2005 Weblog Postings

Friday, September 23, 2005
Support CBC locked out Employees social September 29th 7:30 PM Brass Monkey 220 - 21st Street. Admission is a healthy breakfast or lunch donation for CHEP. See linked poster for details and a very spiffy nostalgia layout.
posted by kate

Negotiations Report The Employer finally responded with counter positions and a full package for the first time in this round of Negotiations. Unfortunately the Employer has returned with a revised version of their compensation model which we have already determined in accordance with the recent Job Evaluation arbitration decision, must be dealt with at the Job Evaluation Table. We have repeatedly invited them to bring it to that table.
The Benefits package which they have offered to us, will be sent to our Joint Benefits Committee to be thouroughly reviewed. We will act on their recommendations.
The Employer has refused to address market adjustments, which are very important to us, until a compensation model is in place.
We have additional negotiating dates set up for October 18, 19, 20th and 24th, 25th and 26th. We will provide further details at our next membership meeting. Sept 27th Rm B3 Health Sciences Bldg in Saskatoon at 12:00. TBA in Regina.
on behalf of your Negotiations Committee: Regina: Don Puff, Rick Kerr, Joyce White, Saskatoon: Brad McKaig, Rhonda Heisler, Kate Hodgson. CUPE Don Moran, Lois Lamon
posted by Glenn Ross

The Joint Union Executive and Negotiations committees met on September 19th to discuss the JE Arbitration ruling and current state of negotiations. Don Puff stated "The Arbitration gave us everything we asked for and it confirms that we were right from the beginning!" The arbitrations award states: it was illegal for the University to walk away from the table and that the J.E. Terms of Reference is an enforceable agreement.

A motion was passed calling for the Joint Executive to enforce the job evaluation arbitration award, the Negotiation Committee to negotiate only general increases and collective agreement language, and the Job Evaluation Committee negotiate Job Evaluation matters.

In discussing possible job actions, we hope for the best but prepare for the worst. Our Prime date for commencing job action up to and including a full scale walk out is January 16th. This date is subject to change depending on the state of negotiations. We are currently focusing on Strike Aversion.

To that end we are continuing to meet and negotiate with the Employer and attempting to work out our differences.

Could all members please send the Union Office your home email addresses, or other contact information to ensure we can contact you.

We also need volunteers for committees such as: Picket line support and captains, transportation, communications, membership assistance, education, logistics. All volunteers will receive training. Regina volunteers please send your names to the Union Office Attention: Jolene Kriska; Saskatoon volunteers, Attention: Linda Reiber.

Submitted by Don Puff and Glenn Ross on behalf of the Joint Union Executive
posted by Don Puff

press release CUPE urges resumption of job evaluation talks Arbitrator finds University of Saskatchewan in breach of collective agreement
pdf of Decision
posted by Don Puff

Thursday, September 15, 2005
In Saturday's Star Phoenix ("Labour disputes block job action by university workers", Sept. 10, A), Barb Daigle confuses the hiring and promotion of support staff employees in order to make a case for "merit" hiring.

(1) According to the SP, "the Universities want merit, not seniority, to be a key consideration when deciding which employees should be promoted or even hired in the first place, part of an effort to employ more aboriginal people."

(2) Barb Daigle is quoted as saying, "If all the emphasis is on seniority, then the door is closed for opportunities for aboriginal people."

(3) Barb Daigle is also quoted as saying, "If we're only hiring internal people into those jobs that become available because they have seniority, then how do people outside the university ever get any?"

(4) Finally, Barb Daigle also is quoted as saying, "If our staff are underrepresented in terms of the aboriginal population, how do the aboriginal people ever get any seniority if they can't bid on jobs."

Here's what one of our members thinks of Daigle's arguments:...

Barb Daigle's comments (SP, "Labour disputes block job actions by university workings", September 10, 2005) unwittingly reveal the real dimensions of the problems with the underrepresentation of aboriginal people in the University of Saskatchewan's employ. Contrary to Daigle's claims, seniority plays no role in the hiring of employees at the university. How could it? Seniority can only be accumulated by employees that have already been hired.

On the other hand, if aboriginal people are underrepresented, then it can only be a result of the hiring practices of the university.

The question, "what accounts for this underrepresentation of aboriginal people?" is just another way of asking, "why hasn't the university been hiring aboriginal people?"

Historically, it may be that the university determined that aboriginal people did not have the training or education that makes for prospective university employees. In that case it would have had a social obligation to be involved in rectifying that situation. In this there is much to be learned from CUPE's involvement in forging alliances and partnerships with public sector employers, the government, and aboriginal groups.

