BUFA On Strike?

Seems the faculty at Brandon University will be manning the picket lines tomorrow. I say these people should NEVER be allowed to screw around with student's lives like this. Another perfect example of unions outgrowing their usefulness.

Yes the union should have to pay for the days the kids are not getting what they paid for shame on them don't feel sorry for the workers at all . You have a job so be glad of that take these jobs and make them essential

Pavolo wrote:Yes the union should have to pay for the days the kids are not getting what they paid for

I couldn't agree more! Bravo!

Airt Mattrèssor wrote:

Pavolo wrote:Yes the union should have to pay for the days the kids are not getting what they paid for

I couldn't agree more! Bravo!

We need some pro-union guys here to argue their side.

BusDriver and grumpyRom will do the trick...

I just coughed up some substantial coin for my daughter and #2 son to go to BU. I wonder if they're going to consider a rebate on tuition for the time that is missed because of this bone head stunt.
#2 son lives in residence, so I wonder if the cafeteria and maintenance staff will cross the picket line or not. If they go out, I guess he'll be on his way home. Wait a minute, I paid for him to live there as well!!

I thought of your kids when I read that story. This is what I mean. The money spent is one thing. Time lost, especially if a full year, is unforgivable.

You got to wonder about the timing as well. Wait until classes start, then decide you need to strike. Are these guys considered "professionals"?

If they've been negotiating since April it seems to me that they've tried everything in their power NOT to strike. How long do you expect them to keep negotiating if it's clear progress is not being made? Should they just be content to keep working under the old contract for 1 year, 2 years, 5 years?

If progress is being made I'm all for continuing negotiations past contract expiration dates, but to continue working once no further progress is being made seems illogical to me. To continue working at that point removes any bargaining leverage the union would have as the employer (in this case BU) could just continue stonewalling as long as the employees (in this case proff's etc.) keep working.

Working towards a contract for 5 months past the previous contract expiry seems more than fair. While it may disrupt the students education it seems at first glance that every effort was made to not reach this point, and that perhaps some of the blame lies on BU administration just as much as the evil union. Negotiations take place between two parties, not one.

Only one party decided to strike in this case. Did the negotiations bog down in the last 3 weeks or is it just coincidence that school started at the same time?

"To continue working at that point removes any bargaining leverage the union would have "

and this is bad.. why?

Deank wrote:"To continue working at that point removes any bargaining leverage the union would have "

and this is bad.. why?

Read my point above, you keep working once negotiations have stalled and your basically saying "I'll take whatever your willing to give". At that point your no longer negotiating, your accepting the current offer. Unless your willing to remove your labour you have no leverage in negotiations.

Conversely why is it bad for the union to excersise their right to withhold their labour untill a satisfactory settlement is reached?

You would argue that it would be unfair and they would be holding the employer hostage. I would argue that it's unfair to keep working without a contract once negotiations have stalled as it holds the employees hostage.

"Conversely why is it bad for the union to excersise their right to withhold their labour untill a satisfactory settlement is reached?
"
because there should not be a union. Each person should have to negotiate his or her own wage on their own based on thier qualification and thier performance.

Freeman wrote:Only one party decided to strike in this case. Did the negotiations bog down in the last 3 weeks or is it just coincidence that school started at the same time?

I have no inside knowledge of this matter, but it seems entirely possible that they may have bogged down recently. Who knows except for the parties at the table.
Personally, I think if the union was looking to strike and had no intentions of negotiating in good faith it would have made more sense to strike in the week BEFORE schoold started. This would have put a lot more of the burden on the BU admin to reach a settlement before students started arriving. In my opinion only, holding out for 3 weeks beyond the start date indicates a willingness to try and negotiate a settlement without disrupting classes.
Like I said, only the parties at the table know what the truth is and who (if anyone) is negotiating in bad faith. It's a crappy situation for sure, but it's not fair to lay the blame entirely on one side or the other.
I just find it a little one sided to always blame the "unions" in these matters.

Deank wrote:"Conversely why is it bad for the union to excersise their right to withhold their labour untill a satisfactory settlement is reached?
"
because there should not be a union. Each person should have to negotiate his or her own wage on their own based on thier qualification and thier performance.

In your opinion.
In my opinion unions serve a very real, and very important purpose in ensuring that employees are treated fairly and equitably by their employer. It holds the employer accountable just as much as the employee. Without a union the balance of power in any type of negotiation will always lie in the hands of the employer.
And please before you go on about the Labour Board and Labour Laws, firstly neither would exist without unions. Secondly, the Labour Board is about as impotent a tool for ensuring fairness in the workplace as I've ever seen.

I'll agree that Unions have their place in SOME industries.

