Both groups will continue to have their own VPs and Stewards
- Each group would continue to represent their members and could meet with them independently from the other group, but there would be just one negotiating team consisting of the two VPs and one member of each group.
SMU PT Faculty will continue to enjoy their current terms and conditions of employment
- Any changes must be negotiated, and we will continue to follow our normal consultation processes with you in future negotiations;
SMU TAs will have a shorter negotiating process
- They will not have to negotiate every single article for a new collective agreement. Instead, they will be able to focus their time and efforts in negotiating the articles which would be specific to their position.
Better use of our time and resources in negotiating and addressing working conditions for our members
- With two separate agreements, we are more divided and overstretched, whereas consolidation would allow us to focus our collective efforts;
- With one collective agreement for the two units we will have a more efficient negotiating process, which means spending less time and effort in negotiating the same rights for two units with the same Employer;
- With one collective agreement, there will also be efficiency in Labour Management Committee meetings, where both common and distinct issues can be addressed in a single forum instead of two. The Labour Management Committee is formed by representatives of the Employer and the Union to raise and discuss operational concerns, suggest improvements in efficiency and working conditions, and solve minor problems.
Improved labour relations
- With two separate negotiating units, we risk being in a legal strike position more often. When negotiations fail and certain conditions are met, employees are in a legal position to withdraw their labour to pressure the employer to move at the negotiating table. The withdrawal of labour means not doing any of the work associated with your contract, e.g. if you are a TA, you’re not running tutorials, not attending lectures, not grading assignments, not holding office hours, etc.. Discussions of such job actions can be very stressful for some of our members, and harmful to the reputation of the University. While we cannot eliminate the use of such vocabulary, we can certainly limit such actions by merging our units and having just one collective agreement;
Strength in numbers while still respecting the diversity of each group
- Common issues and differences in appointment types can be addressed in a single agreement where common solutions are agreed as well as distinct solutions on issues distinct to each group are reached
- Having a single agreement would empower us to negotiate more strongly for all the members we represent.
- A unified contract involving TAs who are students/peers of the larger student body increases CUPE 3912 solidarity across campus.
A combined contract would facilitate cohesive guidelines that uphold the integrity of the PT faculty and TA positions.
Adapted from UOITFA’s text “What does consolidation mean?
* * * * * * * *
Questions from TAs about the merger, answered by the TA VP & negotiating committee
1. How would that affect us, potentially negatively, if there was conflict within the smu pt union?
While a certain level of conflict is healthy, we appreciate, respect, and share our members’ desire to avoid a toxic union environment. At the end of the day, all decisions within the union are made democratically and we will not and cannot proceed with action unless the majority vote in favour (according to CUPE 3912 bylaws). Should we merge with the PT faculty unit, we would all vote together as one group on these decisions.
That said, we want to be clear that merging bargaining units has sometimes led to conflict between the merged groups. This is especially true in cases where one group outnumbers the other, and therefore has more voting power (i.e., one group can achieve a majority vote on something the other group does not support). At present, our two bargaining units are approximately equal in numbers, but we are a new bargaining unit and may outnumber the PT faculty as we gain more members in the coming years. If this happens, it will be critical for TAs to be educated on the unique interests of the PT faculty and to vote in support of their fight for better working conditions. It will be equally critical for PT faculty to stay engaged in union activities and ensure they are communicating their interests.
We firmly believe that it is our responsibility as your elected union officials to build awareness and solidarity between PT faculty and TAs. After all, we share an employer, work environment, academic pressures, and desire for better working conditions with the PT faculty – and it is up to you to decide whether these outweigh our differences when you vote on the merger.
2. How would the merger impact TA salary/work expectation/protection?
In general, we expect the merger to have positive impacts on salary, working conditions, and protections for TAs in two major ways:
- We will be integrated into the existing PT faculty collective agreement, meaning we will likely have access to the protections incorporated in that agreement (e.g., ability to file grievances, etc.) sooner than if we bargain for them ourselves. Please note that this will depend on how long it takes the labour board to rule on the merger, and delays are possible (i.e., we cannot guarantee that merging will incorporate us in the agreement sooner, but feel it is extremely likely). We plan to proceed with our bargaining as a separate unit until we receive approval on the merger to avoid unnecessary delays.