On the other hand, if aboriginal people have always been qualified and simply passed over as prospective employees, as many would argue, then the university must ascertain where the difficulty is in their own hiring practices.

One thing is clear: seniority has never prevented aboriginal or any other people from being hired at the university. Indeed, from this point of view, seniority is precisely what ensures that different groups or particular university employees will not be passed over when it comes time for promotion.

The implications of Daigle's comments are clear: the university needs to reach out to aboriginal people as prospective employees while at the same time making sure that seniority protects them from being overlooked when it comes to job promotion from within the employee ranks.
Wayne Turner

Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Arbitrator finds the U of S in breach of the Collective Agreement

Arbitrator Hood found the U of S in breach of the Collective Agreement in two respects. First, by refusing to continue in the participation of the JESC meetings until the process was completed, and second, by the refusal to have the impasse at the JESC definitively determined by the impasse resolution process in paragraph 7(f) of the Terms of Reference.

On September 19 your Joint Executives and Bargaining Committee will be meeting to review the award with respect to its impact on collective bargaining with the Employer which resumes on September 20. Watch the website for further updates as they become available. Read the decision(please note this is a 3.9 mg. 83 page document in pdf format)
posted by kate

Friday, September 09, 2005

The Negotiations Committee met with Employer September 8th and the next meetings are set for September 20th and 21st.

In the meantime the bargaining committee is reviewing our options and we plan to meet with and seek direction from the joint executive prior to our next session with the employer.

On behalf of the Negotiations Ctte. Don Puff, Rhonda Heisler, Joyce White, Rick Kerr, Brad McKaig, Kate Hodgson.

Thursday, September 08, 2005 Press Release September 8th 2005

Wednesday, September 07, 2005
The Bargaining Committee Has A Strong Mandate!!

The results are in and verified after 2 days of voting with over 76% of our members in favour of job action.

Don Puff, Chair of the Bargaining Committee says, "Management must respect the mandate the membership has given to the bargaining committee."

Rhonda Heisler, 1st V.P. CUPE 1975, says, "I'm proud of the strong show of solidarity of our members between the two campuses. This should be a wake up call to the Employer."

Glenn Ross, President of CUPE 1975 in Saskatoon says "This vote clearly shows that our membership is very frustrated with the amount of time that it has taken to negotiate a renewal of our collective agreement. Our members want a fair collective agreement and one that monetarily is similar to all other provincial sectors agreement settlements. Our members have not seen a similar offer from managment. We are continuing to negotiate on our members best behalf to assure they get a fair agreement"

The Bargaining Committee's goal is still to achieve a fair, negotiated settlement, and we will continue to work toward that objective. We look forward to meeting with the Employer to finish the process.

For more information, please contact Don Puff at (306) 537-3199
posted by Don Puff

Press Release endorsed by the CUPE 1975 Negotiations Committee.

Wednesday, August 31, 2005

A Chronology of the Facts
As of September 6 2005
CUPE Local 1975 Bargaining, 2004, 2005

November 12, 2003: CUPE gives the Universities notice to commence bargaining.

December 15, 2003: University of Saskatchewan acknowledges notice to commence bargaining and Greg Trew has been hired to represent the University of Saskatchewan. (this is the first time the university has hired an external negotiator).

December 31, 2003: The Collective Agreement between CUPE Local 1975 and the Universities of Saskatchewan and Regina expires.

The Universities take the position that they do not want to bargain jointly. The Union learned through government officials that both universities had approached them about bargaining separately.

February 12, 2004: CUPE finds it necessary to remind the Universities that the Saskatchewan Governments Order in Council (law which requires the Universities to bargain with the CUPE units as one local) sets out how negotiations are to be conducted.

The Universities position in April 2004 was a different approach than what has historically been done in bargaining. Each University tabled two separate bargaining proposals with the Union. (Historically they tabled one package)

April 15, 2004: The U of S provides CUPE with their bargaining proposals.
April 19, 2004: The U of R provides CUPE with their bargaining proposals.
April 19, 2004: CUPE tables their bargaining proposals with the Universities.

The local union Presidents of both campuses and the CUPE Servicing Representatives meet with the Minister of Learning to discuss concerns with the Universities unwillingness to negotiate jointly.

April 30, 2004: The Minister of Learning confirms in writing to the Universities that the original Order in Council remains in effect and requires the parties to negotiate jointly.

