Return to home page
The following correspondence below was
e-mailed to Munaca’s (an internal union for about 1700 staff members working at
October 2006
Hello all,
This e-mail is addressed directly to Maria and the
Maria, I was disheartened when I read your response in the
Daily. How can you claim that members
have not come forward? We have done
nothing but come forward. Since Frechette and since Janine, the workers in the librarIES have clearly stated that indeed there is a
problem! Lest we forget the survey, the
demonstration, the library articles in the Daily, the record number of
grievances, the increases in short term disability... What more do you want!
Thank you,
(XXX)
--------------------------
Hello:
I must say that I quite agree with XXX. I am exceedingly disappointed in Maria and
was absolutely appalled to read her comments in today's Daily.
I guess there truly is an alternate universe - where everything
is sugar coated, conveniently forgotten or ignored as unimportant so long as we
don't tread on the Library Administration's mandate (whatever that may be).
Tell your membership that you really don't intend to support
them when the going gets tough.
(YYY)
--------------------------
Subject: RE: Library Situation
I believe no one called because there is a climate of mistrust
and a general feeling of being let down from the
It is time we realize the common enemy is Administration. Let us
stop fighting and focus on our MANDATE: THE PROTECTION and SUPPORT of OUR
MEMBERS.
The case has been clearly and emphatically NOT to mention
repeatedly made as to what Ms.Schmidt and her
policies are doing to our members on a daily basis.
It is time for
Yes, it is a difficult case because while all that has infringed
on the LETTER of our
This, awful situation has highlighted the severe limitations
when the Administration attacks the spirit of our C.A. Something Ms.Schmidt has done with almost complete impunity thus far.
We must respond forcefully, united and decisively or else we will always be
perceived as a paper tiger by the Administration and our members.
We need credibility with both
as NEGOTIATIONS approach.
The Executive and BOR must address this situation ... not
belittle it; ignore it or spout H/R's rhetoric. It will not go away no matter
how much we are intimidated, lied to and/or attempted to be muzzled by Library
Administration.
We have been buoyed by the incredible support of the other
Councils. T, C & Mac ... thank you. You are true brothers and sisters. NOW
the Executive must lead as parents or the time may come in the future to seek
adoption.
(ZZZ)
------------------
The only answer from The President for the letters
above:
Subject: Re: Library Situation
It is sad to see in light of (XXX) and (YYY) emails that not one
LA on L Council rep
or otherwise called me or the
I called (ZZZ) when I read the article to discuss the matter
with him.
Maria
----------
This letter below was not answered by The President
To: Maria Ruocco
Re:Board of Reps Meeting
Dear Friends,
I don't know about you, but I cannot sleep well since
Tuesday. At the last BOR, (XYZ) exposed
the truth about our rotten Munaca. We got used to this stench, but people around
didn't and (XYZ)quoted many juicy adjectives used by
the members to describe this union.
(XYZ)'s point was that a library worker was humiliated in front
of students and co-workers. Instead of
being consistently defended she had been neglected at the last moment by Munaca's establishment.
In another twist, a supervisor who was harassing her had never been
officially reprimanded and instead is promoted.
Is this approach helping our society to eliminate psychological
harassments in our places of work?
Our legal team decided not to defend this member just before a
grievance hearing (established after over a year of waiting) "because they
cannot win this case". After a year
of doing nothing, Munaca's Labour
Relations unit become extremely busy just two days before
Christmas and demanded immediate meetings with the victim. The purpose was to convince this woman that
the employer was legally correct after replacing her former boss. It was interesting to hear that this
explanation was developed by our top lawyer George who closely cooperates with Munaca's presidents.
According to Linda, he consistently ordered to abandon the
grievance and she was forced to work hard for about three days. At stake was persuading the victim, ready to
fight, that it was not good for her. Munaca didn’t want to repeat a similar case from about 2-3
years ago when an equally treated member (also quitting his grievance) gave me
his documents and asked me to expose the presidents publicly. This case was about grieving a stupid HR's inconsistence in presenting salary range for a posted
job. The University wanted to avoid
showing publicly the own mistakes, as the HR functionaries are treated as
sacred cows, and Munaca agreed. After it I was fired from T-Council and my
appeal to BOR was not considered. Why
the same advice is now recommended for this woman? Remembering this case, our legal team worked
very hard to brainwash the last victim.
The problem was that it didn't work because this case was too extreme
and the victim's husband finally got involved.
