缅北强奸

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.

This is the general way that university unionization works in Quebec. If people want to work collectively to have a say in their compensation and working conditions then they start a process similar to a national referendum or mini-election. For university professors, this is done by people in individual faculties or the whole university鈥攁 community鈥攂y signing union cards. Once 50% + 1 sign cards, unions apply to get a licence (i.e., accreditation with Quebec鈥檚 Labour Tribunal鈥攖he TAT) to represent the community as a bargaining unit. As part of that process, the employer and community have to agree on the composition of the bargaining unit (e.g., tenure track members of a faculty and faculty lecturers). Then the bargaining unit gets a government licence to begin bargaining and strike, if the unit deems it necessary.

Once the license is granted, everyone in the community is bound together. Some unions do not obligate everyone in the bargaining unit to become members. This depends entirely on the choices of the union makes during collective bargaining. Members of the union do not have to remain passive; they can actively participate in crafting the collective agreement.

Quebec law requires everyone in the community, whether they are a member of the union or not, to pay union dues once those due are voted on by the union. This is because the union has a duty to represent everyone in the bargaining unit and everyone benefits from the workplace improvements; therefore, everyone is obligated to 鈥渟ubscribe鈥� to the union.

Before a union can call a strike, members of the bargaining unit authorize it through a simple majority vote conducted by secret ballot. If a majority have authorized a strike, then the entire community is bound to that decision. In Quebec no one in the unit may perform their work duties for the duration of the strike 鈥� although they are not obligated to participate in activities like picketing.

Unions are democratic entities. If your unit is unionized then you can work to persuade your union colleagues not to go on strike. Strikes represent the last resort of unions and unions seek to avoid them. Ultimately, the goal of a strike is not to force you into action against your will but rather to build collective power to negotiate better terms. When a union decides to strike, it is because union members believe it is the most effective way to improve their/your situation.

Unionization may reduce individual autonomy because policies, compensation are often negotiated collectively. This potentially limits individual agreements and flexibility vis-a-vis the employer. However, unionization also enhances collective autonomy by enabling faculty to negotiate better conditions and rights together. The shift prioritizes unit decision-making over individual freedom and it balances personal autonomy with the benefits of collective bargaining.

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

It is individuals who choose to sign union cards. MAUT could choose to promote unionization but it cannot snap its fingers and become a union.

MAUT can remain neutral as well. It should be careful not to come out as anti-union for the simple reason that it is legally considered an "employer-dominated" association by allowing employers to remain members when they move into upper administrative positions.

We are currently past the point of achieving a single union since it is illegal to "poach" other union members to become a single union. That being said, the 3 existing unions have agreed to a confederation, agreeing to collectively bargain on some issues. Going forward, unions can continue to work collectively. There are any number of arrangements that could emerge (e.g., UBC). MAUT can play a role in future mergers or other arrangements at a future date. MAUT also can constructively engage with the unions now to create that space in the future.

There is no doubt that MAUT will shrink with these other unions, although it should be noted that only half of the faculty were members of MAUT prior to unionization efforts (we should ask why that is). There's no guarantee that multiple unions will weaken the faculty's voice; healthy competition could actually increase all of our influence.

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

AMPL, the law union, was interested in the same questions and therefore commissioned an independent audit of our pensions relative to U15 universities (the 15 most regarded institutes of higher education), which includes QC universities. The audit found that we are at the bottom of the U15 in terms of pensions. Additionally and according to this audit, "The terms of the plan can be changed at any time at the discretion of the university", which could be changed should pensions become part of a collective agreement. So could the secrecy around in how decisions are made concerning the pension ("the bare minimum of what is legally required with regards to disclosing records") as well as the limited engagement of stakeholders in that decision making.

According to that study, 缅北强奸 contributes the least compared to four comparable universities. AMPL is seeking to ameliorate this low number as part of its collective agreement.

You're in luck. We are currently on a trajectory of not having a single union but faculty-specific unions. Indeed, the Labour Tribunal agreed that law faculty was sufficiently distinct from other faculties that it was an appropriate bargaining unit.

Science and Medicine faculty may well want to unionize. That is up to members of these faculties obtaining a majority of union cards.