October 25, 2004: For the first time in this round of bargaining CUPE is finally at the point to have the ability to put together one package which addresses the separate proposals of each University (previously nine separate packages). Unfortunately, the Universities once again countered separately to the Union's one package.

Bargaining Sessions held with the Employers through 2004 and 2005: Total of 43 days.

In addition, because of the approach taken by the Employers, it has been necessary for your bargaining committee to meet independently of the Employer far more than has ever been done in the past approximately another 45 days.

We have some tentatively agreed to items, such as new definitions of employees which does include increasing the rights of our long term casuals and also have rewritten the grievance procedure. Also, an improvement in our compassionate care language and improvements for pregnant mothers.

The Universities wanted problem solving language contained in both our discipline article and our grievance article removed from the agreement. After many discussions and with a degree of reluctance, the Union agreed.

There are significant items, which are tentatively agreed to, contingent on the Union agreeing to relative equal skill, ability and qualifications (merit hiring).

In their most recent presentation all aspects of the Employers proposal are contingent on the Union accepting their version of a compensation package and dropping all references to Job Evaluation from the Collective Agreement and all outstanding litigation (unfair labour practices, grievances, arbitration cases).

The Employer has presented a proposed compensation package which we cannot in good conscience recommend to our members. It falls short providing for pay equity, and 0% across the board for each of the three years and attempts to compensate with two $500.00 signing bonuses for 2004 and 2005. Although funding to the benefit plans would increase moderately, it would still fall short of maintaining our current level of benefits.

The U of R wants to see the language of Harassment removed from the agreement to the point where there is no defined criteria or clear definition. Both Universities feel that psychological harassment definition should not be included in an agreement.

Where do we go from here?

We are aggressively pursuing the Employer to come up with more dates for bargaining and come back to the Job Evaluation Table.

The significant outstanding issues are:
Wages and benefits
Seniority
Equity
Workplace Accommodation

After the latest meetings with the Employer, the Bargaining Committee is in full support of holding a vote for a Strike Mandate. We still have dates booked to negotiate and we do not want to jeopardize any outstanding cases before the labour board.

The Ballot will Read:

Please indicate by check mark if you are in favour of Local 1975 commencing some form of job action up to and including a strike.

Yes No

posted by Don Puff

Monday, August 29, 2005

SPECIAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING CUPE LOCAL 1975 University Employees' Union

At the Tuesday August 23, 2005 General membership meeting of CUPE Local 1975 Saskatoon, a motion was made from the floor to hold a special membership meeting on Sept. 6, 2005 to conduct a strike vote.

If members vote in favour of a strike, you will be giving the local the ability to commence some form of job action should negotiations reach a stalemate.

We will be doing our best to try reach an agreement so that we do not have to take action against the University.

Please Note: voting will take place:
Tuesday Sept. 6, 2005
11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
5:00 to 6:00 p.m.
Location: On the grounds on the North end of
McLean Hall. (Next door to Observatory And east of the Dental Clinic)

details:
A MESSAGE FROM THE CUPE LOCAL 1975 NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE

At the Tuesday August 23, 2005 General membership meeting of CUPE Local 1975 Saskatoon, a motion was made from the floor to hold a special membership meeting on Sept. 6, 2005 to conduct a strike vote.

Q. What happens if the strike vote is passed?
A. The local would be able to commence some form of job action should negotiations reach a complete stalemate.

Q. Does voting in favour of a strike mean that we are going out on strike?
A. Not necessarily, we will be doing our best to try to reach an agreement and we have a number of bargaining sessions set in September. Also, before commencing a full strike we would do things like working to rule, banning overtime, doing rotational walkouts and having rallies.

Q. Do both Regina and Saskatoon have to vote?
A. Yes, you are one local.

Q. Why should we support a strike vote?
A. To date the negotiating committee has met with the Employer for over forty days of negotiations and progress has been very slow. At the last bargaining session, the Employers proposal contained a number of items that are extremely detrimental to us all. Here are just a few of the problems:

1. Under the current Collective Agreement when you are bidding on vacancies or promotions, if you are senior and qualified, you get the job. In their proposal the Employer only wants to give you the job if you are the most qualified to heck with seniority. If we agree to this, then the Employer will give us campus wide seniority but at that point it won t mean anything.

2. A proposal for a new wage classification system and a requirement that all issues related to Job Evaluation be dropped. Under this proposal, there is no opportunity for either individual or union participation and no access to any kind of independent appeal process. The Employer would also be solely responsible for determining and setting any market adjustments.