It sounds very unconvincing to say that Munaca
cannot win when Munaca's victory is 'a priori' guaranteed after exposing
McGill publicly. The grievances files
are routinely opened for the public and media.
It was perfectly enough to gain sympathy of the arbitrator after
informing him/her that the harassing supervisor was promoted and the
administration never recognized this case as a punishable wrongdoing.
Also, the library worker was unnecessary stressed by Munaca's earlier demands of providing witnesses. The arrogance of McGill administration in
this case is too evident and it doesn't need witnesses. Let's also remember that after finally
finding a brave witness willing to talk in front of the arbitrator Munaca changes its rhetoric and quits.
The problem is that our Presidents and lawyers are too
close/long with our administration. It
was very strange to hear at the October's BOR about regular meetings between Provost Massi
and our President Maria. Why
this unprofessional approach tolerated?
Only such situations allow trading dignity of our victimized members for
some questionable political agreements at the top. McGill administration never admits its
mistakes and it seems that Munaca's notables are
helping to support this arrogant approach at the expense of our victimized
members. Why?
After many years of interacting with this administration their
mentality and system of values are becoming corporative. Such people value more abstractive notions
such as the interest of the institution, prestige, profits etc. instead of
seeing the real people who can be deeply hurt by their manipulative
policies. Organizations are supposed to
serve people and not vice versa!!!
Probably we should discuss this topic on a wider forum, because
the mentioned librarian worker is now more victimized by Munaca
than by her former supervisor? Regards,
Slawomir
P.S. I was asking about the cost of the arbitration, but I was
silenced by threats about being removed.
Why?
----------------------
This letter below was not answered by The President
Dear
Munaca is "boiling". This is caused by problems throughout our
libraries. Now our representatives are
visible and demanding better protection for these abused members. A very
different situation existed in April when the same executives were seen pushing
for noisy protests and even suggesting a strike to defend the librarians. Such fast changes are unnatural. We begin to
suspect direct manipulation, intrigue and pressure tactics performed by our
administration through their HR agenda using their whole spectrum of repressive
tools. It is good that finally we will
have a special BoR meeting to discuss these
matters. At stake is the ability to
share our individual experiences of dealing with questionable actions of McGill
notables. However, for better
understanding it is good to be fully aware about the scale of divisions
introduced in our union by some malicious people representing this
administration. We should hear as many
testimonies as possible presenting all the pertinent details of dirty tricks
used against us instead of being seen accusing each other as strident union
activists. The representatives and
executives have a right to feel isolated, scared and cornered with all the
consequences of their strange behavior, but at the same time they are more
obliged to share their, or rather our, problems. It not only heals the wounds, but also warns
and teaches everybody how to neutralize some destructive "human
spiders" used by employees in our work places. These employee clones act behind big bosses
who do not like doing the dirty work themselves.
They are watching our chaotic movements when we are trapped as
“flies” in their webs. Our problem is
that the union does nothing to inform everybody. It will be good to have a small review of our
joint
concerns:
"I am appalled at the
Executive's silence and lack of response to issues raised by council members in
the last month". "(Executives)
don't intend to support (members) when the going gets tough". "I was absolutely appalled to read (The
President) comments in today's Daily (http://www.mcgilldaily.com/view.php?aid=5502)". "I was disheartened when I read your
(president's) response in the daily".
“How can you (President) claim that members have not come forward? We have done nothing but come forward. Since Frechette and
since Janine, the workers in the libraries have clearly stated that indeed
there is a problem! Lest we forget the survey,
the demonstration, the library articles in the Daily, the record number of
grievances, the increases in short term disability... What more do you want!" "I believe no one called (read the
article) because there is a climate of mistrust and a general feeling of being
let down from the
So far, the only answer from the executive body was: "I
urge the members to be involved in the
This response contrasts too much with the previous approach of
the executives mailing six months ago three special bulletins. The Bulletin of
We see here a mysterious change in the executives' behavior with
their strange recent actions against the members (demanding their
silence).
It must be cleared during the organized Special BoR meeting on
In most cases, people, are not being eliminated or literally
tortured.
However, a more subversive subtle mentioning about the
possibility of a firing is "working better" than putting their heads
into the plastic bags with water for a few minutes.
At this moment, it would be good reading the latest Gazette's
report from Nov.4, 2006 (http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=e012b72c-1805-4903-9190-327b92bfef89). Let’s see some sentences from this report:
"President
of LaSalle College's teachers union, accused the private vocational school
yesterday of firing him for his union activities, using as a pretext an
allegation that he egged students on to complain about class size and a lack of
equipment". "He suspects his
firing is a bid to disrupt negotiations for a new contract for the college's
200 teachers, whose last collective agreement expired in September". The college
told him he "lacked loyalty,
compromised the college's image and reputation, and didn't properly execute his
responsibilities."
