McGill’s Hyde
Park website corner with mini polling station
Our
McGill’s community members are invited to post here their concerns and letters
that are mostly ignored by our different local/top authorities. This place is for
people who hate to feel silenced or ignored and instead want to provoke
creative dialogs. It is easy to notice that the arrogance is like a contagious
disease that spreads quickly around if people do agree to tolerate this
approach for many different reasons. When our top administrators openly
manifest their extreme haughtiness toward lowest ranking workers we cannot
expect much from too long interacting with them MUNACA’s executives. It means
that also our hopes for fair labour negotiations are very illusive.
Sharing
opinions represents a very effective antidote for this situation. Let presented
below results of the recent voting ("Yes" or "No" for
negotiations or strikes) and three letters from Mrs. Dolores Raquidan in Block-1
are inaugurating our McGill’s Hyde Park website corner with mini polling
station. Our academics and students are also invited to share here their
otherwise silenced voices:
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - -- - - - -
(fragment
of Mrs. Raquidan's letter that supports this initiative – see Block-1 at the
end):
“Dear
Mr. Slawomir Poplawski,
I hope that you website could be accessed by all Union members …… I included
some copies of my letters to her about this in here."
- - - - -
- - - - - -- -
Block 2 of some alternative opinions
submitted on December 12, 2003:
“Dear Mr Poplawski,
Below is a message I (Mrs. Diana Dutz) posted on the MUNA-List last Wednesday.
I think there is important information there for the members regarding Voting
policies according to MUNACA rules. I also know that that some members are
concerned about a vote being taken between now and Christmas as many people are
starting to leave for the holidays. ……. if you would consider posting it on
your website.”
Mr. Mark Orchard-Webb’s-comments
about this situation;
As usual when a salesman is trying to sell you something of suspicious quality
McGill is in a great hurry to sell this offer before Christmas. Perhaps our
salesman has his Christmas bonus hanging on closing the sale. Sadly collective
agreements do not come with money-back guarantees. If this offer is broken like
the previous offer was, then we should most certainly send it back to Santa's
Workshop for extensive repair. If it is not obviously a bad offer then we
should take it and study it over the break, discuss any other changes we might
like to make and then vote on what to do in January.
We are the customer, and the customer is always
right!
- - - -
- - - - - -
MESSAGE:
Has it occurred to anyone that it is entirely possible, if not probable, that
we may be asked by the Union to vote on yet another contract before
Christmas? You’ve all received by now
the MUNACA bulletin “Update on conciliation” which states “We are
scheduled to meet with university representatives and the conciliator on
Thursday Dec. 11 and Saturday Dec. 13. We will keep you apprised of any
developments.” Since they’re
returning to the negotiating table, there is a possibility that the University
will offer another final proposal. They
may even remove the 4 days in dispute off the table, which as we all know
should never have been there in the first place, thus taking us back to square
one. I still have many questions which
remain unanswered from the last final offer. In the rush by the Executive to
squeeze a vote in before the end of the previous Special Assembly, many members
were not given the opportunity to express their concerns or ask questions. It
is our right to understand what we’re being asked to sign. In addition, many of
us have already made arrangements to be away over the Christmas holidays having
booked vacation time well in advance. In my area alone there are some members
whose last day is this Friday, with many others leaving over the next week. In the event that the University DOES put a
final offer on the table, we have every right and AUTHORITY to instruct our
Executive to provide each member with a copy of this document in advance. We
also have the right and the authority to request that the Executive prepare an
Information Meeting for us to give us the opportunity to ask questions about
and understand what’s in the proposal. And finally, there is absolutely no
reason that the members can’t request to postpone a vote until after an
Information Meeting has been held and after the Christmas holidays if that’s
what the members want to do.
How do we do this?
We simply tell our Executive that this is what
we want. At a Special Assembly, for example, any member may request that he or
she wants the vote postponed simply by proposing a motion to that effect. If
another member seconds the motion, the motion belongs to the Assembly and we
vote on whether or not we want to postpone until whenever we want or until
after certain conditions have been met (i.e. Information session). If you’re not sure how to word the motion
properly, you can ask the Chair of the Assembly to help you with the official
phrasing. That’s one of his jobs.
Here are some important FACTS you need to know
about MUNACA voting policies. I urge you to give these facts the widest
distribution possible among the membership. [source: The MUNACA Constitution: http://www.munaca.com/eng/legaldocs.asp?doc=constitution_eng.pdf]:
* The signing of a collective agreement can only be authorized by secret ballot
decided by a majority vote of the members who show up to a Special Meeting and
who exercise their right to vote. (article 10 of our Constitution).