3. No designated wage increase for any of the three years of the agreement. The Employer is saying they have included the wage increase in their new classification system. What this means to some of our members is that they would not see any wage increase at all following this round of negotiations. Basically, they would end up paying for other members increases that were arbitrarily put in place by the Employer.

4. Decreased benefits, increased costs.

Q. What message do we want to deliver to the Universities?
A. That the membership is solidly backing the Negotiating Committee.

Q. How do we send that message?
A. By voting 'Yes' on September 6.
posted by kate

Thursday, August 25, 2005
CBC Unplugged for news about the CBC lockout and alternative broadcasting by the real journalists.
posted by kate

Thursday, August 11, 2005
Negotiations Report August 11, 2005

The Employer presented us with a package that we found unacceptable. They proposed a compensation model, which rolled market adjustments and pay equity/job evaluation together, included possible merit increases and had no provision for any across the board money.

Some components of this model may satisfy the Job Evaluation project, and should be pursued at THAT table.

However, the financial aspect would result in only 20% of our members seeing an increase during the life of this contract (three years). Others would be red-circled or frozen until rates catch up with their current wages.

One of the Employer conditions is for the Union to drop all Unfair Labour Practice, Grievance and Arbitration cases relating to Job Evaluation. Since all the hearings on the major Arbitration case are completed and we expect a ruling very soon, abandoning this process is a huge waste of resources.

Although the proposal the Employer put forward has provided for an overall increase in funding for benefits (0.4%). These changes would also have resulted in a reduction of some benefits to some of our members. Both parties are studying the implications and will discuss these further.

We had 2 additional days booked this week but the Employer was not prepared to immediately respond to our counter proposals and will meet with us at the end of the Month.
On behalf of the Negotiations Committee
posted by kate

Wednesday, July 27, 2005
More Bargaining Dates have been set up. We are scheduled to meet August 8th - 12th, and 29th - 31st, September 8th, 20th and 21st.
posted by kate

Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Negotiations with University of Regina took place July 6th.

Meetings scheduled with University of Saskatchewan and the Joint U of S and U of R Negotiations Team this week were cancelled for compassionate reasons.

We would like to extend our sympathy to the Trew Family.

We are attempting to reschedule these lost days as soon as possible and preparing a comprehensive report to distribute to the membership of the current state of negotiations
posted by Don Puff

Friday, June 17, 2005

Members of the management team informed us they were attempting creative thinking around bargaining issues at a June 15th meeting. Cheryl Carver s June 7th memo to Senior Administration, Deans, Directors, Department heads and PAC (quoted below) suggests they are hoping for a Governor General s literary award for fiction. The Union s response is in red.

Since our April 15th update, representatives of the U of S (and U of R) met with CUPE s negotiating committee on April 25th and 26th and 24th and 25th of May in Regina and on 17th, 18th, and 19th of May in Saskatoon. Discussions revolved around both regional and local issues.

At the outset of these meetings, the union tabled its monetary demands, which are summarized below:

General Wage Increases: 3% per year over 3 years
Benefit Plan Improvements: 2% of payroll
Market Adjustments to Wages, etc: 1 % of payroll

The total cost of the union s wage and benefits proposal is in excess of 15% of payroll over three years. These developments are disappointing but not unexpected. While unrealistic, we believe these demands are being made in an effort to impress CUPE s membership.

The union subsequently advised us that they were interested in hearing from the employer on our proposals regarding an alternative approach to the failed Job Evaluation project. This news was encouraging and leaves us optimistic that the union is open to productive discussions around a new compensation model. It also marks a change from CUPE s original position of not discussing wage settlements or compensation models until the conclusion of the Job Evaluation hearings.

The union further advised that it has no interest in any best candidate selection process. The union made it very clear that it feels any selection process, other than the current one, is subject to Employer abuse and is therefore dangerous. The union also made it clear that it views itself as defending the gains that have been made over a number of years and that the status quo - with significantly more money injected - is what it expects from the U of S to settle this round of bargaining.

The union also took an aggressive stand on language surrounding the current EAP program. They were looking for more involvement in program design, delivery and administration and expressed fear they may lose the employer s long term commitment to delivering EAP to staff. This dramatic shift in proposals appeared to emanate from the recently announced program review of the EAP by the EAP Board and University Administration.

