Home Blog Page 1318

A relatively quiet week for job action at SFU

0

No complete withdrawal of services occurred at any of the three campuses 

By Graham Cook
Photos by Vaikunthe Banerjee

It was a relatively quiet week for job action at all three of SFU’s campuses this week. No locations experienced a complete withdrawal of services since Wednesday, Nov. 7, when all three locations were picketed by both TSSU and CUPE.

However, various locations in the Academic Quadrangle at the Burnaby campus were picketed by TSSU members on the morning of Tuesday, Nov. 13. The South side from room 5003 to 5017 was picketed from 8:00 a.m. until 9:20 a.m., the North side from 5017 to 5037 at 9:20 a.m. to 10:20 a.m., and the West side from 5039 to 5053 was picketed from 10:20 am to 11:20 a.m.

In addition, on Thursday, Nov. 15, TSSU members and supporters held a rally at the Burnaby campus to tell their employer, “We are the teachers, we are SFU, and we want a fair contract now,” according to a release from the organization. The event saw a number of attendees, some wielding megaphones and drums.

SFU vice president, academic Jon Driver, attended the rally to converse with the protesters and was met with responses of, “Engage with us, SFU. Engage with us.” One protestor said, “let’s get back to the table with actual intent to resolve a fair contract now,” to which Driver replied, “we cannot do this until we are at the table, we are willing to come back . . . the only way we do this is at the table.”

Another protestor responded to this remark, “the only way we do this is if you pay attention to what we are saying,” while one of their colleagues added, “and that takes pressure, exactly what we’re doing right now.”

A promise was then made by a TSSU member that he is “going to be here over and over again, getting more and more people here every single time until you guys sit down and listen to us and bargain in seriousness. It is just going to get bigger.” Further exclamations of, “you’re entirely ignoring everything we are saying,” and “why do you guys act surprised after two-and-a-half years that it has come to this?” were made by protestors. The impromptu meeting was broken up when one of the attendees alerted the others that the samosas were ready.

CUPE Local 3338 did not engage in any action this week, a sharp contrast to past weeks. This decision comes while student opinions on CUPE and TSSU’s job action seem to be split. SFU’s official Facebook page has been bombarded by posts arguing for both sides in the labour dispute. The administration has a standing policy of not discussing details of bargaining away from the bargaining table.

The bargaining processes at other universities in BC have proven more fruitful than those at SFU. UBC settled with CUPE 2950, representing over 1,500 full-time, part-time, sessional, and temporary employees, on Oct. 10. Two other UBC locals, CUPE 116, which represents many support staff, and CUPE 2278, which includes teaching assistants, markers, tutors, and instructors settled on Oct. 22 and Nov. 7, respectively. Elsewhere, Thompson Rivers University settled with CUPE 4879 on Oct. 23, UNBC reached an agreement with CUPE 3799 on Oct. 24, Royal Roads University settled with CUPE 3886 on Oct. 29, and UVic came to an agreement with CUPE 4163 on Nov. 2.

American marijuana legalization raises questions for BC

1

Washington’s decriminalization has strengthened the cry to do the same here

By Alison Roach
Photos by Torben Bjørn Hansen

On Tuesday, Nov. 6, both the states of Colorado and Washington passed ballots legalizing the recreational use of marijuana, raising interest from advocates about the possible impact of the decision here in British Columbia. Some 55 per cent of voters in Washington approved Initiative 502, legalizing the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana by anyone over the age of 21. The question of legalization of marijuana has been a longstanding dispute in our own province, and this change in policy down south has strengthened the cry for similar action here in Canada.

Prime minister Stephen Harper’s reaction to the news was discouraging for proponents of legalization; when asked for a comment by reporters in Bangalore on the recent move towards decriminalization in Washington and Colorado, Harper replied, “I won’t speculate about what it means south of the border. But the Government of Canada has no intention of opening the issue here.” BC premier Christy Clark has also stated that she does not support legalization, and believes it to be a federal matter.

One of the leaders of the decriminalization movement here in British Columbia is Sensible BC, a campaign that calls for decriminalization through the Sensible Policing Act, which would redirect all BC police forces from using time, money, and resources in simple cannabis possession cases. Sensible BC’s slogan states “Decriminalize Cannabis; For a Safer Province.” Sensible BC leader Dana Larsen commends Washington state’s decision, and was quoted by CBC News as saying, “We need to follow the example put forward by Washington state to end prohibition, to legalize it.”