While we may have issues with the composition of other unions and associations, they are democratic entitities and make their own decisions. It is more productive to engage with the other unions and associations if there are concerns. Indeed MAUT formed the 缅北强奸 Community Council (MCC) yeas ago so that unions and associations could talk freely with each other. MCC operates independently of the administration and allows direct communication of union and association representative to discuss concerns and pursue joint initiatives.

MAUT cannot itself unionization. It can remain neutral or promote that non-unionized employees unionize.

Much of a collective agreement can extend beyond the compensatory. That being said, union members have an ongoing role in crafting the collective agreement.

MAUT may promote unionization; it may remain neutral. It cannot unionize. We are probing this issue because we cannot ignore it. If and when the 3 unions obtain their collective agreement then MAUT will lose 30% of its members.

The Constitution is silent on unionization. There is nothing in the constitution that prevents our investigating unionization. Indeed, MAUT investigated unionization twice in the past. Those investigations were 30 and 40 years ago. Arguably times have changed; administrations have become more corporate (distant from their employees); and more universities in Canada have unionized. 90 percent of faculty in QC are unionized. Although MAUT itself cannot unionize; it needs to seriously examine the benefits of unionization.

Faculty who have unionized have told us that unionization improves collegiality. This is anecdotal but we should not dismiss these voices. A central tenet of unionization is that it increases wages and improves pensions. There is sufficient data proving the association among these variables. It is important to note that we're not seeking causation here (aka unionizaion CAUSES higher wages).

A study from the University of Waterloo finds the following: 鈥淯sing administrative data which covers the full universe of faculty salaries, we find strong evidence that unionization leads to both average salary gains and compression of the distribution of salaries. Our estimates indicate that salaries increase on average by 2 to more than 5 percent over the first 6 years post unionization.鈥�

Members of the administration are generally excluded for the duration of their appointment. The reason is simple. They become employers who make decisions about the employees' compensation and working conditions. These individuals could resume membership in the union upon their return. This is quite common in other universities.

Keep in mind that increasing numbers of the administration are not faculty and that many faculty going into deans' positions and above do not return to their departments.
听

Increases in cost can happen depending on how much staff and resources are needed to support union activities. Do keep in mind that MAUT will likely have to adjust its rate upwards when we lose 25% of our membership when the unions obtain collective agreements, per our constitution.

Union dues are among the things discussed when a union forms. What are those dues for? Dues pay for more support for faculty in grievance processes, hiring of lawyers to improve bargaining positions, and support for strike funds (in case these are ever needed). If union members expect more services then that will cost more.

We cannot speak to the situation in Education. It's important to remember that a union is a democracy and union members vote on such issues. Unions can select a merit structure if it chooses. Questions about merit will be addressed during collective bargaining.

We have analyzed the numbers of faculty salaries in QC and found that Concordia's salaries, are lower, they are actually accelerating.

MAUT has analyzed salary numbers from CAUT, which they received from Statistics Canada. We did this in comparison to the U15 and to other QC universities. The university has refused to share their numbers with us. The university certainly performs poorly in terms of salary compared to universities outside QC. MAUT has found that 缅北强奸 is not the highest paid institute of higher learning in QC.

Yours is a good suggestion for something MAUT can prepare.

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.

My first concern is that unionization cannot address the root causes of our problems. In my 11 years at 缅北强奸, my sense is that administration-faculty relations decline dramatically, and my view is that this has arisen largely from an increasingly remote, secretive, and high-handed administration. It has increasingly allowed various non-academic units in the university to function without regard for supporting our academic mission as their primary (or secondary, or tertiary) concern. Rather, each unit is encouraged to focus on its own narrow functioning and interests, which usually means reducing 鈥渃osts,鈥� with the apparent assumption that these apparent savings are not simply being paid for elsewhere. This is seen in the increased downloading of administrative duties on to faculty, empowering administrative units to arbitrarily impose onerous policies and duties on faculty without consultation or meaningful cost/benefit analysis, and allowing research and teaching spaces to degrade to the point of serious functionality and safety concerns. Faculty time and labor is essentially treated as a free, unlimited resource that any administrative unit can take advantage of to reduce their own costs and workload, with no assessment of鈥攍et alone concern for鈥攖he impact on our institutional mission. This siloed managerialism and a pattern of dishonest communication (especially during the pandemic and around labor relations) underlies most of the collapse of trust, in my view.

