Photos by Mark Burnham
A TSSU member’s view of the labor disagreement between SFU and the TSSU
If you believe in capitalism, then the images of Wall Street and business owners as greedy fat cats who have it in for the working-man are unfounded. Every successful business runs on elementary economics: it provides a service while minimizing overhead and maximizing profits. True capitalism allows consumers to choose which organization they bestow their business upon. These companies squabble for our money and, other than the quality of the product we receive, we are not owed anything.
The often-forgotten part of this equation is the worker: the employees and skilled labor who allow businesses to function effectively and efficiently while providing the best possible service. How do we evaluate their worth? Ideally, it would be a wage and system of benefits that are commensurate with their value on the open market, abilities, and performance set against company profitability. However, business is a fluid, dynamic beast, and productivity may change over time as a reflection of the economic climate. This necessitates constant re-negotiation and evaluation of the employer-employee relationship. Downsizing and the elimination of jobs are necessary evils.
Simon Fraser University is a business: the University provides a service that students pay a fee to receive. As part of its business model, SFU seeks out the best and most skilled labor (i.e. course instructors and researchers) to elevate its status in the global community and to attract the best and brightest students. Part of this labor force is the coalition of teaching assistants, tutor markers, sessionals, and language and culture instructors who are hired to either buttress the work of permanent staff members, or to provide stop-gap options given a lack of qualified applicants. The work done by this group (of which I am a member) is vital. We grade your essays, exams, and assignments, run tutorials, assist in labs, provide extra (often unpaid and voluntary) tutoring, develop worksheets and practice exams, act as conduits between you and the course instructor, and conduct entire courses. The pool SFU draws from to fill these positions includes those graduate and undergraduate students who show exemplary academic capability and have the most teaching experience. Every SFU student has a horror story about a lethargic, overmatched or uninterested TA; of course our work is not flawless, but these positions are handed out with attention to the grades assigned by both course instructors and students at the end of each semester. As employees, we are held accountable for our performance, and our continued employment is contingent upon it. Accountability is necessary for a business to function optimally, but this has to be a two-way street. An employer must be accountable to their employees, necessitating the formation of unions to ensure the employee’s needs and rights are met and satisfied. However, a pervasive sense of entitlement held by either the labor union or the employer can preclude dedicated negotiations, erode goodwill, and poison the working relationship between both sides. This brings us to the Teaching and Support Staff Union’s (TSSU) and SFU’s current situation.
The TSSU has been bargaining with Human Resources for the last two-and-a-half years to establish a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Due to limited movement on the part of SFU, the TSSU held a strike vote during the summer semester in which 90 per cent of the voting membership supported job action. This job action was then activated during the fall semester. Initial job action banned unpaid overtime by all TSSU members, but in an effort to exert further pressure on the employer, the TSSU served notice on Oct. 19 that grades on all assignments marked by members would be withheld from students and the university. This decision was made in response to perceived “bad faith” bargaining on the part of Human Resources. Derek Sahota, a representative of the TSSU, intimated that SFU’s negotiation team has shown little motivation to iron out an agreement: they have often tabled successive proposals that have attempted to claw back employee rights as outlined in previous proposals and CBAs, and have delayed the process several times. Mediation sessions have been regularly cancelled or not respected — with HR often sauntering in late and leaving early — and response times to proposals have been lethargic. When asked to comment on SFU’s attitude, Sahota was brutally honest and direct. “CUPE [Local 3338] has already filled a bargaining in bad faith case against SFU, but is still waiting for a hearing after over a month. Thus, the legal process is far too slow if our goal is a new collective agreement this semester,” he said. “I can’t speak for what SFU is thinking, but the best way to comprehend their position is in terms of monetary items. Every day they stall us is another day they don’t have to pay a cost of living increase.” Currently, all bargaining has been indefinitely suspended, a result of an Oct. 22 meeting where the University rejected the TSSU’s revised package that had been presented on Oct. 15.
