Mark, and everybody else out there who reads this,

Thursday November 20th, 2003

Mark, and everybody else out there who reads this,

You are absolutely right the executive must go. They have no vision, they are not effective. Their strongest motive seems to be the desire to drink from the heady cup of patronizing influence at the table of administration committees and thereby escape the dullness of their day-to-day jobs. Worst of all they have no COURAGE. They merely wait passively until the University violates the contract, as it does regularly, when they refer the matter to the lawyers, at our expense, in order to be told what to do.

They seem unable to comprehend that the relationship of the Union executive to the employer should be ADVERSARIAL! There is no room for a comfy, matey “we are all in this together” sort of attitude. Do they not realize that the managerial personnel who are charged by the administration with dealing with us are required to seek our disadvantage? Their careers, salaries, and promotion prospects all depend on how successfully they manage to do this.

It is also ironic that the lawyers for the Union also represent Munasa: the managers association. Why is this outrageous conflict of interest allowed to persist? In whose interests does it lie? Certainly, when one considers the influence wielded by our “Council” within the Union, not in ours! Our interest and those of our Legal advisers are not coincident. They have other fish to fry and we are paying for the gas! When are there going to be some REAL improvements dealt with? Why do we have to persist with this interminable bickering over ½% increases in the progressions when the SCALES have over 40% differentials? (i.e. some members are being paid practically half as much as others for doing the same job!)

When the inevitable AGM is called to approve the newly negotiated contract just before Christmas I think the first order of business should be a vote of “None Confidence” in the executive and if successful we should throw them all out and elect an aggressive new executive to deal with the University. We can endure the present contract for another year during which time a new broom can sweep some real change into our working relationship. After all Principal Monroe Blum had no hesitation starting aggressively and she means to go on that way. Despite her claims to respect us, her intention is clearly to take away from us as many of our current benefits to show the world who runs this public institution.

Charles.

- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- -

Tuesday November 18th, 2003

For everyone who was at the October 17th special meeting of the General Assembly it seemed quite clear --- We voted that the loss of the summer Fridays was not open for negotiation. Or did we? Initially the executive for all of its strong rhetoric had wanted to continue negotiating on other issues while making some weak statement about the Summer Fridays issue being unacceptable. The membership expressed its great displeasure at this move and the motion was changed that we would not negotiate anything unless the motion was removed from the table. A very strong message. Or was it? Many people attributed the confusion about the wording to the revised motion to incompetence. There has been a great deal of confusion of late about MUNACA continuing to negotiate about the Summer Fridays. How can they do this people are asking, we voted to cease negotiation until it was removed from the table. But, where there are lawyers present, one must read the fine print very carefully!

    Motion #1:

"That MUNACA says "NO" to the University's new proposal of increasing hours of work, eliminating the 10th and 11th Summer Fridays and the 2 floating holidays with no compensation, and until that proposal is removed from the bargaining table, MUNACA will not continue to negotiate any further on anything."

Notice the "with no compensation" clause. This left the window open for the University to withdraw their proposal and replace it with a new one which offered some token of compensation and negotiations are reopened. Now was this a calculated move by our executive who seemed attached to the idea of continuing negotiation, or was it incompetence? Mark

- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -  -

3 - There are also some extreme views at http://munalist.no-ip.info/index.cgi?browse+21+156:

Wednesday November 19th, 2003

I assume Mark that your last question was rhetorical because many members are finding our MUNACA executives to be very incompetent and only willing to continue secretive negotiations with the arrogant administration. We see here the worst combination when the incompetent people are becoming more determined to represent others, but with the members' passivity this typical parasitical development is freely developing more and more.

Instead of suspecting `calculated move' or other conspiracies, as you indirectly suggest, we should see in our executive body only small people liberated too long from their ordinary work. Instead of developing their leadership skills and devotion, they are mastering the art of the mass manipulation --- with a big help from the administration, who are much more experienced in this field

It perfectly explains the executives' almost hysterical panic when the other unions are offering a professional expertise for difficult negotiations and their extreme resistance when the MUNACA members are requesting the next General Assembly to discuss more about the latest developments and our future.

Do those people have the honor to organize the requested G.A. or we must spit collectively (by turns) into their tricky faces when “re-furnishing” the MUNACA office at the Peel Street? It can happen during a second delivery of a copy of the first demand for the G.A. from over two weeks ago, but this time with more people coming together to show them the power of solidarity and integrity among the pauperized MUNACA members.