"The union
says the work climate at the school has deteriorated in recent years." This also private school has 2,400
students. So, doesn't it sound familiar
in a scale
However, there is a big difference as the mentioned above union "is affiliated with the Federation nationale des enseignantes et des
enseignants du
It means that our poor executives from isolated
It is exactly what in our case one logically thinking member is
suspicious of: "that the President
is terrified to take a stand against the University, she has hinted at 'dire
consequences for all members.' The
President had suggested that the Executive would send a bulletin to the members
explaining the issue, but that she would pass it by the University first to
make sure it was OK."
The planned Special BoR should not be
used for attacking some members.
It is more about encouraging all participants to tell the whole
truth.
The question should be: - how were they abused by the Administration
after the May's public protests. That
event was reported by both TV and the French press, and such developments are
the most scary, for the present administration already ridiculed in the media,
as never before in McGill's long history.
Let's believe that we can share our bad and good experiences and start
finding better solutions for our relatively big but isolated union.
Regards,
Slawomir Poplawski
---------------------------------
Addressed to the President Maria Ruocco:
Re: Corrected Munaca statement to the
CSST
Dear
On December the CSST's inspector was
inquiring about the availability of safety boots for our members. He was responding to my complaint after
McGill ignored my earlier objections about this issue and about some others.
According to his report of
We had a meeting on December 8 with the representatives of other
unions at 3483 Peel which also attended our President Maria Rucco. At this gathering I briefly described
problems introduced by McGill for the staff members who use such shoes and the
similar problems were reported by a representative of another union. According to him they even filed a grievance
concerning these matters.
In this situation Munaca's statement
to the CSST made after this meeting was in error and should be immediately
corrected. It is not only hurting my
CSST hearing at the beginning of next week, but it can also disappoint over 20
technicians who were asking me to solve this problem. Thanks to a professional approach of another
union, which instead of debating with our administration is filing grievances,
the workers at
Regards,
Slawomir Poplawski
P.S. I think that you
understand why I need this Munaca statement corrected
asap.
-----
Answer from the President Maria Ruocco:
Hi Slawomir,
Just today we have received the File in question from the
CSST. We have reviewed the CSST File and
it appears that the CSST mistakenly identified Mr. Robert Huot
as Munaca's President and therefore presented what
Mr. Huot said as Munaca's
position.
I hope this clarifies the situation.
Maria Ruocco
-----
Hi Maria,
I really appreciate your formal response. The only problem is that Mr. Robert Huot (the President of McGill Trade's
His union filed the grievance and only after that McGill was
"ready" to negotiate (signed yesterday). As a result, the truck with the safety items
will come for them soon. So, it
definitely was not Robert. It seems that
our earlier (yesterday) guess about Mrs. Leake's
involvement gets a higher probability to be true. If this is proven (I still cannot reach the
CSST agent who made this statement placed in my CSST file) this top functionary
from the HR should be reprimanded. I
don’t care about her reputation in Munaca as a
dangerous person because she is already doing everything possible to harm me.
The imminent CSST's intervention -
protecting my rights will be the first in the McGill history. This week McGill
lawyers and Mrs. Leake are doing everything possible
and faxing many documents to the CSST with the aim to stop this procedure. This battle is a totally new one for them and
they prefer the already known/mastered normal grievance procedures.
There is a chance that the CSST will give them a good lesson. It worked well with the "boiler
room" when the University was forced to implement in 10 days a temporary
policy concerning "psychological harassment". I am optimistic and I am ready to fight. However, everything is possible in this
"corporate world" as big governmental institutions can also act
against me at the final stages. We will
see.
Regards,
Slawomir
--------------------------
Answer from the President Maria Ruocco:
Slawomir,
If you want an external lawyer, go right ahead. This will be at your expense.
Good Luck!
Maria
--------------------------------
Requests
from our L-Council presented at
1.
In the two years since Ms. Schmidt’s appointment, what accommodations,
improvements, or victories has
2.
L-Council would like an update on the Barbara Craig situation with regards to
the incident that occurred with Ms. Khouri. L-Council
does not want this issue shelved. If the roles were reversed, the
certainty is that the employee would have a written disciplinary letter on
file, and that the University would insist upon a letter of apology from the
employee.
