– continuously
updated documents and comments
This section is
going to be updated with the most recent information on a conflict between the
Principal (hopefully developing/learning more principles when
still working at McGill !) and our staff members.
Please have a
look at three letters to Prof. Heather Munroe-Blum provoked by her latest
expose e-mailed to the McGill’s workers in the morning of Oct. 29, 2003. Her provocative letter is quoted at the end
of this text.
There have been
some stronger answers sent to our Principle and tens to MUNACA (however,
still treated by this too loyal for the administration “union” as very
confidential) expressing a deep discontent with Principle Munroe-Blums’
policies. She is directly responsible
for this recent mess and she must be held accountable for its solution. It seems that our arrogant notables are
scared by a reaction and more by the perspective “that the membership was
organizing to get external support” as one staff member was saying (see her
text in M3). That partially
explains the University’s very fast withdrawal of their proposal in the
afternoon of October 29, 2003. A
smarter governmental adviser nominated by Mr. Charest (a new provincial gladiator/clown of politics blessed by
money and influence to fool minds of Quebecers) helped slowly
thinking The Principal this time. It is
hard to predict the future, but this lady can be soon sent back to Toronto as
the previous Vice-Principal Mrs. Phyllis Heaphy after messing up McGill’s
finances (http://www.spop.addr.com/WEBPENCK.html).
This university
needs someone with wider horizons and more convincing “Vision, Achievements, Goals” (http://www.spop.addr.com/VAG.htm).
Please have a
look at the letters written by Mr. Charles Dolan, Slawomir Poplawski and Marek
Przykorski with some other comments that were helping to break a spirit of
arrogance at McGill for the first time (October 29, 2003 – the top
administrators are admitting their mistake).
It was a matter of a few hours and involved a growing pressure from our
professors. There are some more letters and the readers are requested to ask their
authors to share their reflections more openly on this website by sending it to slavekpop@yahoo.com for
being posted on this page:
Please have a look
at the letter written by Mr. Dolan:
Response1
The Principal,
Madam,
Due to my unfamiliarity with the new Webmail system I inadvertently sent out
an uncorrected draft of the following letter please destroy that and substitute
the following:
CD.
The Principal,
Madam,
Thank you for your email in which you express unequivocally the "deep
respect" in which you hold all the staff of this University.
However when considered in the light of your negotiating tactics I am left with
the conviction that this sentiment is entirely insincere and the merest
sophistry.
Have your advisers not yet explained to you that these shorter working hours we
enjoy were not a gift or the result of any largess or generosity on the part of
the employer but rather a trade-off agreed to by us, very much as a second best,
replacing expected salary increases provided to McGill by the Provincial
Government but which the University for its' own reasons could not afford to
pass on to us.
You surely must be aware that over the last fifteen years support staff jobs
have been reduced by approximately 25%, and that enrolment and faculty have all
increased during the same time consequently making considerably more work for
us to do individually. There have also been administrative tasks, never part of
our duties, down loaded on to us; such as the hated "Banner"
accounting system with neither negotiation, consultation, or compensation; and
worst of all apparently no economy to the University. To the best of my
knowledge no personnel in the administration were lost despite the fact that we
now are responsible for all these substantial duties. You will be better able
than I to know how much the administration has grown in this period, but I
suspect the increase in employees is substantial. Yet your first attempted move
in contract negotiations is to demand uncompensated concessions from us the
only sector of the University who have consistently done more with less over
every one of the last fifteen years. Thereby showing a loyalty and respect for
the University that surely deserves better treatment than to be "sand
bagged" at the table nine months into a contract negotiation like you have
done.
Your actions in trying to claw back what we justly consider our earned rights
more clearly show 'contempt' than the "deep respect" claimed by your
words. I believe and hope that you have been badly advised and led to believe
that we as a work force are apathetic and disinterested. But by now you must
have learned that that is not the case over every issue and that there are
things, which we will not tolerate. You would be better advised to economize
through a thorough overhaul of your clearly incompetent human resources
department who appear to be unable to distinguish between well-intentioned
compliant loyalty and spineless passivity.