Slawomir Poplawski

- - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

4 - With some pictorial comments at http://munalist.no-ip.info/index.cgi?browse+21+161:

Wednesday November 19th, 2003

Mark,

I take your point about the exact wording of the motion and can see that if I was to view it as legalistic weasel worded quibbling it is possible to claim that the by removing "that" proposal they are free to continue with the negotiations. But surely everybody understands the intent of the motion and to ignore it and go back to the table whilst some of our members are in jeopardy of that very same proposal is totally reprehensible. These actions are made even more exasperating by the fact that I am convinced that those responsible on the negotiating committee do not realize what they are doing.

They are like deer in the headlights of the Human Resources Juggernaut.

Charles.

- -- - - - - -- - - --- - - -- - - - - - - -- - - --- -- -

5 - Be aware that MUNACA doesn’t inform us about having bigger support from other groups as exposed at http://munalist.no-ip.info/index.cgi?browse+21+162 and http://munalist.no-ip.info/index.cgi?browse+26+167:

Wednesday November 19th, 2003

Charles,

I totally agree with you that we all understood the intent of the motion, but unfortunately the opportunity was lost to make a resounding statement to the University. We were on October 17th surely a majority of the membership, we voted almost unanimously. What a horrible waste that we did not vote on something really compelling. That is one of the strongest reasons I wanted to set up this mailing list / forum. If we can come to some consensus before going into these meetings, then we can vote on motions that really reflect the needs of the membership.

Apart from small minorities who have requested that they be removed from the original mailing list, citing their satisfaction with MUNACA I have yet to speak personally with anyone who is satisfied with the executive. There are some who fear that to speak against the executive is to weaken our negotiating power. There are very many who are tired and frustrated. This group I think became greatly motivated by the events leading up to October 17th, however their energy was wasted, thus reaffirming the feeling that change is unreachable. The momentum has been squandered.

I very much enjoyed the analogy in your letter to the Principal about the tiger having been woken. Truly, we do have the strength to demand of the University what we deserve; we just have to realize it! We have a great deal of support from other groups at McGill! Professors, students ... who will say we are asking too much?

Mark

- - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -  --  --

6 - If you read only MUNACA’s propaganda you will know nothing and it is indirectly said at http://munalist.no-ip.info/index.cgi?browse+21+165:

Thursday November 20th, 2003

 Charles,

It is very interesting that you bring up the point about MUNASA. I just surfed over to the MUNASA website (http://www.munasa.com/) and was struck by how much more information I was able easily locate there. For example the Executive bulletin dated October 8th, 2003 is a well written 4 page document ... in fact it contains better presented information about our negotiation than does MUNACA's own bulletin! Read the following and weep:

MUNACA's version:

=================

The Negotiation Committee met with the University on October 2, 2003 to receive the University's new proposal.

The University has added the following proposal at the bargaining table:

1.           the ELIMINATION of Summer Fridays #10 and 11, AND the two (2) Floating Holidays with no compensation.

  2. the hours of work per week for Nursing and Clerical staff (the majority of our members) be increased from 33.75 to                       35 hours with no compensation.

The Union disagrees.

The increase in hours is equivalent to 65 hours more annually, or approximately 2 extra weeks of work per year.

== end quote ==

MUNASA's version:

=================

The McGill Administration dropped a bomb at the first negotiating meeting for a new collective agreement with the MUNACA bargaining unit on September 9, 2003 when it proposed increased work for no increase in compensation. The Administration has proposed administrative and support staff-work four more days per year and that clerical and nursing staff also work longer hours. The elimination of four paid days off (the two floating holidays and two of the Summer Fridays provided in the Hours of Work Policy) represents a reduction in compensation of 1.6%. The reduction of the lunch break for clerical and nursing staff from 75 to 60 minutes represents a loss in salary of 3.7%.
== end quote ==

But wait you say, they are obviously paying much higher dues than us! No, membership is voluntary and membership dues are 10$ per bi-monthly paycheck.
I feel a little sick now,
Mark

- - - - -- - - - - --- - - - - - - --- - - - - - -- -

7 - In general I am against signing so-called “spontaneous letters” prepared by others, but in this case I think we should support “en masse” an initiative from Mrs. D. Dutz at (http://munalist.no-ip.info/index.cgi?browse+25+164):

Thursday November 20th, 2003

If you agree with the statements below, please Cut & Paste them in a new message and forward to Dot Luk, president of MUNACA, at dorothy.luk@mcgill.ca .