3.
What is the situation with GRASPE?
4.
L-Council is concerned with the lack of meetings, input, and communication with
the Editorial Board committee. Are there any procedures that outline the
process for submitting content to the
5.
L-Council is extremely displeased, dissatisfied, and angry that the VPLR provided
the University with a copy of L-Council’s
6.
Ms. Schmidt has asked to meet with L-Council. We have agreed to meet with her
however, L-Council will ask her for a written Agenda, allow her a time period
and insist that the meeting (if it does occur), take place in the
7.
Let it be known that the committee to select the 5 Associate Director positions
in the libraries has no LA representative. Did Ms. Schmidt, felt that it
was not necessary or desirable to have LA representation on the search
committee? This is just another example of how LAs
are being systematically disenfranchised.
------------------------------------------
It was sent by (ZZZ) 3 hours after the BoR meeting of
Subject: Executive and Today's BoR
Dear Executive,
I need to address you collectively about today's BoR.
I am fond of all of you and consider 2 of you not just friends
but good friends. You need to look yourself in the mirror and think about how
to best contribute your considerable skills to
As I said to Maria, loads of people say this to your back but I
am telling you to your face. Like me or hate me you should heed the message. I
am acerbic and headstrong but not a hypocrite ... never.
We are not doing enough for our members. If it is the fault of
our collective Agreement then we should endeavour to
fix it in these upcoming negotiations. Trying to belittle problems or members
because you know you cannot do anything on their behalf is extremely counter
productive.
Lack of participation is a symptom of a greater disease.
Raynald you have
provided invaluable service to
You need to ask yourself if this is an acceptable answer for the
Vice -President of a
Maria you have stated to me that on more than one occasion in
response to what LA's are undergoing; "Janine just wants you to work
harder."
The fact that you deny saying this is progress, in my mind. It
shows that those comments were then and are now unacceptable with respect to
what is happening at the Libraries and McGill... namely this neo-conservative
corporate management philosophy they are imposing on our members.
Linda you stated at today's BoR:
"All I am hearing is Franco complaining'." If you believe this and I
believe that you do. Then why are you on a LRC specifically convened to deal
with "an attack on the spirit of the Collective Agreement in the
Libraries."? You convened a meeting because BoR
forced you NOT because you believe in our cause. That much is painfully clear.
I as an individual Munaca member,
L-Council Grievance Rep and L-Council BoR; my Council
and LA's in general are tired of continually trying to convince you there is a
problem. Even now you do not believe it is a real problem we are living with
everyday as you continue to insist it is just Franco's problem and you are the
one pleading our cases EVERY WEEK to H/R.
Lastly, in regards to the specifics re SHIFTS ... I will remind
you I DO NOT work any of the Summer Shifts as I am Sessional
and furthermore I like 10-6 shift as it allows me to drop my sons off @ school
and still make it to work AND 2-10 shift allows me to go home w/ my life
partner so going back to the old shifts would make my life CONSIDERABLY more
difficult. I push it because this is what my members want and I represent them
EVEN if it is NOT in my best interest. THOSE are my values and they are strong.
Maria you say I am a radical; maybe to some. I am right and to
me that is what counts.
Read this e-mail.
When negotiations begin in earnest and the going gets tough you
will have to be strong. If you cannot
deal with me, and deal with me you must as I am here to stay, you have no hope
in hell of dealing with either the University and/or angry, frustrated and
disillusioned members.
Now is the time
to look at yourself and answer
these questions.
(ZZZ)
--------------------------------------
This letter below was addressed to Munaca members:
Dear Friends,
It seems that my assessment of our situation at McGill, with regards to the proposal of joining a chosen external union (see pen sketches attached to ballots), needs clarification. I meant what I stated, but the majority of members are not aware that Munaca cannot protect its members. Instead of providing too many details, I suggest a simple test: just ask the library assistants (this group named as LA was the most active in the past), who will give overwhelmingly negative opinions about this “union”. The administration is now testing repressive policies in our libraries, and the members will soon pay a high price for Munaca’s policies of isolation.
At the last Board of
Representatives meeting (
"In the 2 years since the Director of Libraries
appointment, what accommodation, improvements, or victories has
My obligation, as your representative, is to inform the
members that the house named Munaca is stale. Instead of admitting this fact of life, the
Union President runs the house as if nothing has happened.