If you truly want to find a "speedy resolution" to this conflict;
WITHDRAW these proposals immediately, at which point I am sure the Union will
be happy continue negotiations as usual. A conciliator is entirely unnecessary
unless you intend to continue to try to make changes to the contract that the
staff will NEVER agree to.
You have awakened a sleeping tiger and although you may have already heard it
clear its' throat, believe me the University does not want to hear it ROAR!
I know that the last thing the staff wish to do is to further embarrass
McGill and draw more national attention to its' falling status in the pantheon
of north American universities but if you persist with this unjustified attack
on our working conditions, be in no doubt we will not hesitate to take any
action to defend ourselves.
Lastly may I just say that to promise to redress problems with our working
conditions, which in any event are solely your responsibility as the employer
and should not exist, as an inducement to us to accept this banditry is nothing
short of contemptible
I am, yours sincerely,
Charles Dolan
Chief Technician, Department of chemical Engineering.
A second letter written by Mr. Slawomir Poplawski:
An open response to the latest
letter of Principal Heather Munroe-Blum (this text replaces the previous one
of Oct.29, 2003 e-mailed at 8a.m. in
Oct.30)
Dear Principal Munroe-Blum,
It was really moving to read
your latest address to the workers of McGill.
For the first time there has been recognition of the “senior
administration” and their “deep respect for every member of the
University and profound commitment to the fair treatment of all staff”. However, this does not identify the demands
we have made in response to the actions of the university. There is a strong division between workers
at this institution: there are those, like yourself who are the “senior
administration” or high-income earners and we the workers at the bottom who
are the poorest people in this institution.
We would like to know who these “senior administrators” are and
why they are so overpaid in this under-funded university while the workers are
continuously denied their rightful salary.
Why do we today refuse to
negotiate with the “senior administration”? The obvious reason is that those who propose we work for less
have not been subject to the same proposal themselves. The senior administration do not wish to
divulge how much they have awarded themselves in regular pay increases, and yet
they demand that those who are employed at lower levels receive “de facto“ a
pay decrease in the latest “proposal”.
This presented request should be treated as the lowest level/class
provocation that must be unconditionally withdrawn with a written apology.
The present situation at
McGill reflects on a smaller scale the marginalization felt by those across the
world in this era of globalization. We
the marginalized have to resort to desperate measures such as rejecting
negotiations and holding strikes in an effort to have our voices heard. We have learnt from experience that those
who are the “senior administration” are difficult to trust due to their double
standards and double-talk.
The current situation at
McGill represents a chance for you Principle Munroe-Blum to address the
inequality and marginalization felt by the workers both around the world and
here on the McGill University campus.
The proposed invitation of a
“neutral person, appointed by the Ministry of Labour” for negotiations
is quite contentious. We have learnt
from the many broken promises concerning the educational sector not to trust
politicians who pretend to represent the masses. Instead of appointing a costly outsider (in many dimensions), you
should find time to directly supervise such negotiations. This would correspond with your public
declaration of “the deep respect...for every member of the University and
our profound commitment to the fair treatment of all staff...respectful of
labour relations on McGill’s campuses”
Sincerely,
Slawomir Poplawski
P.S. Let’s hope that our Principal is with principles and not
without, as had seemed about 6 months ago when some students were trying to
simplify a very complex issue of human behavior in their McGill Daily.
---------------
--- - - -
A third letter from Mr. Marek Przykorski to the Principal:
R3
From:
Marek Przykorski <marek.przykorski@mcgill.ca>
To: Office of the Principal <mailadmin@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: Principal's Memo
Send reply to: marek.przykorski@mcgill.ca
Date sent: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 09:30:28 -0500
To Principal Heather Munroe-Blum
Like many of my colleagues I would like to express my dissatisfaction with your
letter to all members of Mc Gill community which instead of constructive
propositions, contains only empty words, words used so often by politicians but
not true LEADERS.
I grew up in communist country and I'm sorry to say that I was fed similar
propaganda for twenty-five years. Working at Mc Gill since 1971 I see many
changes but almost all of them are for the worse.