* The Executive is required to give the members a MINIMUM of 2-days written
notice that the ballot will be held, although they can also give as much notice
as they think the membership needs. (art. 10)
* Only 5% of the membership needs to be present at a Special Assembly to have
quorum. Quorum is the minimum number of members needed in order to transact the
union’s business at a meeting (i.e. pass motions, votes, etc.).
So, assuming there are 1400 members, only 70 need to be present when the
meeting begins in order to make any vote taken at that meeting on any motion
valid and binding.
* Not only that, but assuming 70 people show up for the beginning of the
meeting and quorum is established: If 65 people leave before the vote is taken,
quorum is still present, according to our Constitution (article 12).
What this means is that the remaining 5 people are authorized, according to our
own Rules and Regulations (Bylaws and Constitution), to vote on the rejection
or acceptance of a contract. And in this scenario, it would only take THREE
people to make a majority vote which would be binding on the rest of the 1,395
members.
Granted, it is unlikely that 65 people would
leave. But, it is highly probable that many people would have to leave,
especially if the Special Meeting takes place at lunch time and members have to
return to work. Additionally, given that so many members may be away between
now and the return of classes, it doesn’t seem fair to deny those members a
chance to exercise their right to vote. Acting in haste or confusion or under duress
can certainly be of no benefit to us in the long run.
Happy Holidays.
- - - - - - - - -
Block 1 of some alternative opinions
submitted on December 10, 2003:
but before
presenting three letters of Mrs. Raquidan let's have a look at the results of
our union members' mini vote with two questions:
(1)."Would you vote to
stop working in the last Friday (Dec 5, 2003)?" ("Yes" or
"No")
(2). "Do you prefer
confrontation over difficult but transparently reported to the members
negotiations?" ("Yes" or "No").
100% said "No" for the first question and [probably(*)]
100% answered "No" for the second question.
(*) - In fact the
question number 2 was too compact and should be extended into two extra
questions: (2a)- Do you prefer confrontations over negotiations?, and (2b)- Do
you prefer secretive negotiations over transparent ones where the membership is
constantly updated during the all stages? By saying "probably" before
presenting 100% "No" for the second question I assume that those
people expressing confusion by this second inquiry would say extra two times
"No". Instead of contacting those people (my being abroad with
limited possibilities of communication) I use expression "probably".
Do you think that MUNACA's executives can accept these 100% results and modify
their attitude toward the membership?
- - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
Three ignored letters of Mrs. Dolores Raquidan to MUNACA's president:
Dolores
Raquidan <dolores.raquidan@mcgill.ca>
To: dot Luk <dorothy.luk@mcgill.ca>
Subject: SEVERAL OPTIONS
Send reply to: dolores.raquidan@mcgill.ca
Date sent: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 10:24:04 -0500
Dear Madam Dot Luk:
I read about the McGill Security official denying the Union members access
inside the campus. I had been suggesting (just demonstration at the gate would
be good enough in my opinion) that since some members might have hot tempers
and the University might get worried and increase the security which could
upset some Union members. Even with the dislike of most Union members that they
were not allowed inside the campus, the Union should not get upset since
getting upset, mad or angry would only make the situation bad. Anger could lead
to rage and being in this state would be assumed by both University and outside
observers as being in a state in which we don't analyze or rationalize things.
We should take the educated civilized peaceful path to make our grievances
known and maybe some people outside the University would notice (politicians
and donors and donors to be). We should be calm and have grace under pressure
like educated people (as I have met a few people within the University who are
educated but not civilized-I have been yelled at for no valid reasons at all
but I just kept quiet and I used my pen to put forth my grievances and that
maybe somebody there would take notice). I don't go for demonstrations and
strikes but since the majority of the Union members voted for them so I
wouldn't disagree with the decision of the majority. I shall use my pen (my computer
keyboards-in modern technological terms)to voice my opinions with the hope that
my suggestions could help the Union.
We should also respect the University that we are working for with respectful
words and deeds.Before November 4,2003 ,I was not in favor of merging with a
bigger union. When I analyzed that some small factors are dividing the Union, I
came to the point that I should see or get some information about what a few
members have been advocating about and why they are so very determined about
it. I have been all out( loyal and care for the Union which I'm a part) and if
I should doing anything I have the sake nd good of the Union in mind. I went to
the information of the bigger union(CUPE) and some people there asked -(1)
Would MUNACA disappear as a group if it joins the bigger union ?-and (CUPE)
officials said it will not disappear as a group and only the name disappears
but the MUNACA officials and members would still stay as a group.(2) Would the
bigger union(CUPE) mandate the small union MUNCA group to go on strike if
negotiations are on a standstill?-and bigger union(CUPE) said that it's the
small company union(MUNACA) be free and independent to decide if it would like
to go on strike and the bigger union would only assist with the problems of the
smaller union with their legal and work expertise. The bigger union also said
that we would be the one negotiating our contracts and they would only be their
to assist. Should we go beyond3 months that we don't have a contract like
University of Montreal , we should have the option to put forth to the members
of the Union the option to join a bigger union after an information session(We
would be like provincial governments in Canada but with federal government in
Canada who would be there when we need help.) We would remain as we are with
the Union officials and the members and only the name disappears but we would
still do the negotiations with the University. If the University
of Montreal didn't mind the CUPE fees and why should we since we could pay that
when we get our just and fair wage increases like the workers of the University
of Montreal. The remarks here are my own and I care and I remain loyal to
MUNACA and would abide by the decision of the majority of the Union members.