- We will have more collective power to bargain for better salary and working conditions for both groups. In simpler words… this means we can strike together! As separate bargaining units, TAs legally cannot strike in support of PT faculty, and vice versa. While individual strikes will still be disruptive to the employer, a strike where both TAs and PT faculty refuse to work would be hugely powerful in getting the employer to meet our demands.
However, this means we don’t get to build a collective agreement that is entirely for ourselves. If we want to change anything about the PT faculty collective agreement, both the TAs and PT faculty would have to vote to approve those changes (as opposed to just us TAs, if we don’t merge), and then we would have to bargain for these changes with the employer. We would suggest reviewing the PT faculty collective agreement to see if you would feel appropriately represented and protected by the current articles because we will have to agree with the PT faculty to change these articles later if we don’t like them. While reviewing, please note that if we merge, we will add our own articles specific to TAs (e.g., hours, wages, etc.).
3. Not really sure it makes sense since we are so different. I’ve also worked as a TA at Dal and they are so toxic, it’s embarrassing and counterproductive.
In considering a merger, we weighed the differences and similarities between TAs and PT faculty to decide whether we had what the labour board calls a “shared community of interest”. As your elected negotiating committee, we firmly believe that we share more similarities than differences, including but not limited to:
- Our employer & administrators
- Our work environment/location (e.g., classrooms, labs, remote/virtual, etc.)
- Academic pressures to perform & be “collegial”
- Bargaining priorities, especially the need for better wages, which is the #1 priority for both TAs and PT faculty
- The broad impacts of the employer’s decisions
It is true that the bargaining unit at Dalhousie (which consists of both TAs and PT faculty) has experienced a lot of inner conflict in recent years, and we take this very seriously. The issues we are facing – and will face in the future – may lead to conflict because these issues (e.g., better wages, job security) seriously affect our livelihoods, especially during a country-wide affordability crisis. With issues as important as these, some conflict is totally understandable, and even expected! It is the responsibility of all of us to ensure that this conflict remains healthy, productive, and united in our shared goal to improve our working conditions.
We would like to assure you that the present TA and PT faculty elected officials have a great working relationship. In fact, the PT faculty officials were key allies for us during our campaign to unionize last year. Their support was instrumental to getting us where we are today and we have every intention to continue to grow this relationship in ongoing collaborations.
4. Will it make it easier for us to get a strong contract? One of my biggest concerns with the TA union is the inherently high turnover rate. Most TAs are MSc students, and they will only be here for two years. I’m concerned about the TA union’s ability to maintain consistent pressure on the employer with the high turnover rate. Would being joined with the part-timers mean that pressure can be maintained, or that TA issues are ignored because of our high turnover rate?
It is true that TAs have an extremely high turnover rate, but the PT faculty bargaining unit does as well! High turnover rates certainly present a challenge for ongoing engagement and education of both groups. However, both TAs and PT faculty will be voting on our bargaining priorities, proposals to the employer, and ratification of our collective agreement. It is unlikely we would accept a collective agreement that does not account for the priority issues for TAs and/or PT faculty.
Further, TAs will continue to have our own elected officials who are also TAs at SMU and responsible for ensuring TA issues are heard and addressed. As with everything union-related, it is critical our members continue to engage with us to tell us what is important to you. We encourage members to contact us at any time and consider joining our TA Advisory Committee to share your concerns.
It is most important to maintain pressure on the employer during bargaining and strikes, which is also the time period in which people tend to get more involved in union activities. Thus, we are confident in our ability to maintain pressure on our employer. The key benefit to merging (as described in Question 2) is that the pressure would be much greater if we were a merged unit because it means TAs and PT faculty would strike together.