Many positions were cut and many have been declassified to a lower level,
therefore our workload increased dramatically without any compensation. As an
example, in Civil Engineering Department technical staff was reduced from 8 in
eighties to 4 in nineties.
I must quote Mr. Charles Dolan who wrote in his letter to you: .. that shorter
working hours we enjoy WERE NOT A GIFT of any largess or generosity on the part
of the employer but rather a trade-off agreed to by us, very much as second
best, instead of EXPECTED SALARY INCREASES.
We respect our jobs and we are proud to be a part of such beautiful and
prestigious institution as Mc Gill University, but we also expect to be treated
seriously.
Best regards,
Marek Przykorski
- --- -- - --
- - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - ---
- - - --- - - -- - - - -- -- - - -- -
- - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - -
Below are the most interesting comments that were circulated by munalist@yahoo.ca
created by Mr. Mark Orchard-Webb (Orchard-Webb,
Mark). These comments were making the
MUNACA’s executives very nervous on October 31, 2003 as their letter says: “A number of our
members have reported receiving e-mails from a listserv that is called the
“McGill University Non-Academic List” at munalist@yahoo.com and they thought
these came from the UNION.” Also the latest Executive Bulletin Nov 2, 2003.doc perfectly
reflects it.
Congratulation Mark and keep your
munacalist@yahoo.ca working for our members!
P.S. His general remarks are at M9
- - - -- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Munacalist@yahoo.ca
1
From: "charles.dolan"
<charles.dolan@staff.mcgill.ca>
To: "dorothy.luk" <dorothy.luk@mcgill.ca>
Cc: McGill University Non-Academic List <munalist@yahoo.ca>
Subject: Labour negotiations
There you go Dot!
See what happens when you show a little BACKBONE! I hope that all of you up
there in Tower Munaca realise now that you can not help the membership by
playing Humanresources' games. It is they who have to work with US We should
be setting the agenda now, we must act and they react, not the other way
around.
If our "Eminence Grise" Marcheseau cavels at simplifying things and
thereby
denying himself future fees, sling him out on his ear and get some one who can
provide us a contract without all the holes there are in the present one he
provided.
Congratulations, and please let me know if I can be of further help.
Charles
- - - - - - - - - - --
M2
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:34:15 -0500
From: Dino <dino.dutz@mcgill.ca>
Dear Dot (and members of the MUNACA Executive),
I am deeply concerned about the memo we received from the Principal's Office
today (see below) and would like some clarification from our union.
It is stated in the memo that the "University has heard the concerns of
its staff and will be presenting a comprehensive proposal at the bargaining
table in the normal course of negotiations."
All negotiations with the University have been suspended until it withdraws its
most recent proposal (re: more work without compensation) from the bargaining
table, as the members unequivocally mandated its Negotiation Committee at the
Special Assembly on October17, 2003.
1. How can the University present any proposal since there are no negotiations
at this time and no bargaining table at which to present it? If the University
has indeed "heard the concerns of its staff", does this mean its
offending proposal has been withdrawn?
I am also extremely troubled by the Principal's emphasis on a "speedy
resolution". I believe Principal Munroe-Blum is incorrect in assuming that
the McGill community "wants differences to be ironed out quickly". We
want our differences to be resolved with fairness and with respect. If this can
be achieved quickly, all the better.
However, if the University truly wanted a quick and harmonious resolution, why
does it deal in bad faith negotiations (evidenced by its sudden tabling of its
recent proposal) and why have negotiations dragged out for nearly two years
already? It seems suspicious.
The results of these contract negotiations will directly affect each and every
member of this bargaining unit. Our working environment, our professional
self-respect, our livelihood, our future is at stake here. I therefore trust I
am correct in assuming that the University would not want to act in haste
concerning such an important matter.
2. Why is the University suddenly in such a hurry?
Thank you for your attention to these matters. I look forward to your reply.
Diana
Dutz,
MUNACA member
Faculty
of Music
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
M3
From: "Alessandra Scarcia"
<alessandra.scarcia@mcgill.ca
Please encourage your fellow co-workers to go to the Shatner building today,
Friday October 31, to sign a petition to have a general assembly to discuss
with CUPE representatives the issues of affiliation. CUPE reps will be in the
Shattner cafeteria.
