinea. Instead of taking responsibility, Barrick Gold responded with racism by saying that gang rape is a cultural deficiency of the locals.  

Despite these threats, local community activists continue to oppose mining on their land. In El Salvador, communities were successful in opposing the mine proposed by Pacific Rim. The El Salvadoran rejected their proposal and using the CAFTA Free Trade Agreement, Pacific Rim in suing the government.

She says that resource extraction do not lift people out of poverty in developing countries, despite arguments by mining companies that they are helping communities by providing jobs.  Mining displaces communities and destroys their environment. 

The Harper's government initiative of Corporate Social Responsibility believes corporations can regulate themselves and have their own internal policies. There's no legal recourse to address infractions by Canadian mining corporations abroad.

Christine Mettler by FTGU

Marie Sydney says it is important not to forget that mining companies commit infractions here towards First Nations communities. Human right abuses also happen. However, Bill C323 is specifically for people who are not Canadian residents and allows them to bring civil lawsuits against Canadian companies involved in human rights and labour rights violations.

There are limitations to the bill as it doesn't allow for prosecution or fines. There are also challenges to civil lawsuits. The courts regard subsidiaries as separate entities. They don't recognize them to be the same company unless it can be proven that the person in the parent company is directing the subsidiary.

She compared Bill C323 to Bill C300. The Canadian government provides financial investments to Canadian mining companies to open mines abroad. Bill C300 set guidelines and would withdraw financial support from companies who violated human rights abroad. Bill C300 didn't get pass in parliament.

Marie Sydney by FTGU

Raul Burbano says the campaign for Bill C323 is not to support a political party or party line, but rather it is just one tool among many to make corporations accountable. The Harper government's response to criticism of mining companies was to set up The Office of the Extractive Sector Corporate Social Responsibility.  The office has no teeth, companies do not have to participate in processes that the office undertakes. Another strategy of Harper's Corporate Social Responsibility is to pour more money into mining companies by funding NGOs through CIDA to partner with mining companies on development projects.

Despite the bleak outlook, Burbano says there are many different successes of stopping mining in Latin America and he mentioned the Keystone pipeline victory here. He urged people to sign their petition at passthebill.ca.


Raul Burbano by FTGU

Fiscal Alternatives to the Drummond Report

Fiscal Alternatives to the Drummond report by FTGU

The Drummond report, to be released on February 15th, will likely recommend deep cuts to public services and other austerity measures. I spoke to Salimah Valiani, an economist with the Ontario Nurses Association, whose report Fixing the Fiscal House: Alternative Macroeconomic Solutions for Ontario, shows that Ontario fiscal crisis is exaggerated and argues that Ontario has a revenue problem and not a spending problem. It provides alternatives to the austerity measures of the Drummond report.

This interview has been condensed.

Q: In your report, you write that compared to several countries, Ontario has relatively small deficit-to-GDP and debt-to-GDP ratios. Can you explain this further?

SV: The amount of public debt that is being carried by the government relative to the wealth being produced is the debt to GDP ratio. In Ontario, it is at 34% and at the national level it is at 32%. Now this compares with about 58% for Germany; 41% for the USA and in an extreme case is Greece which is over 100%.

According to the bankers in Ontario and according to Moody’s, there’s a fiscal crisis, but when we look at the debt to GDP ratio around the world especially in rich countries, we see that Ontario has a low debt-to-GDP ratio.

The deficit to GDP ratio is also low. The deficit is the amount of shortfall for any particular year. The current rate is 3%, 3% in a capitalist economy is very standard.

Credit is a key motor of the capitalist economy and we know that as individuals. We carry debt as individuals and we don’t see that to be the end of the world. Actually, neither do the bankers. If they did, we would have even less overall wealth because people would not be able to buy and that would mean less production.

At a 3% deficit, we need to question why there is now an urge, not only on the part of Drummond, but more importantly on the part of the ruling party in Ontario and most of the opposition, to get of that 3% by 2017. We need to put that questions as Ontarians and not leave it to Drummond.

There isn’t a crisis in Ontario. Like there isn’t a crisis in Germany which is upheld as a very high performing country though it’s debt to GDP ratio is 58%. So if there isn’t a crisis, what is the fuss about?

Q: We have heard a lot about Greece and the austerity measures there. The media paints Greece as a country that has out of control spending. Your report argues to the contrary. Can you talk about the revenue problem as oppose to the spending problem in Greece and how that relates to Ontario.

SV: In Greece, when you study the longer economic history, you see there’s an incredible low rate of tax collection on the wealthy, on corporations and even on small businesses. There are also many tax breaks.

The debt that is accumulated in Greece is due to the inability of the government to collect money which then can spend socially on programs for the people. Because the revenue is so low relative to other European countries there’s social spending is low.

In Ontario, we have a similar situation, if we look at fiscal 1998 and fiscal 2003, we actually lost $6.9 billion in fiscal revenue. Why? Because of tax cuts again on corporations, companies and wealthy individuals.

That’s just a five year figure, from 2003 we have to calculate how much more have been lost. Even after the Conservative party was voted out of Ontario, the tax cuts continued and there is a plan to continue them still. We need to calculate from 2003 onwards to know further losses that have been the reality for the Ontario government. What we do know, for the calculation right now, is that Ontario is third from the bottom in terms of public social spending in Canada.

Q: How has austerity measures in Greece made things worse?

SV: Austerity is cutting public spending which targets public sector workers. What we see in Greece is a huge increase in unemployment because the public sector workers are losing their jobs and that then means that you have even less tax collection. The Greek unemployment rate is now 17% and that is at least 6% more than it was before the public spending cuts happened in 2010. We had 17.5% in 2011 and before that, it was 11.4%.

In Ontario, we have had a lot of job losses and we have a higher rate of unemployment than most of the other provinces in Canada.

If we also entertain public sector spending cuts, we’re simply going to add to the numbers of unemployed workers. Similar to Greece, we will have less fiscal capacity, more workers out of jobs and less able to pay taxes. We will dig ourselves into a further hole except that we will bring down the deficit –this is the argument that is being made.

Does it make sense? We need to ask ourselves and we need to ask our elected officials.

Q: There’s a lot of buzz around the Drummond report being released on Feb. 15th. The report is treated like it’s the answers to all of Ontario’s problems by the mainstream media and these answers are given by one man - Don Drummond, who is the former economist for TD Bank. What else can you tell us about him?

SV: Prior to that, he was working in Paul Martin’s office back when the Canadian government decided to get rid of the debt quickly and made immense cuts in health transfers to the provinces. That was the design of Don Drummond.

Q: We’ve already heard a little bit about the contents of Drummond report such as reducing annual spending increases to 1% and 3% for health care. What consequences will this have for health care and nurses?