We wish to clarify our view of these and other significant issues for your reference:

Compensation System
The U of S has contended for some time that the compensation model reflected in the CUPE contract no longer meets the needs of the University or its staff. The Job Evaluation project was an effort to redesign that model, but was ultimately unsuccessful. Throwing scarce new money into a broken system which bears little relationship to the labour market serves only to make the current system more ineffective. Our proposals will focus on making revisions that will help to ensure we provide better alignment with market and career growth while creating incentives to recognize and reward the many outstanding performers in the CUPE bargaining unit. We also wish to continue to focus efforts on addressing equity and other important compensation principles as we discuss our local issues.

Group Benefits
The University continues to advocate for more fiscally-responsible management through a review of the CUPE benefits plan design and administration. We believe that the design of some benefit plans could and should be adjusted to maximize the impact of the dollars spent to meet the needs of our employees and to encourage more productive and healthy work environments.

We remain convinced that employee benefits, including sick leave, must be carefully managed so as to remain competitive, viable and aligned with the interest of the institution and our employees.

We agree and have recommended a modest 2% increase to be distributed across the benefits package according to advice and expertise of the long time members of the fringe benefits committee.

Merit as a Factor in Promotion
The present selection process encourages a belief in entitlement to job opportunities while providing no incentive to employees to expand their knowledge and skills. We do not seek to eliminate seniority. We are seeking to promote excellence within our hiring practices. We know that the vast majority of our employees have nothing to fear from a more competitive selection process. We also know that the current model of seniority-based hiring creates significant barriers to the University s overall diversity strategy (hiring of under-represented groups) and in fact perpetuates discriminatory hiring practices that violate our legislative obligations. Under our proposals seniority would still apply to job security and other provisions of the collective agreement.

The Role and Importance of EAP
Contrary to the Union's fears, the University remains strongly committed to providing EAP to CUPE employees and to all staff and their families across campus. The University promotes a shared responsibility (between employees and the employer) for individual, family and organizational health and effectiveness. This is inclusive of a program that provides effective and confidential counselling to staff through individual and family counselling focused on increasing resiliency and coping strategies. Our proposals enhance strategies to maximize effectiveness of counselling interventions while protecting confidentiality.

Other Issues
Significant progress has been made to reach tentative agreement on a number of other issues including a revised disciplinary process, a new FAPA agreement, a streamlined grievance process which more accurately reflects current practice, and updated definitions of employees which allow for more flexible appointments.

Yes there have been successful efforts to reach agreement and we continue to strive to reach agreement wherever we can…not to impress our members as the employe cynically suggests, but to protect their interests and reach the goals they have set for us in their recommendations to the bargaining committee.

Additional bargaining dates have been set for the summer months. We will keep you apprised of further developments as these negotiations continue. Please direct any comments or questions to HRD, Director of Operational Services, Cheryl Carver at 966-1219 or Human Resources Advisor, June Vargo at 966-6284.

We will continue to keep you informed and be vigilant in protecting the rights afforded you under the current Collective Agreement. If you have any questions or comments please contact: Don Puff, Chairperson of your negotiations committee, in Regina at 306-537-3199.
posted by Don Puff

Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Mayworks webpage for a complete list of what's going on this week or Download their brochure (large file, slow to load but suitable for printing)
posted by kate

There are a number of opportunities to take on Walmart this Week. The CLC has a fax you can send on Their Website There is a rally in Regina and Saskatoon along with cities across Canada - click here for the poster For details about why Click here.
posted by kate

Tuesday, April 12, 2005
There will be a Special Membership Meeting at 12 noon Tuesday April 19th in Arts 241 formerly Place Riel Theatre. The purpose is to present the Trustee Report. All other business will take place at the regular membership meeting. (April 26th)
posted by kate hodgson

Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Rally Pictures posted to the Cupe National Gallery by Beth Smillie
posted by kate hodgson

Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Negotiations Update hot off the scanner
posted by kate hodgson

Monday, March 21, 2005
Current Advertisment using the 5th estate in our dialogue with management.
posted by kate hodgson

Sunday, March 20, 2005
Human Rights Complaints
The responses from The Human Rights commission have been mailed out to those of you who had filed complaintes. If you appeal the decision you have to do so before April 8th 2005

posted by glenn ross

Job Evaluation Arbitration Concludes
On March 11th after nine days of hearings The Job Evaluation Arbitration hearings have concluded .This matter is now in the hands of the Three person Arbitration panel. This panel will now review the evidence of both parties and then render their decision . We are hopeful that the panel will make their decision in our favor and within in a reasonable time period, but we must allow them the necessary time it takes to come to their decision on this important matter.