Today's proposal by the University is a tactic that has been used before:
whenever it got wind that the membership was organising to get external support
it came down with a proposal to stop us. Though I am not attacking MUNACA,
in all likelihood some members on the executive might very well fall for this
again.
If we don't look into this NOW, this problem will come up again in a few years
and we'll be back to square one and continue to be the most underpaid staff in
Quebec universities
Thank you for your support
Alex
- - - - - - - - - -- - - - -
M4
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 12:19:42 -0500
From: Dino <dino.dutz@mcgill.ca>
CC: of an email to MUNACA
Dear Dot,
In response to my several recent email requests to obtain the minutes of
previous MUNACA meetings, I was informed that "any member who wishes to
read approved minutes are [sic] welcome to drop by anytime
at the MUNACA office."
I came to the office this morning and was told that, unfortunately, no-one knew
where the minutes were or who had them. Apparently, these documents (every
single one of the approximately 20 documents I requested) were unavailable for
consultation.
These are the same documents which, when I originally requested that they be
sent to me by email, were considered to be of too sensitive a nature that
"this present Executive will not put the minutes on the
Website or send them out by email." Incidently, this is not the
Executive's decision to make.
Is there a deliberate attempt to withhold information which rightfully belongs
to the membership? Or is there simply an unacceptably high level of
professional incompetence at the MUNACA Office? How else can
one explain the mysterious inaccessibility of members' documents from nearly 20
different meetings?
I am profoundly shocked by this blatant slap in the face of members' rights and
I will not tolerate it. Just to clear up any misconceptions about this issue,
the Minutes belong to the members, not the Executive. We will tell you what we
want and when we want it, and not the other way around.
This morning (Oct. 30) at 10:30am at the MUNACA Office, I requested the
following documents:
- Minutes of the General Assembly of June 5, 2003
- Minutes of the Special Assembly of October 17, 2003
- Minutes of all Board of Representatives meetings of 2003 (approx. 8 meetings)
- Minutes of all C-council meetings of 2003 (approx. 8 meetings)
I am no longer requesting them. I am demanding them. Kindly send them to me by
email before the 5:00 p.m. today.
Thank you in advance for your assistance,
Diana Dutz,
MUNACA member
- - - - - - - - - -
M5
From: "charles.dolan"
<charles.dolan@staff.mcgill.ca>
To: dorothy.luk@mcgill.ca
Cc: McGill University Non-Academic List <munalist@yahoo.ca>
Subject: Compensation for Holidays
Dot,
Does the phrase in parenthesis "as automatic progression" after
compensation in the Universitys' proposal for dealing with the buyback of the 4
days mean that members at the top of their scales and therefore not entitled to
progression increases will not be compensated for this loss?
In which case you surely must have rejected this out of hand! Also please be
sure to consider that the holidays as now enjoyed are a tax free benefit and if
payment is negotiated in return for loosing them it must be more than their
strict hourly value to account for the income tax which will have to be paid on
this extra pay.
Charles
- - - - - - - - --- ----
------ ----- ----
M6
From: Dino <dino.dutz@mcgill.ca>
Subject: How to tell your union what you want in your contract
Getting Ready for Bargaining?
Get your proposals on the table
So negotiations for your collective agreement are coming up and you're
wondering how you can get some input into the proposals that your union is
going to put on the table.
The collective bargaining process is very important to you, as it is the
only opportunity you get to seek out improvements to your wages, benefits
and working conditions. So it's really important that you not only have a
good sense of what you want, but that your union knows what you want and
works hard to get it at the bargaining table.
Here are a few things you can do to ensure that your union hears you on
that critical question "what do we want to see in the new contract?"
and
that "what we want" has at least a chance of making it onto the table
and
into your new contract.
Check this link for the complete article:
http://www.ufcw.net/articles/Toolkit/getting_ready_for_bargaining-01.html
(Originally published at http://www.ufcw.net)
- -
-- ---- ------------- --------------- ------
M7
From: "Alan Hammaker"
<alan.hammaker@mcgill.ca>
Subject: POST -- Two Questions to Ponder
Question No. 1: What do the following 33 universities have in common?