The Peak spoke with the director of the SFU School of Criminology, Dr. Robert Gordon, about his opinions on the referendums. He commented, “It’s a fairly significant step in many ways for North America, and . . . it’s kind of ironic that we’ve always said the reason that we don’t have liberal marijuana laws is because of the US, the fear of the repercussions. Seems that we got that one wrong.” Gordon was also quick to assert that the change in Washington isn’t legalization or decriminalization per se, but a new regime of regulation and taxation.

Gordon also said he believes the referendum has put more pressure for the same action here in BC, but it will be somewhat contingent on what happens in Washington over the coming months. Gordon said, “People will realize that the sky doesn’t fall, we’re not going to be stumbling across the bodies of thousands of addicted marijuana users.”

As for a possible immediate effect on BC, Gordon said he thinks that we won’t feel an economic effect, since marijuana is not a recognized export, but there will be changes to the way illegal product moves. He pointed to the possibilities of local growers picking up the holes left in the Washington market and possibly moving to the state, setting off a reverse-smuggling trend, as well as disruption to the north-flowing products comprised mainly of cocaine and firearms that are part of the trade.

Overall, Gordon said a similar action wouldn’t be an enormous change for our province. He affirmed that there wouldn’t be much difference to our population’s habits of marijuana use, concluding, “If you’re doing it you’re going to do it, and you’re going to continue to do it; it just won’t be as exciting.” To pass their referendum, Sensible BC will have to gather signatures from at least 10 per cent of registered voters in every one of BC’s 85 ridings by September 2014. Sensible BC plans to start collecting signatures in the fall of 2013.

Gordon noted, “The current polling would suggest that there’s support for a taxation and regulatory system, and as long as there can be guarantees about keeping it out of the hands of kids, and as long as there’s some concrete indication that this is a good revenue source for government, and you don’t need as many police officers chasing phantoms around the bush . . . then people will be inclined to vote for it. I mean really, it is pretty ridiculous. It is. I mean, I use caffeine and alcohol, but I look at this and think: this is daft.”

Catfield: Tuesdays

0

By Gary Lim

UniverCity plans first “living neighbourhood”

0

The Living Building Childcare Centre has led to an even loftier sustainability initiative

By Alison Roach

The SFU Community Trust has announced plans for the world’s first “living neighbourhood,” to be located on Burnaby Mountain as a part of UniverCity. The plan builds on the success of UniverCity’s Living Building Childcare Centre, which recently won the “most sustainable” award in the Urban Development Institute 2012 Awards for Excellence. The building’s highest goal however is to qualify for Living Building Challenge certification, the loftiest sustainability standard in the world.
The challenge was developed by the International Living Future Institute (ILFI), a non-governmental organization whose website states they have “helped to redefine the green building movement, substantially raising the bar for true sustainability.” The Living Building Challenge focuses on seven performance areas: site, water, energy, health, materials, equity, and beauty. The Childcare Centre has just now gone into the process of certification, and will be monitored for a year to see if it can live up to these standards.
One unexpected achievement of the building was its cost effectiveness. While most sustainable buildings end up costing between 30–40 per cent more than their cheaper, more impactful counterparts, this was not the case with the Childcare Centre. SFU Community Trust Director of Development Dale Mikkelsen explained, “Through planning this at the start and picking really simple, elegant materials and hiring an architect that understood how to do a really clean, simple building design, we were able to make the building itself so efficient that we need a very small mechanical system to run the building.”
Because of the simplicity of its design, the building costs the same as — or even a bit less than — the average childcare facility in the Lower Mainland. This cost-effectiveness caught the eye of the ILFI, who have done quite a bit of press on the building. A third party, the Summit Foundation, had been looking for a community that could possible expand the idea of a living building to a neighbourhood scale, and after a recommendation from the ILFI, they elected to give $50,000 to go towards the building of a “living neighbourhood” at SFU.
Along with $30,000 that the SFU Community Trust had already budgeted, the money will go towards design work for the neighbourhood. With this money, in 6–8 months the Community Trust should have a conceptual design and amassing model of how the neighbourhood would look. Once the conceptual work is done, the project will be taken to public open houses for community feedback. Said Mikkelson, “Hopefully everybody gets behind the idea, and then we can put our next budget of actual design money into it.” A community consultation process would also go ahead, with open houses within the UniverCity community as well as with SFU students. This consultation process will take about a year. From there, the project would go to rezoning, and then building.
The project has been termed “phase five” of the Community Trust’s development plan. The SFU Official Community Plan allows for a total of 4,365 units to be built on Burnaby Mountain, and after the four prior phases have been completed, there will be 1,500 units still available to build. The Community Trust intends to put all of these units into the living neighbourhood. With current zoning restrictions, the units will most likely be lower density, standing at 3–5 stories tall. There is currently huge demand from current and prospective residents with expanding families for larger units, so the neighbourhood will most likely be a mixture of more spacious townhouses and condos.
It’s uncertain exactly where the living neighbourhood would be situated on campus, but the Trust is looking at the land below South Campus Rd., across from the TASC buildings, as the most viable candidate. The project also includes a partnership with the ILFI itself, whose design group will be working along with the Community Trust on the design concept. Since community building at SFU has largely been done by the same committee in the past, Mikkelson said he relishes the chance to work with these fresh sets of eyes.