CUPE1975 believes Management must return and conclude the Job Evaluation process,while Management believes they had the right to end the process . CUPE1975 will let members know the decision as soon as we are aware of it.

posted by glenn ross

Saturday, March 12, 2005
Pay Equity Rally in Regina drew a large crowd and got lots of media attention. Along with the Regina Leader Post story reproduced here, is a photo of some of our delegates to the CUPE Saskatchewan Division convention taking time to attend the Pay Equity Rally. Thanks to Ray Quon from U. of R. for the photo.
posted by kate hodgson

Thursday, March 03, 2005
Want to remind the University that we are still waiting....Poster On International Women's Day, Tuesday March 8th, at noon, come to a rally in the Bowl. There will be Speakers at 12:15 and everyone is welcome. The Theme is Fairness for University Workers.

In a further Effort to promote a fair settlement at the table watch for a series of detailed newspaper ads in the Sheaf and banners on some of Saskatoon's transit buses. Here are a couple of samples: Campus Wide Seniority and Fair Wages and Benefits
posted by kate hodgson

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

If you like the new logo you can display it using one of the following:
Ball Caps $14.00
Jacquared Collar Shirt $ 28.00
Ladies Short Sleeve Scoop T Shirt $ 16.00
Ladies Long Sleeve Scoop T Shirt $18.00
Lanyards $ 5.00
Stainless Steel Travel Mugs $ 12.00
or
Handpainted Glazed Lapel Pins $ 5.00
Sandblasted Lapel Pins $ 4.00
posted by kate hodgson

Sunday, February 20, 2005
Sheaf Ad for the U. of S. Teaching Assistants organizing drive. Ad for Second Week
posted by kate hodgson

Thursday, February 10, 2005
Negotiation Dates for 2005

JAN 24, 25, FEB 8, 9, MAR 1, 2, 22, 23, 29, 30, APR 5, 6, 25, 26, 28 MAY 17, 18, 24, 25, 26

Your CUPE 1975 negotiation committee;
Representing members at both Universities in Saskatchewan: Don Puff (chair) puffdo@uregina.ca , Wayne Turner turnerwr@gmail.com, Glenda Graham grahamglenda@hotmail.com , Rick Kerr Rick. Kerr@uregina.ca, Brad McKaig mcbradford@hotmail.com, Joyce White & Kate Hodgson (alternate) along with your National Representatives Don Moran & Lois Lamon.

posted by Glenda Graham

Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Saskatchewan Federation of Labour

What is the Business Crowd afraid of? Why won't they come clean? Why won't the media hold them accountable?Last evening (Tuesday, February 1, 2005) I participated in a 1/2 hour discussion on the controversial Most Available Hours legislation on a Saskatoon Shaw Cable local show called "Live Now!". That wouldn't be so unusual, except for the fact that groups representing business had been invited to send a representative to rebut me and to state their case and the business crowd refused to participate.As television show host Eldon Duchscher put it, "local business groups .. declined our invitation (to participate in the show)."I question the business groups refusal to engage in a meaningful discussion about the legislation. What are they (the business crowd) afraid of? Why do they refuse to come clean on their opposition to this piece of legislation?I have offered to debate the business crowd in public forums sponsored by the two universities, they refused. I have offered to meet with them to see if there is any common ground between business and labour, they refused. They are invited to participate in a local T.V. call-in show with me to discuss the matter, they refused. I have a copy of a letter from Nicole Bertrand of the Prince Albert Chamber of Commerce to the P.A. Labour Council refusing to meet with representatives of the Labour Council to discuss this issue. Why can they not defend their position infront of me, and infront of other citizens in this province?The media should be asking hard questions of the business crowd and demanding concrete answers. It is not good enough for the media to continue to perpetuate the campaign of misinformation, fear and (in some cases) outright intimidation of the business crowd.Why hasn't the public broadcaster - CBC - for instance, invited me to participate in an open forum on this matter?. Why has there been absolutely no public debate on this topic? You would think a piece of legislation this controversial that has occupied so much media attention, (opposed to the legislation), in the past three months would qualify for at least a bit of balance.Thousands of Saskatchewan citizens and workers would benefit from some good social policy in this province and we are mired in a campaign of dishonesty, misinformation, fear, and outright threats. It's like a corporate feeding frenzy, it's quite shameful. It's time we started to demand public accountability from the media. It's time we started to demand public accountability from the business crowd. It's time we started to demand public accountability from our politicians (government and opposition). And it's time we held a mass rally to defend the concept of Most Available Hours.