University of Manitoba, Athabasca University (Alberta), Brock University
(Ont.), Carleton University (Ottawa), Concordia Union Student (Montreal),
Dalhousie University (Halifax), Ecole Nationale d'Administration Publique
(ENAP), Lakehead University (Thunder Bay), Laval University (Quebec City),
McMaster University (Hamilton), Memorial University of Newfoundland, Mount St.
Vincent University (Halifax), Queen's University (Kingston, Ont.), Ryerson
Polytechnic University (Toronto), Simon Fraser University (Burnaby, B.C.),
Trent University (Peterborough, Ont.), University of British Columbia,
University of Toronto, University of Montreal, University of New Brunswick,
University of Guelph, University of Northern British Columbia, University of
Ottawa, University of Prince Edward Island, University of Quebec in Chicoutimi,
University of Quebec in Montreal, University of Quebec in Rimouski, University
of Quebec in Trois-Rivieres, University of Regina, University of Saskatchewan,
University of Sherbrooke, University of Victoria, York University (Toronto)
Answer: There are staff at all these universities, in every province of
Canada, who are in unions represented by CUPE, the Canadian Union of Public
Employees.
* * * * * * *
Question No. 2: Why have we, as members of MUNACA, never had a full, public
and open debate on the option of affiliating with a large, professional
union?
Answer: I don't have the answer. What are your thoughts on this? Some
people believe we should have such a debate simply on the basis of our right
to make an informed choice.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
M7-a
RE: Two Questions to Ponder
From: "charles.dolan" <charles.dolan@staff.mcgill.ca>
Good morning Alan,
Having given us the answer to your first question your second should have been
"And how are the contracts of the non academic employees of these
institutions
superior to ours?" I must assume that such a glaring omission of what
would be
the strongest possible argument for your case can only mean that they are not
at all superior to ours.
God Knows I am carrying no water for our executive in this debate but I must
express my conviction that now is not the time for a certification debate.
"DIVIDE and CONQUER". The Administration is rubbing it hands together
with
glee at the prospect of a messy and divisive reaffiliation campaign
distracting us from the real problem of dealing with this aggression on their
part It is the only real encouragement they have since we showed such
solidarity at the meeting and demonstration. It is suicide for us to even
consider a huge change like this now. First and foremost we should be all
pulling together behind our present union determined to fix what is now wrong
and negotiate an acceptable contract. Afterwards you can hold your affiliation
drive and good luck to you if you win.
Timing is the most important thing in these matters and now is not the time,
If I may indulge in a little hyperbole what you are proposing is almost
treason; you are giving support to the enemy.
Charles Dolan
* * * * * * *
Alan Hammaker
- - - - - - - -
M8
From: Marie Pothier
<marie.pothier@mcgill.ca>
Subject: History of Summer Fridays and 2 floating days???
Hi,
Before we accept too quickly McGill's latest proposal, I think we need
to review carefully exactly how and what year the Summer Fridays began
as well as the 2 Floating Days. I believe the Fridays off began with a
number of half-days and over the years evoled into what we have now.
Each time it was stated to be a temporary solution to McGill's inability
to pay us the full cost of living increase. What percentage of lost
wages does it now represent? I gather that the administration's
proposed salary increases (as per item 4 of the Oct. 30 Munaca Executive
Bulletin) do not include this buy-back of Summer Fridays.
Who out there can give MUNACA members the history of this?
- - - - - - - -- - - -
M9
From: Mark Orchard-Webb
<orchard@ugrad.physics.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Not the official voice of MUNACA
Hello everyone,
Given the recent E-mail posting from MUNACA, I should perhaps state
more clearly that this is definitely not the voice of MUNACA. It is a
forum in which all members of MUNACA are invited to participate. It
would have been nice if MUNACA had created something like this, but
they didn't so I did.