5. I think, as stated, this could be helpful to push harder against the institution when taking job action (i.e., strikes). My only question is: how would the agreement differ in compensation negotiations? From what I understand, PT faculty and FAs are paid significantly different, especially since I, myself, will only be working 8 hours weekly. What will the differences be within the agreement in terms of pay, if any?
If we merge our units, we will be bargaining together but for wages according to our respective positions. In other words, there will be an article that specifies TA wages and an article that specifies PT faculty wages. This will also be true for many other job-specific articles, like the number of hours worked per term. When appropriate, articles such as those related to handling grievances, workplace harassment, etc., will apply to both groups.
Merging will not change the amount of compensation that we ask for. In January & February of 2024, TAs completed a bargaining survey in which we asked you to specify the wages you feel are fair, and we will use this as our benchmark during negotiations. The key difference is that we anticipate more power to achieve the wages both PT faculty and TAs are seeking by merging – that is, if the employer does not offer TAs (or PT faculty) the wages we want, both the PT faculty and TAs could vote to strike in order to achieve higher wages for TAs (and vice versa). This is what led to the hugely successful contract win at Dalhousie in 2022, in which TAs and PT faculty voted to strike and won a $30/hr rate for TAs (23% increase), which was far higher than what their employer had offered TAs before striking (7.59% increase).
6. I don’t think that dual-striking would have much of a benefit over separate strikes, if such a thing is necessary, because the disruption is already pretty sizable without one group. My biggest concern is a lack of focus, merging two similar but very different groups with different priorities. Just because Dalhousie does it doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
It is true that if we do not merge, a TA strike with lots of member engagement on the picket lines would still be very powerful and disruptive to the employer. However, a joint TA and PT faculty strike would completely shut down (and possibly cancel) hundreds of courses, which the employer could not ignore. This is hugely beneficial, especially in a time where the employer claims to be in serious financial distress and will do everything in their power to avoid spending more on labour. Regardless of the outcome of the merger vote, your negotiating committee is prepared and confident in our ability to proceed with negotiations.
There is alignment between PT faculty and TA interests on a variety of workplace factors which could provide focus for our merged bargaining unit, such as our working environment, shared impact of poor decisions made by the employer, academic pressures, and bargaining priorities (e.g., both groups #1 priority is increased wages). Also, PT faculty and TAs would still identify and negotiate our top priorities independently, and both groups would identify and negotiate our collective priorities together.
Of course, we acknowledge that there are some key differences between our groups, including that PT faculty are often our direct supervisors. This is why it will be critical to ensure strong workplace protections for TAs in the collective agreement, either through the addition of TA-specific articles or by revising the existing articles in the PT faculty agreement to work for us.
7. Would this provide more support for the TA bargaining unit at SMU? Also, where would PhD students who are part time teaching fall in this membership?
Regardless of whether we merge, the TA bargaining unit will have the same level of support from and representation within our union (CUPE National) and local (CUPE 3912). TAs will still be represented by a Vice President and Steward who are or were recently TAs at SMU. Merging provides the added support of being legally allowed to strike together.
PhD students who receive a contract to teach are considered PT faculty and are protected by the PT faculty collective agreement. If a PhD student currently holds both a PT faculty and TA position, they are represented by both the PT faculty and (pending) TA collective agreements. Should we merge with the PT faculty, the entire collective agreement (i.e., both the TA-specific and PT faculty-specific articles) would apply to that student. In short, the merger would not change the way PhD students are represented.
8. The two groups of people represented are in very different situations, though performing similar-ish jobs. The TAs are students, undergraduate and graduate, and just starting out. We need more protection from exploitation, whereas the instructors should know their way around labour a lot better, having more experience and having (presumably) gone through a PhD where labour concerns are also important.
This is very true; our bargaining priorities survey found that protection from exploitation was our #2 priority during negotiations. We are committed to addressing exploitation in our collective agreement, regardless of whether we decide to merge with the PT faculty. Your VP, Steward, negotiating committee, and an advisory committee have been drafting articles to better protect TAs from exploitative practices. You will have the opportunity to review and ratify these draft articles before we put them in front of the employer.
