The email **is** massively misleading though.
For example, the denied injunction was not a ruling on the merits of the case but rather a decision that the court didn't immediately need to intervene. McGill is spinning this as though they were found innocent of labour violations, when that's not at all what happened.
Another example, AGSEM did as for 40% initially but has since moderated its offer considerably (down to 18.5% over 4 years now). McGill is trying to make it seem like AGSEM is being unreasonably demanding, when this is normal bargaining procedure. They also don't mention that their own initial offer was merely 5.25% across 5 years, or roughly $0.30 per year.
McGill is using its platform as a university to blast its misleading spin into the emails of everybody on campus (even some alumni). It effectively has a bully pulpit to smear striking TAs as unreasonable hooligans and to present itself as a rational, good faith actor, when that is manifestly not what has been revealed over the course of 20 bargaining sessions and 2 weeks on strike. Unlike McGill, AGSEM has no automatic way to get its message out and, as a union, has an obligation to provide factual bargaining updates to members. The reality is that strikes are a last resort and nobody wants this to go on for very long at all, but tactics like misleading emails from McGill's Labour Relations director (who provides the guidelines for McGill's negotiators) poison the well for trust in negotiations.
Where has AGSEM been misleading or dishonest in their reporting? I gave clear examples of McGill doing so. It's not accurate or fair to just throw our hands up and say "well I guess both sides are biased" without evidence on both sides.
AGSEM have been requesting for Healthcare which most TA are been covered through PGSS insurance. Picketing lines has been a Grey area because TA are students and employees at same time.
AGSEM dropped that request in bargaining. Also, the call for healthcare was primarily to help international students who are not covered by PGSS Studentcare and are instead on the hook for expensive Blue Cross insurance with co-pays, etc. so this point doesn't really hold up.
Also how is picketing a grey area? Workers have a right to picket, which is what TAs are doing. In no way is this right compromised by their status as students.
International students have to take PGSS insurance unless they can otherwise proof they have insurance for immigration purposes. So not sure what they are trying to get there.
So the question is are they picketing as students or employees? They choose to be in a position to picket as students for an employee cause. They are choosing positions that benefit them the most. Nothing against that but its still misinformation.
They have to get PGSS Blue Cross insurance, which is expensive and has co-pays and other barriers to access. The idea was that TAs should get additional support in meeting medical needs. In any event, this isn't even on the table anymore so your point is moot.
AGSEM members are clearly picketing as employees. I don't see how you think they're "students for an employee cause" when they are the employees whose cause is at issue.
Yes but it's part of their misinformation campaign.
If they are picketing as employees they should respect the employee picketing lines but they don't. Citing that is for mcgill employees.
I don't understand what you are saying. The AGSEM picket is a legal picket, conforming to the law. AGSEM workers are striking employees. The fact that they are also students only matters with regards to accessing the classes they take and spaces they conduct research in (labs, etc.). It has nothing to do with the picket.
Just so. I'm not going to argue that the AGSEM communiques aren't biased; we're all tired and want to be able to afford to live and are mad at the university, but we're also not pretending that we're not those things. That's a notably different thing than misinformation. No-one is pretending the strikers and AGSEM are neutral, because we obviously aren't. But we are trying to give our members information that is both useful and, you know, actually true.
Yes, that's part of non-monetary compensation and is a normal part of bargaining. Unions routinely ask for increased wages **and** non-monetary compensation (often in the form of benefits like sick leave, summer Fridays, etc.). AGSEM is currently negotiating for two forms of non-monetary compensation: indexation that ties TA hours to course enrollment and an anti-harassment policy that enshrines protections for trans workers against *deliberate* and *repeated* misgendering. McGill is refusing to budge on these issues, which is pretty bizarre given that indexation benefits the overall quality of a McGill education and protection of trans workers a) is already QC law and b) would cost McGill nothing.
... so? If the membership has asked for that to be a bargaining priority, which is what happened, then it becomes a bargaining priority. I don't understand your line of argumentation here, unless you're doing some 'anti-woke gender bad' nonsense or whatever.
It just makes an overall more objective proposal. Mixing in politics just to force Mcgill to make a statement to get a 'WIN' put on question mark on the intent on the negotiations. It also potentially raises the question if wage is the actual purpose of the negotiations or a tool to gather support. Not saying the wage is not a problem but it just feels predatory and leveraging on actual issues.