My role, if elected, is to remove this decay, and to open
the windows before inviting an experienced company to maintain the “house”. It means joining with another union, as is
the case in many (all) universities. These
plans will be democratically discussed at the nearest GA, and will be subject
to extensive consultation. Voting for me
means supporting transparency and disapproving this Vichy-type union that openly
collaborates with the oppressive administrators. I will cooperate with all
members directly at regular open meetings one lunch time per week. The
members will be also encouraged to use an Internet discussion forum. These elements are essential to connect the
members, and were forbidden when proposed by the Mac-Council 5 weeks ago at the
BoR meeting.
If elected I will treat my term as a temporary replacement at a time of
much needed “cleaning and renovation”.
Is the existing/present
Munaca controlled by the members, or is it rather used as a tool for
surpressing our selfrespect and selfesteem?
Just remember the recent Presidents’
reply to L-Council's query: "What has
Regards,
Slawomir
Poplawski
My pen sketch for Munaca’s
election – April 2007
----------------
In our C-Council (13-seats) only two representatives are
left? Reasonable members just quit
instead of staying in unsafe structures.
Changes in Munaca will never occur through
elections. This ill conceived union,
instead of empowering the members, isolates them. The Munaca president and executives never admit their
mistakes. They mimic our administration,
hijacked and occupied by greedy CEOs employing
questionable values with a help of parachuted (despotic) notables. Yes, they bring some money to McGill, however it is to increase their salaries and to
illuminate their self-importance. In the
next step, they hire new assistants, to work less, and to exploit more the
ordinary staff members. Many top
administrators have already escaped from McGill.
Munaca members are weaker and slower who cannot
escape. It has to be humbly admitted:
the turtles need real shells. Let’s
join a big external union even before starting this comedy “Contract
Negotiations”. At stake is something
more than hypnotizing us with salary increases and Summer Fridays. The first, are barely matching inflation, and the second ones are too emotional for fair
negotiations with this tricky administration (see: www.spop.addr.com). What is left, and cannot be compromised, is
our human DIGNITY. It cannot be protected by isolating us from
other unions.
--------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This material below was posted December
2003 and above was updated
The following correspondence was
provided to senate members today (2003-12-03) at
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To: Senate members - 2003-12-03 meeting
Subject: Setting a good McGill’s example for
resolving labour disputes
Dear Friends and the Principal,
Over the last decade, McGill has been overtaken
by an ever-more corporate style of management, which has minimal respect for
profound academic traditions. Profitable or spectacular activities are
promoted, which can be “processed” by the media (representing corporate
interests), while not enough attention is paid to the development of higher
human values, which one would assume was the mandate of a university.
The question is, do we
really need to convert this university into a commercial organization obsessed
with artificial and self-centered marketing? Higher education should never
consist of competitive research facilities and production lines of insensitive
and cynical specialists. Instead, it should be a way of following goals such as
a sense of belonging and a purpose in life, especially in a society often too
busy to reflect deeply.
The cynicism of McGill is currently evident in
its treatment of its employees. This is common in the modern world governed by
Money, Manipulation and the aggressively-promoted hunger for More,
and it means that those at the lower level of the social ladder are exploited
and not treated like partners. It generates conflicts instead of creative
dialogue, and if the same thing is happening at McGill as well, what hope for
the future? We can understand to some extent the aggressive behaviour of the
union activists confronting politicians in
Let’s hope that in the next Senate meeting our
professors (also badly treated before by the very arrogant administration
during the TAs’ protest – see http://www.spop.addr.com/cen.jpg
“Awaking idealism in senate”) express their opinions about our alienated top
administration. Perhaps awarding the “Order of McGill” (suggested before in http://www.spop.addr.com/order.htm
when only a few hundred people expressed their disappointment in October and
now this number is over 1000!) will make people think of new strategies for our
still evolving-university, before it becomes totally commercialized. I believe
we can set a good example for the whole country facing a growing number of
social confrontations, and show how to resolve labour disputes.
Regards,
Slawomir
Poplawski
- - - -- - -- -- - - -- - - - -- - - - -
- - - - - - - -- - - - - -
Our
students, managers and professors should be informed about the present
administration's dirty policies, hence the letters below, one from Mark
Orchard-Webb to the Provost, and another from
Dear Provost Vinet,
I do not wish to seem disrespectful, but in good conscience I must
contradict some of the statements you made in your recent email entitled
"Update on negotiations with
Vinet> Dear Students, Faculty Members and
Staff,
Vinet>
Vinet> staff employees represented by
Vinet> the University's contract offer and
to give their union a
Vinet> mandate to exercise pressure tactics
up to and including
Vinet> strike action.
