Reasons for job action more convoluted and relevant to students than one might think
By Eric Onderwater
Photos by Mark Burnham
On Thursday, Nov. 1, the Burnaby SFU campus awoke to the unpleasant reality of another CUPE job action. Members of the CUPE Local 3338 were out in force, picketing in front of the library and handing out literature to people passing by.
To most students and professors, this job action is extremely annoying. Students are hard at work as they head into the final stretch of the semester in November. Most students have the bulk of their schoolwork due this month after which the specter of final exam season looms.
Who’s at fault for this?
The administration deserves blame right off the top. CUPE workers have been without a collective agreement since March 2010. The administration greatly benefits by not signing another agreement. With no agreement, the two parties operate under the parameters of the former agreement. The administration is then not obligated to raise wages or increase benefits, which would undoubtedly rise under a new agreement, even if only to account for inflation. The CUPE workers are hardly overpaid, and haven’t had a raise since 2009. The administration has been playing a nefarious game by refusing to seriously negotiate.
Things get deeper and more convoluted, and the union deserves blame as well. The main negotiating difficulty is the pension plan. The administration has known for some time that the university pension plan is deeply broken, and in need of serious remedial action.
How broken is the SFU employee pension? The numbers indicate very broken. In 2010, the unfunded liability was estimated at $64 million dollars. That is the gap between what the university and the pension assets can pay, and what the pension system will owe to retirees. In 1991 the university paid $3 million dollars a year to sustain the pension plan. Twenty years later it paid $15 million; such substantial increases still aren’t enough.
The university wants the union to move towards a defined contribution plan, from its current defined benefit plan. Faculty are already on a defined contribution plan. The defined benefit plan is 100 per cent employer funded, while both the employer and the employee fund defined contribution. The employer guarantees the contributions, and the employee has input on where the money is invested. The defined benefit plan guarantees a benefit to the employee, while requiring no input or contribution from the employee. The union ardently wants to maintain the defined benefit plan.
Should the university pony up the money to keep the pension plan going? Should the university spend $64 million dollars to ensure that the CUPE employees retire in comfort and security? Or should the CUPE employees make some sacrifices to help fund their pension?
I am highly critical of the union on this issue. We live in an age when few of us students will ever enjoy a pension. Most of us will work our entire lives in the private sector without ever dreaming of a pension. Worse, most of us will pay higher tuition fees than ever, just to get an opportunity to earn a half-decent living in today’s job market.
That $64 million will come out the tuition of students. It will mean fewer services for you and me. But worst of all, it will mean yet another drain of wealth from our generation to pay for the entitlements of previous generations.
To the CUPE Local 3338: I understand your frustration over the university’s refusal to seriously push for a collective agreement. But don’t ever tell me that you deserve your fancy, cushy pension plan. Get back to the negotiating table, take the defined contribution plan, please go back to work and let my generation try finish school. We need every advantage we can get.