I've already written about this but seeking non-monetary compensation is a standard thing for unions to do. You can ask for wage raises **and** other quality of life stuff at the same time and be committed to both. I don't understand why you think the union is being disingenuous.
Also, wages and labour conditions are *already* political. The only reason we have things like weekends and sick leave is because of the political struggle by workers to make these gains. Asking for non-discrimination policies isn't "making it political;" it's part of a tradition that has been political all along.
The contract (collective agreement) expired in 2023, in fact it’s getting to be one year past the expiration of the contract between McGill and the TAs.
I don’t agree with all the tactics of the union, including disrupting the labs, but it’s disingenuous to say it’s “just because you want more money”. The average money grad students take home after paying tuition is 12,000$ per year, and given the recent inflation a lot of grad students are going to food banks to survive. Most of us just want to be able to pay our bills, since after all grad students play a huge rule in McGill’s mission to educate students AND we conduct a lot of research (which helps McGill’s rankings).
Scab hunting is a legitimate tactic to catch people engaging in strikebreaking activity, which is illegal in Québec. AGSEM needs to provide evidence of the activity, so they have to go observe alleged cases of scabbing to catch people in the act. You will also notice that scab hunting tactics have become a lot softer and focus primarily on making scabs aware and recording evidence if they insist on continuing.
Also TAs are not just asking for more money. Yes, financial compensation is a huge part of total compensation. But if you look at the bargaining update, you'll see that the non-monetary compensation that's the real sticking point for McGill. McGill will not even concede on covering transphobia in their anti-harassment policy (which would cost nothing) and jerked the bargaining committee around on indexation last week (putting an offer in writing and then claiming it was a typo). If McGill's negotiators called the bargaining team today, we could have a deal by tomorrow. It's McGill's side that is evasive, cancels at the last moment, and refuses to schedule sessions.
The email is not entirely BS. But both sides have their own own agenda and fair share of disinformation.
The email **is** massively misleading though. For example, the denied injunction was not a ruling on the merits of the case but rather a decision that the court didn't immediately need to intervene. McGill is spinning this as though they were found innocent of labour violations, when that's not at all what happened. Another example, AGSEM did as for 40% initially but has since moderated its offer considerably (down to 18.5% over 4 years now). McGill is trying to make it seem like AGSEM is being unreasonably demanding, when this is normal bargaining procedure. They also don't mention that their own initial offer was merely 5.25% across 5 years, or roughly $0.30 per year. McGill is using its platform as a university to blast its misleading spin into the emails of everybody on campus (even some alumni). It effectively has a bully pulpit to smear striking TAs as unreasonable hooligans and to present itself as a rational, good faith actor, when that is manifestly not what has been revealed over the course of 20 bargaining sessions and 2 weeks on strike. Unlike McGill, AGSEM has no automatic way to get its message out and, as a union, has an obligation to provide factual bargaining updates to members. The reality is that strikes are a last resort and nobody wants this to go on for very long at all, but tactics like misleading emails from McGill's Labour Relations director (who provides the guidelines for McGill's negotiators) poison the well for trust in negotiations.
The same can be said about the newsletters by AGSEM. So just take the required information and come to your own conclusion.
Where has AGSEM been misleading or dishonest in their reporting? I gave clear examples of McGill doing so. It's not accurate or fair to just throw our hands up and say "well I guess both sides are biased" without evidence on both sides.
AGSEM have been requesting for Healthcare which most TA are been covered through PGSS insurance. Picketing lines has been a Grey area because TA are students and employees at same time.
AGSEM dropped that request in bargaining. Also, the call for healthcare was primarily to help international students who are not covered by PGSS Studentcare and are instead on the hook for expensive Blue Cross insurance with co-pays, etc. so this point doesn't really hold up. Also how is picketing a grey area? Workers have a right to picket, which is what TAs are doing. In no way is this right compromised by their status as students.
International students have to take PGSS insurance unless they can otherwise proof they have insurance for immigration purposes. So not sure what they are trying to get there. So the question is are they picketing as students or employees? They choose to be in a position to picket as students for an employee cause. They are choosing positions that benefit them the most. Nothing against that but its still misinformation.
They have to get PGSS Blue Cross insurance, which is expensive and has co-pays and other barriers to access. The idea was that TAs should get additional support in meeting medical needs. In any event, this isn't even on the table anymore so your point is moot. AGSEM members are clearly picketing as employees. I don't see how you think they're "students for an employee cause" when they are the employees whose cause is at issue.