Job action update

0

CUPE and TSSU withdraw services from all three campuses
By Graham Cook

 

Job action at Simon Fraser University has continued this week, as the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 3338 and the Teaching Support Staff Union attempt to reach a collective bargaining agreement with the University.

The biggest example of this was the complete withdrawal of services from all three SFU campuses by both the CUPE Local and the TSSU on Wednesday, Nov. 7. The move was one of the most major from the TSSU since their positive strike vote last summer, and led to hundreds of classes being cancelled.

Remarks made on SFU’s official Facebook page regarding last Wednesday’s picket lines were generally conflicting. Laura Anderson commented, “Please come to an agreement soon. Having principles is hurting me academically despite your general policy.” Others were not as interested in pleading, such as David Shen, who identified himself as a “Reaserch [sic] Associate” at Alectos Therapeutic and an SFU Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics graduate, posted on the page (edited for numerous typos), “I don’t even work at SFU, it is just nonsense to block the people who work at Discovery Park. If CUPE does it again, I will do it A Team Style . . . the bottom line is they can set themselves on fire or just play guitar on the grass, but no one should block the public road and parking lot that belongs to the students and the people who work . . . up there or people who live up there. It just makes the public angry.”

CUPE Local 3338’s business agent John Bannister also commented on the action to The Peak, stating, “We thought it went very well. Us and TSSU were out there in force, and a lot of people either stayed away or respected our picket lines.” On the issue of whether or not students are supporting their actions, Bannister said, “I think some are, some obviously are not. I think maybe some of it is they don’t understand the issues and I’m sure final exams are something that is more pressing on their mind.”

One incident that came to light was a video uploaded to YouTube on Thursday ,Nov. 8 under the account “SFUScabFinder,” showing SFU Senior Lecturer Anthony Leyland allegedly attempting to park his car in a parking lot being picketed. In the video, an altercation ensues as Leyland requests to pass through and not to be filmed; both requests were denied. Comments on the original video, which has since been removed, alleged that TSSU spokesperson Derek Sahota was the one who uploaded the video.

However, Sahota spoke to The Peak and, while he confirmed that he was the one filming the altercation, he was not the one who uploaded it onto the Internet. He claimed that he had left his camera behind, and someone else took it upon himself or herself to put it onto YouTube.  Sahota added that “We think that overall the day went . . . well, in terms of not having any serious injuries or anything.” He also stated that he could, “confirm that there was one police report filed with someone who was hit early in the morning at B Lot, and there was a second police report filed on an incident later, and there was one paramedic called as well.”

An open letter signed by SFU faculty members also circulated around the SFU community. The document stated their solidarity with the TSSU and CUPE in “their struggle for better working conditions.” Over 60 professors and lecturers from a variety of departments at the university signed it.

Laying blame for CUPE’s job action

6


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.

Leyland Watch: November 13, 2012

0

Tony Leyland explains the biomechanics of him putting his foot up your ass. 

Science triumphs over bees

0

Mankind finally defeats the buzzing, honey producing menace.  Moths next say scientists

By Andrew McLachlan
No, not the bees! Not the bees!!!

 

Scientists are celebrating today as, for the first time, the number of bee hives across North America plummets below sustainable levels. Initially noticed in the late 1990s and early 2000s, killer bees became a threat to human development, haphazardly stinging rambunctious children and double-dog-daring teens alike. The africanized killer bee, named by a failed grade 11 geography student, spread from South America. The honey-laden horde horrified homeowners as they hunkered down in hedges and holes nearby. The bees advanced like lightning-fast molasses, reaching south Texas, central Texas, and finally northern Texas in a span of only 12 years.