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 缅北强奸 for the ability to do research. However, the bureaucratic reality is that 缅北强奸 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 缅北强奸 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

Should Science faculty members wish to unionize, the union can work to reduce the ambiguities that you are concerned about.

Unionization may not address all of the problems at 缅北强奸 but it is part of the solution to the root causes. A collective agreement can force greater transparency; the non-compensatory items can ensure support for our academic mission better than exists now. It can reduce the amount of downloading onto faculty. Indeed faculty representation by the association and not by a union likely has allowed the administration to download more tasks onto us. The faculty can definitely write health and safety as requirements into our collective agreement, shoud the faculty choose to do so. If they choose to include it in an agreement, faculty can decide when and when not to go remote and how much lead time is required. A union cannot guarantee greater trust or communication but it can push for the administration to be more accountable for its actions.

1) There may be little we can do about financial condition of the university; 2) a collective agreement can include numerous policies that affect working conditions like academic freedom and health and safety. It also can institutionalize greater accountability; 3) A union can push for the administration to be more accountable for its actions.

Yes. 1) This maximal obstruction and obstinence was observed when dealing with law. 2) It was maximallly punitive towards union members. That being said, the university has changed its tact regarding law and the other prospective unions. Unionized faculty can draw on numerous examples where university administrations are not as maximal as 缅北强奸.

In all unionized settings, faculty continue to have autonomy over their research. In fact, contractual language on academic freedom in research specifically protects this. Related to whether research could be protected during some type of industrial action: whether in a unionized or non-unionized workplace, faculty research is considered part of the academic job. In the case of a strike, a protocol is negotiated that allows members access to labs or other facilities where essential.

Strike protocols allow for access to labs when essential. The Tri-Council has provided the following written response in the event of a labour strike: 1) the agencies would maintain grant and award funding to researchers, students and fellows for existing research projects. Funds for grants, fellowships, and scholarships must continue to be able to be used for the eligible expenses for which the funds were awarded. During this time, in keeping with the Tri-Agency Guide on Financial Administration (TAGFA), the institution must ensure that the research project and/or the grantee's signing authority is not compromised. As such, a grantee may delegate his/her signing authority to one or more person of his/her choice at the organization for the purpose of approving research expenditures directly related to the funded research. 2) As indicated in the 鈥淎uthorization of grant expenditures鈥� section of the TAGFA: 鈥淭he grant recipient holds the authority to use the grant funds. Only the grant recipient can delegate authority to use the grant funds. The delegate should possess the skills and knowledge necessary to exercise the role effectively. Approval of the delegated authority must be formally documented using an appropriate delegation instrument and in accordance with the administering institution鈥檚 relevant policies and requirements.鈥�

See above. Labour actions can be restricted to teaching and university service activities. That doesn't prevent the employer from treating research separately, as research is part of our job. That being said, a union can establish protocols and get agreement from the employer that access to research facilities would be protected and related activities (e.g., ability to apply for grants, approve purchases, email, IT resources) would be undisturbed during such actions.

It should be noted it doesn't require unionization for the employer to adversely impact access to research. We know from the asbestos crises.

听

听

I strongly support unionization at 缅北强奸. 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 缅北强奸 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 缅北强奸 - 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 缅北强奸 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 缅北强奸 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.

Yes it is. There are strong rules in QC that protect labour rights. These rules are far stronger than for non-unionized employees.

Unionization efforts are increasing in North America. A recognition of the need for unionization is happening particularly with the adjunctification of universities and the downloading of responsibilities onto faculty.

Unionization can push back against these no-consultation no-explanation decisions.

Unionization can compel greater transparency, consultation and communication. Greater transparency, consultation and communication cannot be absolutely guaranteed but can definitely be improved should a faculty include various non-compensatory items in their collective agreement.