Larry Hubich
President
Saskatchewan Federation of Labour

posted by Glenda Graham

Sunday, January 30, 2005
news release
SASKATCHEWAN FEDERATION OF LABOUR
January 27, 2005
Hours of Work law to be discussed at U of S
A group of University of Saskatchewan students has organized an Hours of Work Forum to discuss the provincial government's proposed regulations affecting part-time workers.
The forum will be held at Browsers in the Memorial Union Building on the University of Saskatchewan campus and will begin at 11:30 a.m. on Monday, January 31, 2005.
Speakers will include student and community representatives as well as Larry Kowalchuk (General Counsel for the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union and sessional lecturer at the College of Commerce) and Larry Hubich the President of the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour.
There will be brief opening statements followed by a question and answer period.
The Calvert government announced last October that the province would proceed with implementing the "Most Available Hours" amendment which is aimed at turning part-time hours of work into full-time jobs.
Many of the almost 100,000 part-time workers in Saskatchewan are students employed in the service or retail sectors.
At least one in five part-time employees are seeking full-time jobs, and perhaps a similar number are looking for more hours of work than they now have, but because of classes or family obligations they aren't able to work a full 40 hours every week.
The Most Available Hours law will require employers to offer "new or additional" hours of work to their part-time employees who have the longest service with the company and who are qualified to do the work.
Part-time workers would have the option of taking or declining the additional hours. Short-term call-ins would not be affected by the new law, but scheduling of long-term work would be covered.
The new law would be of particular benefit to employees who hold two or more part-time jobs. They would be able to add hours of work at one location and free up hours elsewhere, cutting down on travel time and expenses.
for more information contact Larry Hubich at 924-8573 or 537-7330 (cell)
posted by Glenda Graham

Thursday, January 27, 2005
There will be a speakers forum at Browser's, upper MUB, Monday Jan 31st, 11:30.Larry Hubich, President of the Sask Federation of Labour will be one of the speakers. Other speakers include two women (student & faculty) who will talk about how this impacts working women.
posted by kate hodgson

Tuesday, January 25, 2005
MOST AVAILABLE HOURS is our issue!
To:premier@gov.sk.caCC:dhiggins@mla.legassembly.sk.ca

It is crucial, Premier Calvert, to recognize and name the reality that the working poor in our province struggle against. In the first place, it means calling the business lobbies on the rhetoric they are using to hinder the proclamation of new and meaningful legislation designed to make Saskatchewan not only a good place to invest but also a good place to work.
For example, if the fundamental problem with the new legislations is that it will "kill jobs", why didn't the business lobbies protest the influx of retail style stores that eliminate one and a half jobs for every job they create? Where were the protests against the many labour-eliminating technologies that have been implemented in our communities over the last 50 years.
On the contrary, businesses pride themselves on being able reduce the number of workers in their employ. But it is the same refrain we hear whenever proposals to raise the minimum wage are made. Suddenly the business associations clamour that such a move would push business out of the province and jobs would be lost. It would be interesting to offer these groups an option - either most available hours or a higher minimum wage and see how they would respond.
One simply has to recognize and name the attacks made on the new legislation for what they are - the irrational rantings and ravings of a group of lobbiests that don't even know what is in their own best interest. I offer the following points in support of this analysis:
(1) Any business with a large group of part time staff will already have some sort of criteria for calling in staff for extra hours in the interests of efficiency and productivity. Seniority simply formalizes the kinds of arrangements that already exist.
(2) It is not in anyone's interests to have workers trying to hold down three or four jobs in order to make ends meet. Although it is true that some part time workers do not want full time work, this was never the issue. Most part time workers would like to work more hours or at least like the option of working more hours if they become available.
(3) Surelly everyone recognizes the difficulties that workers face when they can only rely on their employers for job security. Harrassment, exploitation, and discrimination are the dangers that always lurk in the workplace. The less job security and the more poverty there is, the greater the danger that these risks will become reality.
(4) Obviously, employers cap part time hours in order to avoid paying benefits. Here, too, the health and well-being of the worker is utterly dismissed.
(5) If it is the case that a national day care plan is going to be implemented, then the most available hours legislation would position our province in such a way as the working poor could most quickly take advantage of it, and perhaps more part time workers would be interested in acquiring full time work.
If we want Saskatchewan to be the kind of place that people want to work in, then we have only two choices with respect to this issue. Either we have most available hour legislation or everyone gets pro-rated benefits no matter how many hours they work or how many jobs they hold down.
I urge you to give the workers of Saskatchewan, especially those most vulnerable, a reason to believe that your government has their interests at heart.
Sincerely
Wayne Turner
CUPE 1975 executive member