I wish the best for both the Union and the University and wisdom for both to
decide wisely.
Respectfully yours,
Mrs. Dolores Raquidan
- - --- -- -- -- --
Dolores Raquidan <dolores.raquidan@mcgill.ca>
To: dot Luk <dorothy.luk@mcgill.ca>
Subject: Freedom to choose form several options for Union members
Send reply
to: dolores.raquidan@mcgill.ca
Date sent: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:07:58 -0500
Dear Madam Dot Luk:
We should all unite together and not be divided to work on all Union issues for
both Union members together with the Union members. A lot of issues could be
divisive but the wisdom of doing the civilized educated fair just and right
thing should be followed. The group (members of the Union) is the Union but the
group (officers of the Union) is not the Union. The Union members (every
member) should have the freedom to speak what's in their minds (if truthful
other members would listen but if not truthful for sure they would not
listen),freedom to choose (in an election ,in issues brought forth for voting
etc.), freedom of information(members should not be shield away, prevented,
suppressed from getting information if they seek or are being presented to
them, freedom to protect their valuable rights (work, social etc.) and others.
To exercise these rights does not make any member less loyal or less worthy to
be a member of the union which they have been a member for such a long time[
even for those who have joined in a shorter time if they care for the Union(
unselfishly and care for the good of the Union members as a whole)]. When the
Union(MUNACA) was formed it got all the help it needs from MUNASA ( which was
an honorable act by MUNASA even if that means that their membership would go
down). The members of MUNACA are intelligent enough to be cautious before
accepting any change like merging with other unions aside from their being
persevering, being very patient, not impulsive etc.(like me probably since I
have my reservations too in joining hard line unions). If their are choices
that would benefit or would be good for the Union members then they should be
presented for a voting to them and not to suppress them since this would put
them backwards. If some big unions think that strength is in numbers, I think
this is not right all the time since strength is more often is in fighting for
something right. The Union officials have done the best that they could and if
the Union members think this is not enough then they should be given the right
to choose their paths. If they think the Union officials are doing their best
and Union members are satisfied with their efforts even if not with the
results(since they are still hopeful and patient with the conditions) ,then the
Union members would choose for them to stay. When the Union members should
choose to merge with other unions the name MUNACA might disappear but the Union
membership is still there but just took another name. It would be for the good
of the Union as a whole that they should be free to act without intimidation,
suppression etc. since we are in a civilized democratic educated free society
and that's why the Union was formed- for the good of the members of the Union.
Union members for sure are thankful for the efforts of the Union officials but
the Union members should not be restrained and then would the Union be united and
not divided. I shall follow the decision of the majority even if that is not my
choice since there could be a reason why the majority made such choice which I
at present couldn't see.The remarks here are my own personal opinion.
I wish the Union the best.
Respectfully yours,
Mrs. Dolores Raquidan
----------_---
".
. . . . … I also wrote a letter to Madam Dot Luk about how I disagree about
secrecy about minutes of Union meetings just as I would suggest that your views
(and other views like my views or opinions) be open to everybody and hoping to
be within ethical guidelines. I'm enclosing that letter here."
Dolores Raquidan <dolores.raquidan@mcgill.ca>
To: Dot Luk <dorothy.luk@mcgill.ca>
Subject: Freedom of information
Send reply to: dolores.raquidan@mcgill.ca
Date sent: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:34:14 -0500
Dear Madam Dot Luk:
I read some letters by some members of the Union that minutes and other
informations are being withheld from them. There should be freedom of access to
this information and if they are very confidential (in the legal aspects of its
content)then it would be best for you as the President of the Union to have an
audience with them to explain why some papers are confidential (could probably
interfere in the legal negotiations if made open very early). At first, I
wasn't sure if I can rely on your help since I'm just an ordinary member but my
case was so important to me that on only rare urgent occasions when I have
exhausted all the available means to do it alone by myself then I asked for your
help to intervene. I know now that you are very just, fair, caring(for all
Union members), honorable and such qualities will not go unnoticed by the
members of the Union and also with the members of Management that you are
negotiating with. People in Management would bargain as hard as they could to
get a good deal for the University but they would also want to give a good deal
to the workers if they know that the leader of the workers is a just fair
honorable person who could stand on her honorable principles within the Union
and the University. The opinions here are my own but for sure I know now that
most of the Union members admire, respect and trust your judgements.
