ThirdVoice

As discussed at our last meeting (sorry for how long this took ), this new function allows all on the main thirdvoice list as well as those of us on the exec list to receive the new post notifications via the mail list serve so we can keep people more in the loop as to activity on the site. The action towards the CBA talks is heating up and so I want to make sure we are paying attention. I personally think this is a VERY important contract.

Let me know if you see any issues with this new functionality.

Dave

With the pending provincial Liberal budget, it appears as though we might be in for an interesting ride with the new CBA negotiations right around the corner. The budget takes solid aim at public sector labour, including teachers, when it comes to wage hikes going forward over the next two years or so. David Agnew also mentioned that the government would be looking for a compensation freeze. So where does that leave us and our negotiating team?

I attended the “demand” setting meeting a while back and smiled when the notion of not asking for a wage increase for this contract term came up. It was firmly shot down and it was stated that the position was, “the money is there”. I wonder … is it? Or is it really the right time to be going after the wage increase? Trust me … I can always use a few more nickles in my pocket but I think we need to keep the larger picture in mind. We need to fight the battles we have a chance of winning, both in the negotiating room and with the public at large. If we go out and start hammering for a wage increase, we will lose the battle of public opinion. I am pretty convinced about this. To ALWAYS decide that our primary “demand” is a wage increase is perhaps not always the best idea.

To be fair, the overall tone of the meeting, to my ear anyway, was much improved over many meetings I have attended in the past. There was more talk about partial load issues, which for me, is a key issue. Talk about classroom focused issues was also high on the list. So, we’ll see how long some of these issues remain on the table, given that most partial load issues from the last CBA talks were amongst the first to be thrown out. There was also a LOT of partial load employees there, which I was also very pleased to see.

For me, at least, partial load issues are a key point in this CBA. And given that there are more partial load and part-time employees on the faculty at this point than full-time faculty, this should be a major point of discussion.

Please take the poll and let us know what your thoughts are on a wage freeze for this contact. And, as always, your comments and discussion is always welcome.

It’s a funny term to me …. “demand setting” … to me it usually means that we want change, or, something more than we have. Of course, this term probably means something different to different people but for me, it is adversarial in nature. I think I would rather hear something like “Contract Negotiating Points” or “Contact Renewal Points of Negotiation”; something more in-line with a partnership rather than a demand for something. But I guess we have to call it something, so “demand setting” it is.

So here’s a thought; what about in this round of negotiating, that we do not demand more money in terms of wages and remain status quo for wage demands for this contract only? Then we can talk about improving other areas of the contract, like more full-time positions, better job security for partial load people who have been here more than a certain amount of time. And another pet peeve of mine; having to wait five or six weeks between pay cheques in between contracts. The explanation I have been given for this action is that because we are not full time employees, the management want to make sure we actually show up to work the contract, so they hold back two weeks pay, which in between contracts amounts to about five weeks or so between pay periods. This can be a real financial hardship for most partial load employees. Seems to me that is a partial load employee that has been here at least five years should be trustworthy enough to pay him or her at the regular time. I can see a new employee having to wait but one that has been here a minimum of five years should be trusted enough to do their jobs … don’t you think? I am also led to believe that only a few schools within the Ontario college network apply this rule. I am not sure this is true but I do know that many, if not most departments, regardless of whether-or-not the employee is full time, part-time or partial load, do not hold back this two weeks.

I am including a poll that asks if you think that, based on the current economic conditions, that our union should not include wage increases in this upcoming contract negotiations, but rather, focus on other areas of importance to the membership. Feel free to comment and answer the poll.

 Loading ...

The article in the Star titled “Moment of Truth” for Unions is an interesting read. To me it is really much of what we are saying about the union. I believe it needs to change and adapt. Change it’s negotiating strategy from adversarial to cooperative, obviously within reason. We need to encourage more union members to take part, be involved, vote; and the union can help that process by being more inclusive rather than exclusive. But we all must do our part.

Have a read and tells us what your thoughts are on this article.

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1121505–unions-must-change-quickly-to-survive-says-secret-report-by-cep-caw

To the ThirdVoice community.

I have recently taken a leave of absence from Seneca College to pursue another opportunity. I was shocked at how supportive Seneca has been by granting me a leave. I haven’t missed the irony in this situation. The union, whose leadership I have been critical of in the past, is the very reason that this incredible opportunity exists. I am not, contrary to some peoples’ belief, a union basher. I grew up in a union city and understand the value that unions bring to middle class Canadians. I am also frequently disappointed by the abuses of the power that occur within our union. The unions have garnered significant power. This power is frequently misused and abused, in my opinion.

This abuse of power is what started the ThirdVoice. I encourage all of you to continue to push for new leadership and more transparent processes within OPSEU at all levels. I may not be standing side by side with you this time around, but I still believe strongly in what we started together.

Stay well.

Respectfully,

Tim Abbott

Well, it seems that a number of teachers from around Ontario have decided that they have had enough of OPSEU representation and feel they can provide a better forum for negotiation and representation for faculty throughout Ontario. The idea seems sound but it is probably too soon to know how effective or involved this “Association” is at this point in time. It certainly bears discussion though and so, we invite you to visit their site, read what they have to say, ask questions and discuss on this forum, your thoughts and reactions.