SFU’s 2009 Annual Financial Report showed enrollment increased by more than 17 per cent, surpassing government-funded enrollment. Furthermore, income from student fees, sales of goods and services, gifts, grants and contracts, and investment income all showed an increase over the year 2008 to 2009. This increase in net profits has financed growth at all the university’s campuses. Despite the increased funds, in response to annual wage increase proposals of three per cent, SFU countered with a proposed increase of 2.5 per cent over the next four years, despite rising tuition rates. This is not in lockstep with the current cost of living: a recent Graduate Student Society (GSS) survey tabs the average gross yearly income of graduate students in 2012 as $18,000 per year, while the corresponding number in 2000 was $20,000 per year. Meanwhile, B.C.’s Consumer Price Index has grown, meaning that the cost of living is significantly higher. This betrays an ideological bent in SFU’s mindset: the concept of sharing the wealth is perceived as ludicrous, even as overall earnings steadily trend upwards. Even as the employer makes no attempt to reinitiate negotiations, they have sought to dilute the impact of job action from behind the scenes: an email from the VP academic of SFU on Oct. 28 was leaked — and can be found on the TSSU’s bargaining website — that actively suggested that faculty members could mark assignments while increasing TA office hours to make up for these lost marking hours. The TSSU has clear guidelines in the contract that is given to all TAs for how much time they are required to put into a class, and this email was in clear violation of these contractual guidelines.
Often the public’s responses to job actions are motivated by political beliefs or passionate reactions. I have personally been asked by multiple students what the TSSU intends to prove by holding their grades hostage. The ultimate belief of students is that job actions and strikes are primarily centered on pay — a point of view that has a sympathetic slant towards the employer.
Let’s indulge this view momentarily: how is it unfair that a skilled work force demands a salary commensurate with its role and performance? Why is the worker demonized while the employer is allowed to arbitrarily dole out whatever pay they deem sufficient? The employer is not a benevolent benefactor; rather, the relationship is co-dependent and, as in any relationship, there has to be a spirit of sharing and willingness to commit to good faith negotiations. The workers are fully within their rights to agitate for an agreement that provides a fair wage in addition to job security and appropriate benefits, just as the employer is within their rights to negotiate for an agreement that most closely benefits their bottom line.
This is not to disagree with or dismiss the legitimate concerns of students. Job action is a scorched earth policy and a losing proposition for all three parties, which ensures that nobody comes out entirely happy. Most members of the TSSU are still students themselves and are sympathetic to the plight of those caught in the crossfire. Even though the current escalated job action is designed to ensure minimum harm to students, the need for exerting pressure on the employer is paramount for a swift resolution. Continued job action or potential escalation to a picket line during the exam period (which has neither been confirmed nor ruled out as a possibility by the TSSU) would be catastrophic and considerably affect students as well as public perception of SFU and the TSSU. When asked to address student concerns, Sahota was terse. “I think students should be primarily concerned about the future of the institution. This dispute will be resolved at some point and they will receive their grades, but the value of the degree that those grades lead to is strongly dependent on teachers at SFU,” he said. “Without fair treatment for qualified and experienced teachers, the educational system at SFU will suffer and we will slip even further down in university rankings.”
Necessity?
It would be easy to wax philosophical about how individuals have agitated for social change and revolution for centuries via unionized action, but the image of organized labor is disconnected from normal consumers, and has been for some time now. Discussions of unions conjure up images of self-absorbed pseudo-intellectuals who are fiercely guarded and protective of their own ahead of the public interest, often striking at a whim to achieve their objectives. The recently concluded teachers strike in Chicago served to further public opinion against labor, while the NFL’s referees lockout was intensely polarizing before a catastrophic disaster on Monday Night Football swayed public opinion against the owners. It would be wishful thinking to cast the conflict between the TSSU and SFU on the same scale, but both conflicts were resolved with significant acquiescence from both sides, and serve as an important model for the progression of our own negotiations. Relevant labor disputes between universities and local unions in Canada provide a closer perspective, with job actions running the gamut from violent and disruptive — like York in 2008 — to more peaceful and short-lived, like McMasters in 2009. When asked for a method of resolution, Sahota hypothesized that it is the constitution of SFU’s contract think-tank that is flawed. “If we had to say one common thread about resolving labour disputes at universities, it would be that they are best resolved when academics take the lead role in negotiations and only use Human Resources in a consultative manner,” he explained. “At SFU the opposite is true, Human Resources runs the show, and departments and academics are rarely, if ever, consulted.” When requested to respond to the TSSU’s allegations, Don MacLachlan, SFU’s director of Public Affairs and Media Relations, politely declined to comment publicly on affairs pertinent to negotiations: “We are certainly trying to minimize the impact on students of any job action,” he said. “As for the issues in the dispute, I have to say that while we hope for their successful resolution, we would not discuss issues except at the bargaining table itself.”
The right to job action should not be approached lightly or whimsically. The goal of a union is not to strike, but rather to maintain active and constructive negotiations. This is a stance we expect our employer to simultaneously adhere to. There is no such thing as an ideal contract, but one that both parties can claim victories within is the right jumping off point.
