There are a number of reasons to conclude this:
- The United Steelworkers logo is printed on the handbills and posters
- It is pretty much a known fact that the UVSS Resource Coordinator (a Union position) operates the "Uvee Essess" Facebook account that created the Facebook event for "VOTE YES & SAVE THE SUB"
- An email sent to a UVSS Listserve with the subject "URGENT: Save the Student Union Building" originated from uvss.res.coordinator@gmail.com.
- The UVSS website is updated by a Union employee
- The Info Booth where posters were stamped is employs union workers
Given these facts, it seems obvious that members of the SUB Union, United Steelworkers Local 2009, are behind the "Save the SUB" campaign.
This really should not be surprising that the SUB Union's members would campaign during this referendum. The Union has a rather direct impact on the UVSS's bottom line and is at least partially responsible for the UVSS's current debt and deficit.
As readers may be aware, the SUB Union had a two month strike in 2008 before a new Collective Agreement with the UVSS was reached. In the end, neither side really came out a winner. The Union was asking for a pay increase of $3.00 over two years and received $1.50 spread out over three years. The UVSS not only had to pay this pay increase, but incurred a $200 000 debt due to lost revenue from the strike.
The UVSS's finances have never recovered from this. The pay increases in the Collective Agreement means the costs of labour in the SUB have increased by $60 000 for each of the past three years. In other words, if the UVSS was able to pay Unionized workers at their 2008 levels, the past two UVSS budgets would have actually been surpluses rather than deficits.
The current collective agreement ends in April 30, 2011.This makes the reality of SUB Union workers campaigning for the referendums particularly interesting. Do SUB Union workers hope to negotiate a better Collective Agreement if the referendums pass? Only time will tell.
Interesting argument.
ReplyDeleteSay the uvss were to decide to campaign against a tuition hike, and their unionized staff produced posters, updated the website, and handed out flyers as directed by the employer. Would this mean the union was behind the campaign or that unionized workers were acting as directed?
The staff work for the board, in particular the resource coordinator. Doesn't it make sense they would help administer campaigns?
I would be convinced by your argument if you could show that union members went to the board members in their capacity as union reps and motivated in favour of calling the referendum, and this is what started the campaign. Or if the materials were produced in the steelworkers office, for example.
I work for the GSS and if I was directed by my board to send around a notice saying the GSS loves unicorns, then I guess you could find me at work updating the website to say how we love unicorns. I might produce a pro-unicorn poster, and even stamp it so it could be displayed in our building. But dammit, I don't even believe in unicorns!
Well the important detail is that the UVSS board is claiming no involvement in this campaign.
ReplyDeleteAs stated in one of David's posts:
"the official referendum side representatives responsible for the campaigns deny any responsibility for or knowledge of the materials. UVSS Chairperson James Coccola, the official rep for the fee increase, says he didn't create "Save the SUB" campaign or distribute the materials. Director-at-Large Jenn Bowie, the rep for the election office funding question, isn't even currently in Victoria and gave the same response."
Obviously it's more of a case of ignoring/turning a blind eye to the campaign, rather than not knowing anything about it.
Thanks for the clarification, hadn't seen a post from David on this.
ReplyDeleteI am a bit confused however. how did the referendum end up proceeding, if not through the board? Was there a petition drive to get this on a ballot?
If the UVSS passed the motion to put this on the ballot, why are they taking no stance? that just seems odd to me. Especially on an issue like reallocating capital.
Oh, the board approved the five referendum questions. What they didn't approve is the 'Save the SUB' campaign.
ReplyDeleteThere have been separate small campaigns run by individual board members for each particular question.
The long and short of all this is that the UVSS has unnecessarily complicated rules for referendums (mostly because they piggy back on our electoral rules) so a lot of these technicalities like having one board member campaigning officially on a single question's 'Yes' side is in an attempt to comply with the rules.
Hmmm ...
ReplyDeleteI will say that on the whole it is better in my opinion to encourage as much debate on referenda as possible, including staff participation.
IMO, unionized workplaces work best when the union members are active in decisions and debate within the organization (as well as within the union).
Has anyone asked the union whether they produced the posters?
NFFU!
ReplyDelete