Hoping that you would be guided by the wisdom of righteousness and valuable
honorable principles.
Respectfully yours,
Mrs. Dolores Raquidan
- - - - -
- - - - - - - -- - - -
and a letter from December 7, 2003 with the mentioned above two
questions was:
Dear
Friends,
It was a good idea to gather and walk outside the Roddick gates last Friday
lunchtime. Mr. Savoie from HR understood our feelings and even requested in his
latest letter that McGill supervisors shared the same approach to this protest.
That was smart.
But was he
able to predict that the excited crowd was going to cross the gates and shout
slogans under the Principal's window? The senior security manager (Mrs.L.S.),
blocking the middle entrance to the University at 1 p.m., refused to explain
her official position on the visibly-growing possibility of unrest, and
divulged nothing about any prepared response. It was worrying later to see the
police car entering McGill when the crowd was reaching the administration
building, but an officer explained that no action had been requested by the
administration. There was however a very nervous security guard who reported
something to his headquarters. He seemed afraid to discuss
the noisy gathering with the Munaca member concerned. The question here is: Did
Mr. Savoie consult our president about her asking the half-dispersed crowd at
the end: "Do you want return to work?" with the additional assurance
that MUNACA would take care of the financial or legal consequences of this
"spontaneous" development?
Note that almost immediately after the rally, some local administrators forced
our union members to depart from the Wong and neighbouring buildings, saying it
was a formal lock-out after our union's strike declaration. This was
unbelievable. My own confrontation with the top departmental authorities
revealed that in fact nobody from HR
or the Principal's office told them about this, and the news of Munaca's strike
had been spread by a professor (the
former departmental chair). In the presence of one manager, I then dialed 6565
to ask if Munaca had officially declared a strike. The answer was no: It was a
matter only of individual decisions. I did in fact tell the Munaca office
that an ambiguous situation had been created, in which many people were being
forced by the local administration to
go home. I got their assurance that there would be an immediate e-mailing to
all members telling them they had a free choice to work or to go home. But it
was a MUNACA hoax: No information was passed to the members that afternoon. So
instead of protecting others, my intervention just helped one secretary and me to
stay at work! (The others had been already forced to leave the buildings(*).
Who is a more dangerous? The administration with the open mandate to squeeze
unionized workers, or union executives supposedly securing our interests?
Instead of waiting for an answer from the administration after our impressive
GAM, the executives lured us into a dangerously misleading situation and
promptly left us to fend for ourselves. This can be seriously interpreted as
provocation. At stake is the general public's perception of our problems and
the real winner is the party that gains more sympathy: Either the
administration or us. Last week we were portrayed in the Gazette (http://www.canada.com/search/story.aspx?id=15bd516e-b7ad-4dce-ae5c-366c77c880ef as upstarts
planning disruption at McGill, while the administration is seen as being
reasonable leaders who are supportive of students and professors, and ready to
sacrifice a lot of money to calm the selfish unionists. After last Friday, the
corporate media will have an even darker picture of our attitude. All they will
have to do is quote the president's question ("Do you want return to
work?"), or expose the number of workers who left their place of work
without a formal strike declaration. So far the Gazette has not mentioned that
during the last assembly the majority refused the strike option, and I know
that three workers have written letters about this to the Gazette.
Now for the bigger picture: Our puppet governments primarily represent the
interests of corporations and are vocal about social problems only at times of
manipulative elections. The corporate spheres hate unions and successfully pit
spontaneous protesters against each other. In these circumstances, we do not
want impetuous activists acting as our representatives, because our public
image is most important in the long run. We need to nurture it if we want to
find fair solutions to our present labour dispute.
Unity at times of confrontation is important, but we must beware of
provocation. We must also reduce the presence of some not responsible people
representing us on a wider forum.
Sincerely,
Slawomir Poplawski
(*)P.S. Opinion-sharing. Here are two questions: (1)."Would you have voted
to stop working last Friday?" ("Yes" or "No").
(2). "Do you prefer confrontation over difficult negotiations that are
transparently reported to members?" ("Yes" or "No").
Please send your answers ASAP to spop71@hotmail.com. The results will shortly
be posted at http://munalist.no-ip.info/ and http://www.spop.addr.com/