Should a faculty decide to unionize, MAUT should not stand in the way and should continue to advise, per its existing and future resolutions that the university should respect unions and bargain in good faith.

We see no contradictions here. Academic freedom is central to MAUT and to faculty unions.

It should be noted that discussion of unions tends to emphasize compensation and stirkes. However, non-compensatory issues among faculty are often more important. Academic freedom is a key issue in those negotiations. Unions are reponsible for creating and maintaining academic freedom, which is singularly critical for our research and teaching. As David Robinson, Executive Director of CAUT points out in his recent article in the Research Handbook on Academic Labour Markets (), Canada doesn't have laws protecting academic freedom. Instead, academic freedom has been fought for, won, and defended through collective bargaining agreements that codify it. Any non unionized university, which protects academic freedom, is forced to do so as if by a kind of herd immunity. Arguably, if faculty truly want to protect academic freedom at the university in a way that is not unilaterally revocable by the employer, they must do so through collective agreements that codify it. Of note, as part of its union negotiations, AMPL currently has a stronger statement on academic freedom than the one crafted between the administration and MAUT.

We want to be clear. AMPL did not coerce the Congress of Learned Societies. Rather they requested that these societies boycott the location of the congress in support of the faculty union. Alternate venues were found by numerous academic societies.

Is academic freedom impeded if a building or a lab has to be shutdown due to asbestos? If a MUNACA strike involves picketing a building? The ability to present, to run a conference or to teach, certainly can be impeded. But this is not a violation of academic freedom, freedom from institutional interference.

Academic freedom does not cover these sorts of scenarios (see ). A strike might significantly impact one's work environment but not diminish this fundamental right. That being said, academic freedom is not a gift granted by university administrations. It is protected mainly through its inclusion in collective agreements. Historically, faculty unions have been the main defenders of academic freedom against a university adminsitration.

There are certainly important implications for non-unionized faculty working well with unionized workers. The same holds true for union-union interactions. This question asks about a strike, which is a last resort of a union. If a union goes on strike then all faculty who are members of the union are on strike. They cannot perform their work functions.* If a unionized faculty member co-teaches a course with a non-unionized professor then non-unionized professor will have to continue to teach the course alone. If the unionized professor runs a centre, they will not be able to perform those tasks (and cannot be replaced or their functions performed unless there was an arrangement set up before the strike) even if there are professors from other units in the centre. If a union member is jointly-appointed, during a strike by their union, then they must cease all work for the employer in all units. (Inversely, if they are in a faculty union that is not on strike and the faculty union in their other unit goes on strike, they are not on strike and must continue to work.)

If a union pickets a building (their own or another) then non-unionized professors will have to choose whether to cross the picket line. They have a right to refuse to cross the line under Senate resolutions, although they forego pay if they refuse to cross the picket. (Striking unions sometimes provide picket pay in those cases, for solidarity.) In principle, a picket is not suppose to completely block access, though picketers may delay entry to attempt to talk with those attempting to pass. A strike is disruptive; it is supposed to be disruptive. The way for non-unionized faculty to reduce the disruption is for them to lobby their employer to negotiate in good faith. Arguably, it is the employer inducing the strike and not the union.

The issues mentioned in this question are certainly important details that can be worked out in a collective agreement by the union in negotiations with the employer and in direct conversations with non-unionized faculty. Under Models 2 and 3, MAUT can play a role in presenting these issues to the unions. More importantly, the administration, the employer, can demonstrate collegiality by not taking a maximalist approach in these situations.

*there are exceptions, for example, related to research protocols like laboratory access and publishing. What work can and cannot be done is also determined by the union. Teaching is one thing; how a union constitutes what can and cannot be done regarding research and publishing is part of a longer discussion that the union has with its members and then with the administration. See answer to question that talks about U Laval.

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 successful unionization drives in Law, Education and Arts were conducted independently of MAUT. Similarly, we only know of rumours of efforts听by Dentistry and Engineering to unionize. In all cases of unionization, 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

If a union calls a strike, what of our research activities, if ANY, will we have the right to continue, e.g.:

(i) presenting in conferences/external seminars; (ii) submitting research papers; (iii) peer-review; (iv) answering emails from colleagues/collaborators via @mcgill.ca

The colleagues from Laval were complaining that none of these were permitted during their strike.

