CUASA SPECIAL BULLETIN April 1998 WHAT DOES A STRIKE MANDATE MEAN FOR YOU? 1. On April 9 CUASA's bargaining team placed a comprehensive offer for a three-year contract on the negotiating table. Management's chief negotiator characterized that offer as "a significant move". Five days later management refused either to accept CUASA's offer or to put forward a revised offer of their own. A vote against a strike mandate is a vote for more stalling at the negotiating table. 2. . Whether we like it or not, bargaining is by nature a adverserial process in which perceptions of strength play a big role. It is no secret that management believes that faculty members are divided and scared. A vote against a strike mandate is a vote to confirm that belief. A vote against a strike mandate is a vote to bargain from weakness. 3. You have seen management's contract proposals: salary freeze in 1998-99, "increase" of 0.5% in 1999-2000 and 2000-01 CDIs to be cut by 10% lowering the salary cap for Associate Professors a new merit plan, with awards financed by permanent reductions in the future salaries of everyone else and distributed at the discretion of the deans. reduction of sabbatical entitlements so that approximately 14% of academic staff will lose entitlement to their last career sabbatical. the power to suspend employees without pay for up to four days as a unilateral management decision. A vote against a strike mandate is a vote for accepting those or similar contract terms. 4. On April 3 Dean Jones informed FASS Faculty Board that the impending layoffs would result in economies of $550,000 -- less than 0.4 percent of the university's budget. When you remember that management's financial recovery plan is a ten-year plan, it is simply not credible to maintain that Carleton will be financially unmanageable if economies on this scale on not realized immediately. A vote against a strike mandate is a vote in favour of layoffs based on deceptive and unconvincing financial information. 5. On January 16 CUASA members unanimously directed the Steering Committee to call for a strike vote at an appropriate moment. On April 15 CUASA members ratified the Steering Committee's decision that a vote could no longer be dalayed. The presidential officers, the Steering Committee and the bargaining team are all agreed that no alternative action is feasible, and they accept full responsibility for this decision. In such circumstances, a vote against a strike mandate is a vote against your faculty association and its leadership. A vote against a strike mandate is a vote in favour of the resignation of CUASA's presidential officers and negotiating team. An INFORMATION MEETING will be held WEDNESDAY 22 APRIL from 2-4 p.m. in C264 LOEB. Voting on the strike issue will take place on MONDAY 27 APRIL in BAKER LOUNGE near the Faculty Club, Room 409 Dunton Tower and in the LOEB TUNNEL JUNCTION (near C264) from 10 a.m. - 4 p.m. An ADVANCE POLL will be held on FRIDAY 24 APRIL in Room 409 Dunton Tower from 10 a.m. - 4 p.m. If you cannot attend the vote, you may give a colleague your proxy. It must be in writing and you must include your signature. For those away from campus who wish to use email to give a proxy you MUST include your employee number as a unique identifier. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Q. Why does our union need a strike mandate? A. To maintain equal negotiation power with management. Management has refused to directly respond to CUASA's proposals at the bargaining table, indicating their opinion that they can impose their conditions on academic staff. By providing its Bargaining Committee with a strike mandate, CUASA membership will signal its resistance not only to unnecessary layoffs, but to the imposition of a management-oriented non-collegial approach to decision-making in the university. Management's stance is predicated upon their belief that CUASA's membership does not support the union at the bargaining table. If this belief is correct, management will be able to impose its conditions on academic staff at Carleton. A glance at the range of proposals that management has put on the table indicates the likely result of a lack of support from the membership. Equal powers to the lockout option held by the employer are a necessary prerequisite to successful negotiations. Q. What would happen if academic staff voted against a strike mandate? A. Our ability to bargain with management would be seriously impaired. Management would have the ability to lock members out and even impose a new contract on academic staff after going through certain procedures. As the last two years of collective bargaining have shown, this has been a fundamental part of management's negotiations strategy. CUASA's team would lack powers to counterbalance those of management. Since management's proposals have serious consequences for our membership if they were to prevail, without a strike mandate a negotiated settlement would likely leave our members in a significantly worsened position compared to our current Collective Agreement. Membership unanimously directed the Steering Committee to call for a strike vote at an appropriate moment at the 16 January meeting. On 15 April, members affirmed Steering Committee's decision that this is the appropriate moment. The Bargaining and Steering Committees see no alternative action and take full responsibility for this decision. A "NO" vote on this issue means a vote of non-confidence in both committees. In such a circumstance, the members of these committees would be obliged to resign. Q. Why call for a strike vote at all? Why not just continue to negotiate? A. With the contract expiring, and management's assumption that your Bargaining Team does not enjoy the confidence of the membership, failure to hold a strike vote concedes to management that they are correct. Bargaining could only proceed on an unequal basis, and CUASA would have little ability to resist management proposals. Q. Does a strike vote mean that we will strike on or shortly after April 30? A. Absolutely not. The vote simply gives your union a mandate to call a strike only IF AND WHEN necessary. It pre- authorizes a job action, but is not a job action in itself. In the unlikely event of a worst-case scenario, Ontario labour law requires several preliminary stages before a strike or lockout can be held. A strike is not the direct result of a strike vote. As unsettling as the prospect of a strike may be, a vote that strongly endorses giving your union a strike mandate paradoxically is the best means that we have to make sure that neither a lockout or a strike will occur. Management's power to lock out academic staff is being balanced with similar powers on the part of the union. In the past two contract negotiations, indications that CUASA would obtain a strong strike vote resulted in a dramatic about-face in terms of management's intransigence during negotiations. When CUASA members vote "YES" for a strike, giving their union a strike mandate, management will be faced with what they clearly do not expect -- a united academic staff ready to resist demands that are unacceptable to our members. A strong strike vote on 27 April will demonstrate our resolve that management must return to the bargaining table prepared to bargain seriously. A strong strike vote will show that CUASA members are prepared to defend a Collective Agreement that is collegial, fair and based on due process. Peter Fitzgerald (President), Steve Wilson (Past President), Mike Fox (President-Elect), Mark Langer (Public Relations Chair), Sonya Lipsett- Rivera (Secretary), Don Westwood (Research Chair), Al Steeves (OCUFA Director), Geza Kardos (Retired Members Rep), Pat Currie (Member at Large), Michael MacNeil (Chair, Bargaining Team/Member at Large), Alistair Tilson (Grievance Chair/Bargaining Team), John Callahan (Salary Chair/Bargaining Team), Susan Jackson (Treasurer/Bargaining Team), Gerald de Montigny (Member at Large/Bargaining Team)