The onslaught of mis’bee’having insects posed a significant risk to human civilization by disrupting regular TV watching with programs such as 2002’s When Killer Bees Attack. People also fearedthat they may soon need to start respecting the natural world. Since the arrival of the africanized bees, an astonishing two people have died, most famously Greg “Bee Beard” Nielson, who was stung to death after voluntarily putting a reported 4,500 bees onto his face and chest during a failed publicity stunt for Sweetheart Honey Company.

[pullquote]The bees advanced like lightning-fast molasses, reaching south Texas, central Texas, and finally northern Texas in a span of only 12 years.[/pullquote]

Knowing that bees communicate through dance, scientists circulated conflicting dance techniques by way of early 2000s dance sensation Jamiriquai, in an attempt to reduce hive populations. Unfortunately, these dances did not infiltrate the bee communities as predicted. Jamiriquai then became widely recognized for supplying the music “Canned Heat” to the cult classic Napoleon Dynamite and soon after abandoned the bee project altogether.

Scientists quickly began advancing cell phone technology with “Plan Bee”, in order to disrupt the bees’ communication with each other. Side effects of Plan Bee have included the Android and iPhone. Since the distribution of cell phones to nearly every man, woman and child throughout North America, bee populations have significantly decreased. The scientific community warns that there may be a period of zero pollination by bees that would result in little to no produce or food for humans. This may last months or even years, eventually leading to massive death tolls throughout North America. The manual pollination of all vegetation for the next few years is a welcome alternative to starvation for those who fear being stung by the insects.

 

 

Word on the Street: November 13, 2012

0

Q: Obama-rama is palpable in the streets as Barack Obama is re-elected to serve a second presidential term. Thoughts?

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Hooray, I was important.”

Ohio
7th largest state

 

 

 

 

 

 

“I’m glad the Illuminati’s candidate won, rather than that Freemasons guy. I never liked him.”

Gregory Barnett
Man in tin foil hat

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Dern it. I knew we shulda hitched Pa to the motercade and voted to one-a dem fancy voting schools like whatcher ‘av in dem dere movie the-atres.”

The South
Wal-Mart enthusiasts

 

 

 

 

 

 

“I guess my vote Obama status updates worked then. Your welcome, Barack.”

Sarah Connolly
15-year-old girl

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Spare change sir? Feed a hungry soul?”

Ol’ Mitty
Anonymous beggar

High Infidelity

0

By Harleen Khangura
Photos by Vaikunthe Banerjee

Are we meant to be monogamous? 

“Men are hardwired to propagate with as many people as possible.”

This is one of the enlightening remarks of a man on the new show, The Mistress, who was asked the question: “Are men monogamous?”

Others answered that it’s “biological” or “part of [men’s] animalistic nature” to be polygamous. These comments, given in the “What men think” section of the show, help paint the picture of men’s outlook towards extramarital affairs, and it appears that these particular men are not against the idea of having them.

However, not all men agree that cheating is part of their genetic makeup. Shaun, an SFU student, says that both men and women are equally inclined to cheat. He believes infidelity to be a gendered phenomenon: while women are vilified for it, men’s adultery is often ignored and somewhat tolerated. It is this type of double standard that often contributes to the prevailing belief that it is normal for men to cheat. Natasha Patterson, a PhD candidate of SFU’s Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies program, is currently researching the relationships between gender, film, and television. She gives a recent example of a double standard: the cheating scandal of Kristen Stewart and director Rupert Sanders. “For weeks after, [Kristen’s] face was emblazoned on the front cover of every celebrity gossip rag,” says Patterson. “Twilight fans crucified her, demanding that [Robert] Pattinson not take her back. Where was this criticism towards Sanders?”

The Mistress, on the other hand, sheds light on the lives of mistresses who are often condemned or chastised for being “home-wreckers.” Considering the social stigma of being “the other woman,” it seems extraordinarily daring for these women to expose their infidelity on national television. Patterson explains that there are several reasons for the mistresses to choose reality television as a medium to disclose their realities. “They want to share their stories with other women in the hopes that they do not make the same mistakes,” says Patterson. In the case of The Mistress, it is the reformatory aspect — makeover from a bad girl to a good girl — that makes the show especially appealing to audiences. “Indeed, this ‘redemption’ aspect of the show is a key feature in what would make their admission of adultery more palatable to a presumably female audience,” Patterson explains.