It merits mention that it was an overwhelming rejection. We voted 851/990 to reject this abysmal
offer, and those who did not have to rush back to work voted 699/813 to back up
that rejection by any means necessary.
Vinet> This
message is to let you know that the University will
Vinet> remain open in the event of labour
disruptions. Student
Vinet> services, classes, and exams will
continue normally and
Vinet> other essential research and
administrative services will
Vinet>
be maintained.
If our absence will be so easily overlooked then why does McGill waste
resources by employing 1.4 thousand of us?
Vinet> We
believe the offer is a very good one and is advantageous
Vinet> to employees. At the same time, the terms of the offer
Vinet> would enable the University to upgrade
the support provided
Vinet> to students, professors
and teaching and research programs.
We disagree, it is a very bad offer. Balancing McGill's fiscal policy should not
be done on the backs of loyal, hard working employees who have been pushed
until the point where they now have to stand and fight.
Vinet> Needless to say, the Administration
wishes the situation to
Vinet> be resolved quickly.
How interesting! Why then were
negotiations allowed to drag on for a year after the expiration of our
collective agreement? Now all of a
sudden there is a great desire for expediency!
Vinet> The offer, retroactive to
Vinet> salary increases of more than 22%
over the five-year
Vinet> contract period, including full
compensation for four
Vinet> floating holidays that the
University is offering to buy
Vinet> back.
This is a best case scenario which certainly does not apply to all
employees. If you have been a loyal
employee of McGill for most of your career you will find you get only 11.3%
over the five year contract, which includes compensation for only two of the
four floating holidays that the University is trying to buy back by force.
Vinet> For example, the salary of an employee who is earning
Vinet> $33,000 a year, would increase to
$35,721 immediately, and
Vinet> would increase to $40,227 by
Vinet> compares very favourably to
increases in the cost of living
Vinet> and to pay increases negotiated
elsewhere.
For example, an other employee who has given so
many years of loyal service to McGill that she has reached the ceiling of her
scale is earning $30,937 per year, would increase to $32,187 immediately, and
would increase to $34,431 by
It is also interesting that the ceiling of the scale in my example is
very close to the starting salary for positions at U de M.
Vinet> Staff with as little as 7 years
service would have 48 paid
Vinet> days off, including vacations,
statutory and other
Vinet> holidays. McGill employees would still have more days
off
Vinet> in the summer than any other university in
Staff with as many as 35 years service will also get 48 paid days off,
including vacations, statutory and other holidays. There is an implicit implication that things
get even easier after 7 years.
Again, I am sorry if I have spoken out of turn, but I can not stay
silent when my fellow employees are suffering psychological trauma because
their employer is financially bleeding them to death. One lady at the meeting, when we rejected
your offer, stated the situation quite clearly - if we don't fight now we will
be too weak to fight in the future.
Sincerely,
Mark Orchard-Webb
- - - - - - - - --- - - - - - --
- - - - - - -
Dear members (from
Please post and circulate this message to the academic staff, managerial
staff and students in your area.
Why did
There is a huge wage gap, with starting salaries at McGill between
10-13% lower than at the Université de Montréal. Employees at U de M also reach their ceilings
in between 3 - 10 years. Their senior technicians are also eligible for an
additional 4% per year over 3 years. At
McGill, with a merit system later changed to automatic progression of 1 to
1.5%, it has taken an average of 28 years to reach one's ceiling. With the current offer of 2% auto
progression, it would take slightly more than 17 years to reach the ceiling of
one's salary scale.
This wage gap has seemed somewhat tolerable to some in the past due to
the greater time off during the summer (other Universities only enjoy ten
Friday afternoons). People value the
extra time they can spend with their families.
Now McGill wants to significantly erode this aspect of our working
conditions, which we have earned over the past twenty years when we accepted
the time off in lieu of a 2.8% salary increase since 1982 to help McGill when
McGill was strapped for funds.
The University claims that its offer would provide salary increases of
more than 22%. This compares with
approximately 35% for a similar group of employees at the Université
de Montréal over the same period of time.
But in fact, even this smaller offer does not apply to all
The University is also offering to buy back two Summer Fridays at 0.8%
as automatic progression only. This
means that about 20% of our members, those who have been at McGill the longest
and have reached the maximum of their salary scales, typically after 28 years,
are now "rewarded" for their loyalty by being singled out to work
more days without additional compensation.
McGill is also failing to maintain its own Pay Equity Plan implemented 2
years ago, concerning which
After considering all the facts, the