The response has been quite overwhelming. Requests to join are now
more frequent than requests to leave. Since some people are
interested in the idea, but not in receiving a deluge of messages I
have decided to diversify. I am working on a web site at which posted
messages can be browsed, and email receipt options customized. I am
focusing my energies on this project for the moment so postings will
not be so frequent, then hopefully they will be as frequent as you
wish.
To those who's posting have not made it out yet ... sorry, I'm not
censoring you, your messages will get out. I just don't want to drive
people away because the volume is too great.
Cheers,
Mark
- - - - - - -- - - - - - --
- - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - --
- - - -- - --- - -- -- - -- - --
- - - - -- - -- -- -- --- -- -- - -- -- -- --- -- - - - -
Letter from the Principal (received on Oct.29, 2003 morning) was:
TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE McGILL COMMUNITY
Dear Colleagues,
In view of recent events, I want to express unequivocally the deep respect we
in the senior administration have for every member of the University and our
profound commitment to the fair treatment of all staff. Our goal is to work
diligently with unions and staff associations to sustain and grow positive and
respectful labour relations on McGill's campuses.
The University has heard the concerns of its staff and will be presenting a
comprehensive proposal at the bargaining table in the normal course of
negotiations. My purpose in writing today is to share my views on our
fundamental values, our goals and some of the challenges we are facing.
The University's proposal to increase presence at work is based on the growing
need for stable, effective presence of administrative support in a competitive
environment. Our ability to adapt will be decisive in guaranteeing that our
future is as successful as our past. The Administration is well aware that
other factors, such as compensation and measures aimed at helping employees
provide optimal services to students and professors, are also important to
achieving our goals.
For administrative and support staff, training and upgrading of skills will be
a priority. Our staff also deserve an appropriate work environment. We will
evaluate ways and, as resources permit, take steps to improve the physical work
environment, particularly in high need buildings. Resources will be allocated
to this purpose. We will also review concerns about workplace stress and workload
pressures, and examine ways to strengthen support programs designed to respond
to employee needs in this regard.
At this stage in negotiations, in order to find a speedy resolution, I have
directed University negotiators to request the appointment of a conciliator, so
that an independent, neutral person, appointed by the Ministry of Labour, may
assist the parties in negotiation to work out a solution. I trust I am correct
in assuming that our McGill community wants differences to be ironed out quickly
and harmoniously.
The Administration is determined to find mutually beneficial responses to the
concerns of all staff as rapidly as possible. I am convinced that if we are
each accountable in our progress toward clear goals, we will truly build on our
University's unique assets.
Yours sincerely,
Heather Munroe-Blum,
Principal and Vice-Chancellor
- - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - -
Her Response 1 is:
From: <heather.munroe.blum@mcgill.ca>
=====
Dear Mr. Dolan,
Thank you for your reply to my letter of October 28. I appreciate hearing your
views and those of others who have taken the time to write, and will bear them
in mind as we move forward.
I am confident that together we will find positive resolution to these issues,
allowing us to sustain and grow the University that is so important to us all.
Sincerely,
Heather Munroe-Blum
- - - - - - -
- -
From: Charles Dolan
To: The Principal Heather Munroe-Blum
Dear Principal Blum,
Thank you for your courteous acknowledgment of my letter and may I just repeat
the vast majority of Union members are just as anxious as you to improve the
efficiency and productivity of the University, What has really upset everybody
is that you have threatened the one positive aspect of our contract that we
have been able to console ourselves as redressing all the other negative
impositions we have endured without protest over the last decade and a half.
It was truly the straw that broke the camels' back.
Charles Dolan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Her Response 2 is:
Date sent: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 17:57:52 -0500
From: "Heather Munroe-Blum, Prof."
<heather.munroe.blum@mcgill.ca>
Subject:
To: "Marek Przykorski, Mr." <marek.przykorski@mcgill.ca>
Dear Marek Przykorski,
Thank you for your reply to my letter of October 28. I appreciate hearing your
views and those of others who have taken the time to write, and will bear them
in mind as we move forward.
I am confident that together we will find positive resolution to these issues,
allowing us to sustain and grow the University that is so important to us all.
Sincerely,
Heather Munroe-Blum
Her Response 3 to S. Poplawski is still missing (Why?):