Moreover, many of the show’s episodes are cast and shot in Vancouver, a reality check that our city is swarming with adulterers. Sarah J. Symonds is the host of The Mistress and writer of a self-help handbook for mistresses, Having an affair?: A handbook for the Other Woman. Symonds believes that the social, cultural, and geographical framework of Vancouver makes the city especially prone to adultery. Huffington Post Canada recently rated neighbourhoods like Kitsilano, Surrey, and Yaletown as breeding grounds for cheaters in Vancouver. “Vancouver is a real hot-bed of infidelity,” says Symonds. “[The city] is often polled as one of the top cities in the world to live in, so where there is that success, there is also the potential for cheating. Too many people with too many options at hand.”

“A bit like LA, I find here [on the West Coast] people are always looking for the bigger, better deal, the better offer, the better partner,” Symonds elaborates. “[The affair provides] the chance of something ‘better’ or ‘more exciting’ than the life that you have.”

Ironically, recent studies show that Vancouver is severely lacking in the dating scene, but the fact that the city is rife with cheaters is a definite shocker. I interviewed several SFU students to see whether people are really hankering to find a bigger, better deal. Most of the students interviewed are strongly against the idea of being unfaithful to their partner. “When I’m with someone, I’d be faithful to them. If I don’t want to be with them, then I’ll tell them so,” says Courtney Morrison. Another SFU student, Maria Ganger believes that having two relationships at the same time would unnecessarily complicate life. “Having to keep track of two people at the same time is so hard,” she says.

However, social and cultural norms continue to dictate against sexual transgressions and support monogamous relationships. As a result, there is no black and white answer regarding the appeal of infidelity. It is easy to judge from a distance, but the reality is that it is difficult to foresee whether one would cheat in a situation. “When you talk about it, you may say ‘no’ now, but when you are in the situation, it’s different,” says SFU student, Kei Kei Lau. “Your emotions are heightened, which may change your mind-set.” But is it ever acceptable to cheat? Shaun believes that cheating could only be justified if one is in a short-term or casual relationship, in which both individuals are possibly dating other people.

Regardless of the conflicting perspectives of cheating, it is evident that the number of adulterers is increasing at an alarming rate. Many television shows, movies, and music videos frequently portray promiscuity, often making it seem normal — even fashionable — to have multiple sexual partners. Could it be that television and contemporary culture are inspiring an increase in infidelity?

“Television and society no longer support marriage,” states Symonds. Her show attempts to unveil the pitfalls of cheating and offers an antidote to the growing reservations towards marriage and fidelity. “The good thing about The Mistress is that it is not glamourizing infidelity at all; quite the opposite. It is simply lifting the lid — the veil of secrecy — on what goes on in these toxic situations.”

Conversely, Patterson does not believe that there is a definite cause-and-effect relationship between infidelity and television. “Pop culture may shape our thoughts and actions to some extent but it also reflects what is already happening in society in that moment,” she explains. “Infidelity precedes film and television.” She agrees that shows like The Mistress can help educate the audience by offering them “a way to engage with ideas about monogamy, marriage, and infidelity.”

Shows like The Mistress may also help reduce the misconceptions around the “other women,” who are perceived as selling themselves for money and other perquisites from the married men. Many men on the show do, in fact, shower their mistresses with gifts (including expensive necklaces and diamond earrings) and compliments to compensate the women for agreeing to the casual arrangement. However, Symonds explains that the comparison between mistresses and prostitutes or sugar babies is wrongly placed. “If you watch The Mistress, you will see that these women I am working with are far from ‘kept woman,’ ” she explains. “Most of them are struggling single mothers, running two jobs.”

Furthermore, the show exposes the destructive or abusive relationships that the mistresses struggle with. They suffer from low self-esteem, and continue to be manipulated by married men who promise to divorce their wives. Symonds’s goal, however, is not to reveal the realities of the cheating husbands to the oblivious wives, but to empower and educate women. “As women, we deserve better,” Symonds says of the show’s message. “We deserve to put ourselves first in a relationship. Never settle for the crumbs of someone’s time, or to being second best. Also, as a wife, do not put up with a cheating husband. Life is too short.”

The cheating situation in Vancouver is a complex subject and shows like The Mistress may help to alleviate the stigma attached to mistresses, and brush upon general discussions of sexuality.