Editor
Saskatoon Star Phoenix
Why is it that the business interests in our society still feel that they can manage effectively only if they are allowed to act arbitrarily? The recent protests against the proposed most available hours legislations is a case in point.
The proliferation of part time jobs decreases productivity and increases poverty in a number of ways. First, it keeps large numbers of workers under the poverty line, scrambling to juggle two, three, or more jobs to make ends meet. Second, it increases the administrative and managerial work load because of the absence of a stable full time work force that comes in and does the job. More part time workers mean that more time and effort has to be put into scheduling and supervision. Third, employees who want to work full time are constantly on the lookout for jobs that offer more hours and better working conditions. More time and effort is thus spent on interviewing and training instead of more pressing business needs.
The legislation does not tell employers who to hire. It simply recognizes that everyone benefits in our society if more people that want to are able to work for full time wages. How can denying part time workers the right to increase the hours they work be an economic disadvantage for a business? On the other hand, if an employee does not want more hours because of family commitments, for example, they do not have to take them.
Far from micromanaging business, the proposed legislation makes Saskatchewan the kind of place where people want to come to work in order to get ahead, something that fits entirely with the concern to make the province investor friendly.
But most importantly, we are reminded of the dreadful working situation some employees, often women, students, the young, and immigrants, are in. The abuses and injustices they endure in addition to their poverty stems in part from the fact that they have no right to the extra hours that become available.
As a national day care plan is taking shape, the new legislation puts Saskatchewan business and labour into a leading economic position as workers, and especially those most vulnerable, are given the opportunity to work their way out of poverty.
Glenda Graham

Editor
Regina Leader Post
Your front page story of December 8 , 2004 "Hours law will help very few employees" almost completely misses the main benefit of the available hours law. Certainly the law would assist employees who are currently working part-time and who would like to work full-time. This is 18,000 people according to the statistics in the story. Helping 18,000 people get full-time work would be a sizeable benefit.
However, what your story misses is that many of the 95,000 workers currently working part-time would like to work more hours, but not complete full-time hours. Just because these workers are students (31% or about 29,000) or have family responsibilities (23 % or about 22,000) or because of personal preference (27% or about 26,000) does not mean that they would not choose to work more hours if they had the opportunity. This is the real value of the Law. Even those who do not want more hours will welcome the security that their existing hours cannot be arbitrarily assigned to a newly hired employee.
Some will argue that the law would reduce the ability of new workers to enter the workforce . Unfortunately the logic of that argument is that every new hire must come at the expense of insecurity and lost opportunity for existing employees. New employment is more likely if existing workers feel hope in the future and security in the present. They will then be more likely to spend their money in the local economy and new jobs will be created.
What this law really does is to enable people who want to work, to work. These are the most productive employees and those that create the greatest wealth for our society.
As to why some employers organizations are so vehemently opposed to a minimal empowerment of part-time workers, you will have to consult a psychologist , not a statistician or economist.
Yours truly
Jim Holmes
posted by Glenda Graham

Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Like the new logo? You can wear it on one of the following items:
Baseball Caps - 13.75/each Black
Jacquard Collar sport Shirt - 27.99/each Black or Tan
Ladies short Sleeve Scoop - 15.70/each Black or white
Ladies long Sleeve Scoop - 18.05/each Black or White
Lanyards 4.50/each
Items are available for sale at the union office. Prices include taxes. Thanks to Linda Reiber,Brad Mckaig, Deanna Turetski and Maggie Leung for ordering these items and more to come.

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 I would like to extend to you an invitation to attend a basic stewarding workshop on Wednesday February 2nd.
What does a CUPE Steward do? If you want to help CUPE members solve workplace problems, this introductory workshop is for you. You will learn how to fill out a grievance form,how to deal with management, and how to help members improve their working conditions.
Where: Room 126 Kirk Hall
When: Wednesday Feruary 2nd
Time: 9 AM
You will be responsible for making arrangements at your workplace for time off. You must also notify Evelyn at out CUPE office (phone 7015) that you plan to attend and she will arrange a formal leave of absens for you. The deadline for registration is January 28th.
In Solidarity
Linda Reiber

Saturday, January 08, 2005
Know any Grad Students who work for U of S? You can direct them to information about the organizing drive here or their website at http://www.uofsta.cupe.ca/
posted by kate hodgson