From: <kenneth.mackendrick-AT-utoronto.ca>
Subject: UofT TA Strike - Closure?
Date: 	Thu, 3 Feb 2000 17:15:15 -0500



My apologies for the cross-posting, it's just easier this way.  I haven't been 
able to respond individually to many of the supportive posts that I have 
received, I've tried...

"Here's the deal..."

After 4 days of closed-door discussions a tentative agreement was reached. This 
fell right in the middle of the final course restructuring (Feb 4) and the 
recommendations by a Task Force for Funding (that CUPE 3902 had been excluded 
from). The contents of the "deal" were not disclosed until the general meeting 
last Tuesday.  Part of the "agreement" held that the matter be resolved before 
Thursday - putting severe time constraints on possible discussion.  The 
administration had shacked us in a hall that seats 600, knowing full well that 
the union has 2400 members. So the meeting wasn't off to a good start from the 
beginning.  After an hour so of struggle and confusion, the meeting was moved 
to convocation hall, which seats about 1800.  There was probably around 1000 
people present.  Lacking microphones, the deal was disclosed.  Basically, it is 
the same deal offered in Jan (about 2% increase in wage, dental, 4 appointments 
instead of 3...), with a few extras thrown in - a lump sum signing bonus ($400+ 
/ person) a position on a few funding committees and some back-to-work 
protocol.

The losers: the 50+ people who got canned one week into the strike, 
they have to apply for a bursary based on financial need and everyone who 
wanted some sort of tuition relief (ie. 90% of the union).

There was a ratification vote, which passed after a 4 hour screaming match 
(most of the people expressed outrage - directed at the negotiating committee). 
The vote on the agreement then took place Tuesday evening and Wednesday.  It 
passed, with 60% or so for the deal and 40% against the deal.  HALF of the 
membership did not vote.

My thoughts...

We were played by the administration right from the beginning.  Not once did we 
ever move out what could reasonably be predicted by the administration.  The 
admin called us "thugs" and we locked Prichard in a room for 3 hours.  The 
admin set a deadline, and we jumped to get a deal before it came up.  They 
acted as though they were going to break the union, and we acted as though we 
could be broken.

Ultimately (in my mind), the administration wanted to test the 
political atmosphere of the university (they did); depoliticize the campus by 
siphoning off energy from general interests (tuition, programming, classroom 
conditions) to particular interests (those of the TAs); drain the resources and 
energy of the union; split the political alignments of the student body, 
faculty and union membership by taking up a polemical position (for or against 
tuition relief) and; weaken the confidence of the union in its own leadership 
by offering something that 51%+ of the membership would go for.  They managed to
succeed in every single one of these goals.

In mourning and retrospect

The Union lacked undergraduate and faculty support - largely because the 
demands of the union were for wage increases or tuition waivers for TAs.  
Although the union supports the interests and demands of the undergrad and grad 
union, we were not effective or powerful enough to pursue these interests 
through out withdrawal of labour.  Perhaps we should have demanded that tuition 
waivers be put in place not just for TAs, but undergraduates and graduates as 
well.

The union leadership (and membership) was unprepared - politically and 
administratively - to secure crucial support right from the start.

The membership desired a better contract, but did not have the resolve to 
demand it.  In other words, there was a lack of committment to tuition relief - 
stemming largely from the financial differences between departments (esp. the 
sciences, the social sciences and the humanities).

The most tragic of the consequences is the internal infighting now present in 
the union.  A majority of the membership voted "yes" out of fear (my 
assumption) - fear of decertification (a present threat from the provincial 
government) and a fear of making conditions worse for everyone involved (except 
the admin).  Large portions of the membership hold the bargaining committee 
responsible for the "weak" agreement.  In effect, almost the entire membership 
has been demoralized - the bargaining team are left feeling guilty and the 
membership betrayed.

I wish I had better news.

"disaster triumphant"
ken