Primarily those which are "specialized" and non-transferable.

If you're a welder, and you lose your job, it's not that simple to switch over to become a mechanic, or a chef.

It also helps prevent people with little-to-no training to come in and start working for 1/2 the rate...and triple the risk.

But unions for supermarket employees? Maybe the butcher or the baker...but not not for the cashier, shelving, etc. Jobs which are NOT specialized having a union only increases prices for everyone...and as a union demands more, the public has to pay for it.

I don't necessarily agree with companies like WalMart which have "bottom-rate" payscales...but I DO understand their position.

You hire someone, train them, give them their smock, and some education...they work for a week, or a month, and then move on. Do you really think more pay would be an incentive to actually stick around? Not usually.

There are industries where transition-workers are expected. Those which offer college students a "start", or that hire retired people who just want something to do. Putting a union in those environments just raises prices, and does little to retain new workers. What it also does, is forces businesses to keep useless workers, at high pay-scales...because they know the union keeps them from getting fired.

A prime example of this is a Teacher's union. yes...they should have one...but the union demands more FOR teachers and less FROM them. Teachers, by their very job title, should be forced to add to their knowledge consistently. Required to attend additional courses, and test their knowledge based on current information and educational resources. Of course that education should be provided (paid for), but it should be mandatory...and it's not. A high number of teachers who have achieved their "tenure" rest on the information they have, and regurgitate it year after year, even after some of the information has become outdated or even erroneous.

But they can't be fired, because of the union...and if someone tries to challenge it...the union steps up and holds OUR CHILDREN hostage...by implying THEIR union is more important than OUR CHILDREN.

" the Labour Board is about as impotent a tool for ensuring fairness in the workplace as I've ever seen"

agreed

LivingDead wrote:

Airt Mattrèssor wrote:

Pavolo wrote:Yes the union should have to pay for the days the kids are not getting what they paid for

I couldn't agree more! Bravo!

We need some pro-union guys here to argue their side.

Well, I am *usually* a pro-union supporter. I think unions are a good idea when the work is dangerous or heavy or somethng like that... somebody's gotta protect these people from those that would like to make as much profit as possible without caring about what happens to their employees.
However, in this case, i have to agree with the anti-union guys. These professors are being TREATED to a VERY good/easy job. And the pay is pretty damn good.. i used to know one professor at the university of winnipeg making 90k a year. Comparable to many jobs out there.
I can't understand a professors union.. there doesn't seem to be any reason for it...its a profession that you KNOW is not going to make you wealthy.. but they make up by giving them such good job.
Oh welll... my 2 cents.

" i used to know one professor at the university of winnipeg making 90k a year. "

yeah and they need only teach 3 courses a term and get paid extra for every course over 3 that they teach.
Each course is held what... twice/thrice a week? Last just around an hour?

Deank wrote:" i used to know one professor at the university of winnipeg making 90k a year. "

yeah and they need only teach 3 courses a term and get paid extra for every course over 3 that they teach.
Each course is held what... twice/thrice a week? Last just around an hour?

I will give some credit where it's due.

Professor's may only teach a course that much...but they also have to maintain their curriculum, grade papers/exams, etc. Not as much as they did 30 years ago due to computers...but they still work an extra 10+ hours/week outside the actual classroom setting.

If they are involved in extracurricular activities (ie. faculty advisor for a program) they will have extra duties (and a little extra pay).

Professor's and teachers fall into that "specialized" training I mentioned earlier. I DO think they need a union or association to help speak for them "at large"...but I also still believe there should be more required of them to maintain their education, and should NOT be allowed to hold the students "hostage" to meet demands.

Teachers today should be deemed an "essential service" like police, ambulance, fire...and not allowed to strike.

I know some U of W profs.. the particular courses they teach rarely change. Preparing for a course is sending the same papers down to the photocopy department again. Grading is something they do on the bus on the way into work.

Deank wrote:I know some U of W profs.. the particular courses they teach rarely change. Preparing for a course is sending the same papers down to the photocopy department again. Grading is something they do on the bus on the way into work.

Actually...grading is probably something they have one of their teaching assistants do .

I'd be more referring to HS Teachers than College...but I was a teaching assistant when I was in college...and I have seen SOME Professors who actually work...unfortunately, they usually aren't the ones who cause problems and demand more.

Deank wrote:" i used to know one professor at
Each course is held what... twice/thrice a week? Last just around an hour?

AND lets not forget the fact that they get a paid Teaching / Research assistant (sometimes more than one) that get's paid 10-12/hour.
They are in no way endangered

Strike is over. Classes resume Friday AM. Returning daughter to Brandon tomorrow. #2 son returning on Sunday. House will now return to usual abnormal state.