Ren茅e Sieber and I were tasked by MAUT President Nate Quitoriano to answer questions our members had in order to start a discussion about MAUT and its future. We were informed that we should post answers as soon as possible, which is what I did. I assume Ren茅e will post the answers from a pro-unionization perspective soon, as well as possible rebuttals. I think this will lead to a fruitful and informed ongoing dialogue.

Please note my absolute opposition to the idea of unionization, in particular, under one organization that represents all faculties.

I do not believe that Professors in different faculties perform the same jobs. Research faculty in the sciences/medicine run large labs and teams with dramatically different demands on time and external funding acquisition compared to arts, education, or law professors. My job is more comparable to running a small business under the pressures of international competition than to the experiences of colleagues in other disciplines.

Stuff growing in labs, research staff, postdocs, or graduate students are not law students I can abandon for a strike without severe consequences to my research program, my career and the careers of my trainees.

Please stop making comparisons to 鈥榦ther鈥� universities in Quebec. The only benchmarks 缅北强奸 should care about are UBC and UofT unless you wish to descend into insignificance.

The system of forced unionization without any individual opt-out option is insane. I grew up in an unfree, socialist country and can tell you firsthand that unfree and socialist are precisely the two reasons why this country ceased to exist.

We understand that. And the current structure of faculty unionization is not university-wide but faculty-specific.

The precedent has been set at 缅北强奸 to prefer faculty-specifc unions. We understand the points but would note that it's not constructive to disparage our non-STEM faculty, who may work in large international teams. They likely experience pressure to obtain grant money and compete internationally.

More importantly, all the things faculty members hold dear are maintained at the discretion of the employer. Even protections passed by Senate may be ignored by the administration. Decisions by the employer are unilateral as opposed to formal, standardized and legally protected interations between two parties that exist in unions.

1. We have faculty-specific unions. Should members of STEM-related faculties choose to unionize then those unions will most likely craft collective agreements that handle labs and trainees.

2. There is always a strike protocol for labs. The university is presumably wise enough that it wouldn't allow animals to die or million-dollar grants to be threatened. Work necessary to continue experiments is negotiated before the strike and allowed by agreement of the union and the university. The Tri-Council issued a memo that said that funded research must be allowed to continue during a strike ().

We make comparisons to QC because higher education is controlled by provinces in Canada. More importantly, we do not believe that other QC universities have less concern for their labs and careers than we do. Presumably they have worked out access protocols that we can learn from.

There is no forced unionization. Members of faculties vote to form unions and to decide what compensatory and non-compensatory items they will cover. Unions don't function with opt-out clauses. In some unions you need not be a member. But you need to pay dues because you benefit from the collective agreement and the negotiations.

Thank you for your comments and food for thought.

As a member of the unionized bargaining unit, 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).

For decades, we have compared our salaries and some other working conditions to the group of research-intensive universities (U15): Alberta, UBC, Calgary, Dalhousie, Laval, Manitoba, 缅北强奸, McMaster, Montreal, Ottawa, Queen鈥檚, Saskatchewan, Toronto, Waterloo, and Western.

Benefits of unionization. 1. Improvements to compensation (salaries and pensions) and non-compensatory items (e.g., greater protection of academic freedom). 2. a vote on compensatory and non-compensatory items. Union members collectively decide what goes onto a proposal for a collective agreement. 3. New unions would enlarge the number of unionized faculty and, therefore, their influence.

Please refer to the pro-association response for drawbacks.

I am in favor of faculty unionization at 缅北强奸. While unions are not perfect, I think a union would help with the following issues.

听

We agree that administrative duties has increasingly been downloaded onto faculty. CAS are particularly vulnerable to this administrative dump (CAS are also seeing their teaching loads increase). Limits on this downloading could and would likely form part of a collective agreement.

Lastly, thank you for your questions. All to often we focus on tenure track faculty in MAUT and we forget our other valued teaching colleagues, who are CAS and academic librarians.