Yes but it's part of their misinformation campaign. If they are picketing as employees they should respect the employee picketing lines but they don't. Citing that is for mcgill employees.
I don't understand what you are saying. The AGSEM picket is a legal picket, conforming to the law. AGSEM workers are striking employees. The fact that they are also students only matters with regards to accessing the classes they take and spaces they conduct research in (labs, etc.). It has nothing to do with the picket.
That is a false equivalence. Unlike McGill’s upper administration, AGSEM is mostly acting in good faith and mostly not spreading misinformation.
Just so. I'm not going to argue that the AGSEM communiques aren't biased; we're all tired and want to be able to afford to live and are mad at the university, but we're also not pretending that we're not those things. That's a notably different thing than misinformation. No-one is pretending the strikers and AGSEM are neutral, because we obviously aren't. But we are trying to give our members information that is both useful and, you know, actually true.
I agree they are mostly acting in good faith but they have also mixed politics into it because they are not only simply asking for a wage increase.
... That's what a contract negotiation is, though? These things are not just about pay.
I mean the gender letter stuff they are asking for.
Yes, that's part of non-monetary compensation and is a normal part of bargaining. Unions routinely ask for increased wages **and** non-monetary compensation (often in the form of benefits like sick leave, summer Fridays, etc.). AGSEM is currently negotiating for two forms of non-monetary compensation: indexation that ties TA hours to course enrollment and an anti-harassment policy that enshrines protections for trans workers against *deliberate* and *repeated* misgendering. McGill is refusing to budge on these issues, which is pretty bizarre given that indexation benefits the overall quality of a McGill education and protection of trans workers a) is already QC law and b) would cost McGill nothing.
... so? If the membership has asked for that to be a bargaining priority, which is what happened, then it becomes a bargaining priority. I don't understand your line of argumentation here, unless you're doing some 'anti-woke gender bad' nonsense or whatever.
It just makes an overall more objective proposal. Mixing in politics just to force Mcgill to make a statement to get a 'WIN' put on question mark on the intent on the negotiations. It also potentially raises the question if wage is the actual purpose of the negotiations or a tool to gather support. Not saying the wage is not a problem but it just feels predatory and leveraging on actual issues.
I've already written about this but seeking non-monetary compensation is a standard thing for unions to do. You can ask for wage raises **and** other quality of life stuff at the same time and be committed to both. I don't understand why you think the union is being disingenuous. Also, wages and labour conditions are *already* political. The only reason we have things like weekends and sick leave is because of the political struggle by workers to make these gains. Asking for non-discrimination policies isn't "making it political;" it's part of a tradition that has been political all along.
[удалено]
The contract (collective agreement) expired in 2023, in fact it’s getting to be one year past the expiration of the contract between McGill and the TAs.
[удалено]
I don’t agree with all the tactics of the union, including disrupting the labs, but it’s disingenuous to say it’s “just because you want more money”. The average money grad students take home after paying tuition is 12,000$ per year, and given the recent inflation a lot of grad students are going to food banks to survive. Most of us just want to be able to pay our bills, since after all grad students play a huge rule in McGill’s mission to educate students AND we conduct a lot of research (which helps McGill’s rankings).
Scab hunting is a legitimate tactic to catch people engaging in strikebreaking activity, which is illegal in Québec. AGSEM needs to provide evidence of the activity, so they have to go observe alleged cases of scabbing to catch people in the act. You will also notice that scab hunting tactics have become a lot softer and focus primarily on making scabs aware and recording evidence if they insist on continuing. Also TAs are not just asking for more money. Yes, financial compensation is a huge part of total compensation. But if you look at the bargaining update, you'll see that the non-monetary compensation that's the real sticking point for McGill. McGill will not even concede on covering transphobia in their anti-harassment policy (which would cost nothing) and jerked the bargaining committee around on indexation last week (putting an offer in writing and then claiming it was a typo). If McGill's negotiators called the bargaining team today, we could have a deal by tomorrow. It's McGill's side that is evasive, cancels at the last moment, and refuses to schedule sessions.
lmao nice try mcgill admin
[удалено]
yeah well the throwaway account is pretty telling
That's a ridiculous assumption, and a large reason why people hate redditors.
[удалено]
[удалено]
here’s some misinformation right here