With the end of our CBA approaching, and the union starting to talk about “demand setting”, it is best if we do not leave this until it is too late. Think about where we are at now as teachers and where the world economy is at at this point in time and draw your own conclusions.

The ThirdVoice, along with a few other supporters, attended the general membership meeting and election of executive for our local 560 on Thursday … June 3rd.. To say the least, it was a disappointment. Below is a letter, sent by Tim Abbott on behalf of the ThirdVoice to Gord Hamilton of OPSEU, voicing our objection to the clear violation of rules and regulations in order to allow the elected executive to remain at status-quo. To our way of thinking, we no longer have a democratically elected executive and we are demanding a new election in the fall, when more of our membership will be available. We welcome your input and comments on the ThirdVoice blog at http://thirdvoice.ca.

————————————————–

Gord.

I am writing to you to protest the conduct of the meeting of OPSEU 560 last week. In particular I wish to protest the election of officers.

On arriving at the meeting I asked Ted Montgomery how many people were required for quorum. After a discussion with his executive, a number of 40 was agreed upon. Shortly after the meeting began, member Jim Carr asked that a poll of members present be taken. A list was circulated and is in the hands of the executive. That list will show that the final number in the room was about 43 members including the executive. A quorum was noted and the meeting began. I moved that the elections be moved to September to allow greater participation by members. I moved that the agenda be changed. Almost every request was denied or ruled out of order. At the point in the agenda where the elections were to be called Ted turned the meeting over to Tom Tangie to chair. At that point I rose to a point of order and notified the Chair that several of us were leaving in protest and asked that Tom recount the members in order to ensure that the meeting had quorum, which it did not. Nine people left the room, breaking quorum. The remaining members continued with the business of the meeting without quorum.

This is inappropriate. As the representative of OPSEU overseeing the elections, Tom Tangie should have declared the meeting adjourned. The OPSEU constitution states 13.11 A Convention shall be governed by the following rules of order (and in any matter not susceptible to regulation by these rules, Robert’s Rules of Order and O. Garfield Jones’ Parliamentary Procedure at a Glance shall be applied). Ted Montgomery is a stickler for making sure that Robert’s Rules are followed. Are they now to be abandoned to suit the needs of a minority?

Robert’s Rules are clear on the issue of quorum and I refer you to wikipedia for a summary of the subject including excerpts of Robert’s Rules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum . Please note the opening definition of quorum. The last sentence is most appropriate.

“A quorum is the minimum number of members of a deliberative assembly (a body that uses parliamentary procedure, such as a legislature) necessary to conduct the business of that group. According to Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, Tenth Edition, the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, the “requirement for a quorum is protection against totally unrepresentative action in the name of the body by an unduly small number of persons.”[1]”

Many other examples of this precedence can be found with little effort including this Q&A from the

“Armed Forces Pest Management Board”

“Is it true that, once a quorum has been established, it continues to exist
no matter how many members leave during the course of the meeting?
Answer:
No. Once a quorum (a majority of voting members that when assembled is
legally competent to transact business) at a meeting has been established,
the continued presence of a quorum is presumed to exist only until the
Chair or any other member notices that a quorum is no longer present. If
the Chair notices the absence of a quorum, he or she should declare this
fact, at least before taking any vote or stating the question on any new
motion. Any member noticing the apparent absence of a quorum can and
should make a Point of Order to that effect whenever another person is not
speaking. It is dangerous to allow the transaction of substantive business
to continue in the absence of a quorum.”

In closing, I ask that you declare the election and any other matters decided without quorum to be null. The minority does not rule!

I look forward to your response.
Respectfully,

Tim Abbott
on behalf of The ThirdVoice

This Thursday at 5:30PM, at the Holiday Inn, Markham, OPSEU Local 560 will hold its General Membership Meetings and … oh yes … general elections. These general elections are for seven positions including:

1. President
2. Vice-President
3. Employment Equity V. P.
4. Health & Safety Officer
5. Secretary
6. Treasurer
7. Chief Steward

as well as five delegates and four alternates.

For those of you in the 560 Local, I wonder how many of you actually knew about this and if so, were you willing to come in from your cabins or holidays or whatever you do during your time off, and participate in this process. I wonder.

It is vital, if you care about your representation by your union, and the future negotiations of our contracts, that you attend and vote, no matter what side of the fence you sit on. This will effectively decide your representation for the next two years and, given that our contract ( is it signed yet? ) is up within that two year span, the team that will represent us in the next round of negotiations. Remember our last round … if you want more of the same … then perhaps you will choose to not be involved in the decision.

I hope not. Please, if you are a member of the 560 local, come out and help decide our future.

OPSEU Local 560
General Membership Meeting – Elections
Thursday June 3, 2010

5:30 p.m. – Refreshments & 6:00 p.m. – Meeting

Holiday Inn Markham, Ellesmere East Room
7095 Woodbine Avenue (TTC buses stop at Steeles & Woodbine, and the hotel is just 250 metres North of Steeles Avenue.)