1) While I don't think neutrality has been the right principle for MAUT to adopt with respect to unionization鈥� surely MAUT is allowed to adopt the institutional position that it has done a good job and is worth preserving, and at a minimum MAUT ought to have stood for the proposition that faculty representation rightly happens at the level of the whole University鈥� and I don't think that MAUT has even lived up to neutrality over the last few years鈥� too many people who were committed to the destruction of MAUT were elected to offices and put a thumb on the scale鈥� the various "federation" options look to me like they will abandon even the minimal effort to live up to a minimal principle of neutrality.

How can a professional association built on non-adversarial collegiality institutionally ally with other institutions built on adversarial bargaining? MAUT will still have the responsibility to represent members who are not members of the various unions, including those in other faculties that are still structured as professions, and those who are "management" for purposes of labour rules: not only faculty colleagues in central administration, but also deans and associate deans of faculties, and almost certainly eventually department chairs. AMPL has shown a clear willingness to demand affirmation of its positions from other organizations. How will a federated MAUT respond when AMPL demands that its federated allies endorse its next adversarial attack on other Faculties with their conferences and academic events? How will it respond when AMPFA or AMPE repeat the process AMPL has gone through of adversarially trying to force Associate Deans and Department Chairs into the bargaining unit, when those Associate Deans and Department Chairs are still members of MAUT and reasonably expect its support? In short, how could an MAUT that formally commits to working with the various unions neutrally stand up for the rights and interests of its members when the various unions are committed to treating some of those members as counterparties in adversarial processes?

It depends how one defines neutrality. MAUT decided not to stand in the way of other faculty unionizing; one can interpret this as being neutral. This neutrality does not mean rejecting a pro-association message. MAUT can still adovcate for the faculty who are still MAUT members. More importantly, we cannot return to the way it was; faculty unions did not consult with MAUT prior to unionization and unions are now a fact on the ground.

We can intepret from unionization efforts that some 25% of members want to go in a dfferent direction from an association. MAUT is at a crossroads. Sure MAUT can tout the benefits of the association but it also needs to address why people have begun the process of formally leaving and it has to find ways of working with these individuals and unions on matters that affect all faculty.

If you feel that MAUT officials have been insufficiently pro-association then we encourage you to run for MAUT.

1. The administration, which is composed of some of our colleagues, does not need to see faculty unions as adversarial. It is within the administration's power to view unions collegially.

2. We agree that MAUT has the responsibility to advocate to the administration on behalf of its non-unionized members. We disagree about units structured as professions (e.g., grade school instruction, engineering, nursing). Professional schools can be unionized.

3. "Adversarial attack" is a misinterpretation of what happened. As part of its strike, AMPL voted to request that members of Congress take their conferences elsewhere. Some conferences did just that. Additionally, a number of associations chose not to have their seminars at 缅北强奸 due to the presence of increased ssecurity measures, including riot police due to the encampment. It bears repeating that a strike is a last resort of a union. There are other industrial actions and there are plenty of opportunities to negotiate collective agreements that benefit the members of a union. We also can lobby the administration not to take an maximalist approach every time there's a union dispute.

4. Those creating a union decide on who should be in or out of the union. Ultimately, it is up to the TAT to make a determination of what comprises the correct barganing unit, which is done in consultation with the employees and the employer.

5. Once #4 is decided then members of the union are bound together. Once the union signs a collective agreement with the employer then MAUT can no longer represent members of unions, which may or may not include department chairs or associate deans. Keep in mind that there likely will be clauses in collective agreements that allow members of the administration to rejoin the union when they are no longer seconded. If your question is asking how can MAUT represent a dean (the counterparty?) who's an MAUT member if MAUT is somehow formally related to unions? Well, that's something we should discuss.

听

These are important issues that need to be worked out. Probably not and this would give MAUT and the unions greater flexibility in constructively collaborating.

CAUT and FQPPU offer models for us as votes are weighted by the number of members one has. Keep in mind that, even before unionization efforts, MAUT did not consist of 100% of the professorate. Just over half of the professors are in MAUT. With growing unionization, it is quite possible that MAUT will not represent the largest number of faculty at 缅北强奸.