I would also ask that you "cc" your message to me at dino.music@sympatico.ca . I will compile all messages received by Thursday, November 27 and have them delivered "en masse" to the president and the Negotiation Committee.

________________________________________________________________

ON THE ISSUE OF SALARY IN THE NEW COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT, I REJECT ANY CONTRACT, WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE AS A BASE, SALARIES ON PAR WITH OTHER QUEBEC UNIVERSITIES.

FURTHERMORE, I DEMAND THAT MUNACA PREPARE AN IMMEDIATE WORK TO RULE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MOTION (#3) PASSED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON OCTOBER 17, 2003.

_________________________________________________________________

First, please note that this refers ONLY to the issue of salary. Benefits are a whole other ball game. This has nothing to do with summer Fridays or Floating Holidays, for example, or any other benefit we have previously negotiated.

*** Clearly, we will not make any concessions on what we already have! ***

And secondly, I am not advocating that we, as individual employees, embark on personal and unorganized Work to Rule. However, MUNACA *IS* mandated to organize such an action as per the vote at the General Assembly. It's time for us to put pressure on our union to do its job! Are they representing us or are they negotiating away our livelihood and professional dignity behind closed doors?

For those who choose to forward the above statements to Dot, please remember to also cc to me at dino.music@sympatico.ca

Thank you!

Regards,

Diana Dutz

- - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -

8 - If you go to http://munalist.no-ip.info/index.cgi?browse+20+155 you will find some refreshingly simple words from its creator and Mark is also quoted below. It is important to read these direct reflections, I think, because their truth, idealism and honesty are rare in this modern world: Let them refresh our commercialized minds!

Monday November 17th, 2003

Hello fellow MUNACA members.

Good, since this system has been operational for almost a day, and an appreciable number of people have dropped in to look around, I guess that we are in business. I haven't had any angry calls from NCS, which is a pleasant change from the last attempt :)

Why does this forum exist?

On October 17th I attended the General Assembly. I was awed by the great divide between the people on the floor and the people on the stage. There were many members who addressed the executive, their arguments seemed sound and the crowd seemed to be in agreement. The executive on stage however seemed to dance around the questions.

I watched Dot beaming down upon us, spelling out NO to us, that we were willing to go on strike for these 4 Summer Fridays; it was like Nero fiddling as Rome burned. To have some much potential power in one's hand and not channel it appropriately. 4 Summer Fridays are merely 2% of our work. We were being cheated. We were being threatened by the loss of 4 days, however I think this is just smoke. I think eventually the university will give up on taking away the Summer Fridays this will only result in a loss of 2% to the university. However, behind the smoke and mirrors we will be getting another monetary lousy settlement. Our executive will however be congratulating itself upon having won back our Summer Fridays from the big bad university. Meanwhile we get poorer.

So I asked myself, am I a radical? Perhaps I am alone in my thoughts; perhaps the executive does speak for the majority of the members. Perhaps the other members don't feel betrayed and let down by the executive. But there was certain unrest in the general assembly.

I decided to find out. I created a mailing list upon which to ask these questions. I figured I would post a message announcing the creation of the list and let allow those who were not interested to decline. However almost immediately I was overwhelmed by postings. I have received many emails, even a phone call from out of province, from members who are most frustrated by this executive and their lawyers. This was the original munalist@yahoo.ca mailing list. Anyway, it seemed quite apparent that I wasn’t at all alone in my discomfort. It was also very apparent that manually administering such a list was not possible due to the ever-growing traffic.
Next I tried an automated approach. munatalk@yahoo.ca might have been a good idea, but I botched the social engineering badly. Let's just say that the traffic on this list grew exponential, which lead NCS to bounce all email from the munalist/munatalk server.

I had built a very rudimentary web page to archive the posts to the mailing lists, but had based the approach heavily upon email as the medium. So anyway, I spent the last couple of weeks putting together this web server, hopefully we can use it to exchange ideas about what can be done to extricate ourselves from the mess we appear to be in.

I would like to thank everyone who has given me words of encouragement during this adventure.

Cheers,

Mark

- - -- - - - -- - -- - - - - -- - - --- - - - - -

This letter closes with some words from our young Mark (yes, MUNACA’s mostly aged members are rapidly disappearing, because the previous executives did not want to include union protection for new members starting work at McGill after 1995 or 96). He put a lot of effort into creating our website, and the best way of thanking him is to participate in this FORUM OF FREE PEOPLE OPENING THEIR EXPERIENCE, FEELINGS AND DREAMS TO SHARE FREELY WITH OTHERS.