Importantly, PT faculty members are also very interested in protection from exploitative practices given their job insecurity, rate of pay (especially compared to full time faculty), and academic pressures to be “collegial.” We are confident that PT faculty and TAs are aligned in their priorities to reduce exploitation.
While PT faculty and TAs may often be in different places with regard to their workplace experience, we suggest that TAs could benefit from the experience of PT faculty by working closely with them. We do not see this as misalignment but rather, something valuable that we are adding to our bargaining unit.
Please contact the SMU TA Vice President, Samantha Williams, if you have any questions or concerns.
* * * * * * * *
Questions from Part-Time Faculty Members about the Merger:
Will a merger of the units affect the part time precedence list?
- No. TAs would have their own seniority, priority, or precedence list that relates to their work.
While I consider the pay for TAs below par, it is not clear to me that TAs are in the same category of experience or qualifications as SMU PT Faculty.
- TAs roles and PT Faculty roles would not be merged by merging the bargaining units. SMU TAs and SMU PT Faculty would retain their different roles as academic workers. TAs would continue to be a different job category, but both categories (TAs and PT Faculty) will be protected and represented in one collective agreement. That is, most of the articles in the collective agreement would apply to both groups and a few specific articles would apply exclusively to one group or the other. In this case, if a merger happens, and since the TAs don’t have a collective agreement, they would need to negotiate new articles that would apply just to them.
How many members are in each group?
- The numbers are pretty similar. There are currently 399 PT Faculty members who have held a teaching contract in the last 3 years, and around 325 TAs, which was the number of TAs who voted to unionize last year.
What is member involvement like on the TA side of things?
- TAs are an engaged and unified group. Their decision to unionize a year ago was unanimous.
Are two VPs necessary?
- Yes, in order to properly represent the interests of each group.
Are the interests of the two groups similar?
- Yes. In general, both groups are precariously employed, and they have shared goals which are to improve their pay and their working conditions. Each group, however, has specific needs and requests for their respective job positions.
SMU PT Faculty & SMU TAs are quite different groups – what are the disadvantages to combining the units, both for PT faculty and TAs? The webpage re: merging lists lots of positives, which is valid. However, what things could potentially hold both units back in a merge?
- The main and only disadvantage we can think of would be if one of the groups is weak and the other one is strong. That is, if members of one group are not engaged but the members of the other are, the interests of the strong group would prevail. For instance, if the strong group votes in favour or against a strike, they will always have a majority. To avoid this, the members of the weak group would have to engage and participate to make their voice heard (but this is also true even without a merger.) So what is actually a disadvantage can easily become an advantage if we have two strong groups of engaged members. This does not mean that both groups will agree in everything, but members will know that the decision taken represents the analysis and the opinions of the two groups and not just of one.
What would happen in the event that PTs are asking for something that is not in the best interest of grad students? And vice versa? This may be particularly relevant around grad students’ access to teaching contracts in the context of cutbacks in teaching budgets. Or striking when this would disadvantage students?
- In that context, those issues would have to be resolved during the bargaining process (especially at the stage of preparing proposals or voting to give a strike mandate) to reach a consensus on issues that could affect both groups. Having just one collective agreement would allow us to discuss issues that are important to both groups and make sure that no decision is taken that would affect one group or the other. Whereas if each group has their own collective agreement, changes that could affect one group could be made and ratified without the other group knowing about them. This could actually happen because there is an overlap in the duties of both positions according to the Labour Board Certification.
How will issues be resolved if the two groups do not agree?
- Some issues would be resolved by consensus (making a decision that is acceptable enough that all will agree to support it) and other issues would be resolved democratically just like it is done now. The PT Faculty group is already a diverse group with different interests, opinions, and priorities. We regularly request feedback from everyone and consider everyone’s input before making a decision that reflects the perspective of the whole group. In some cases, when there’s no consensus or we know there won’t be consensus or when it’s required by law, votes are casted to take action on what the majority wants. If we merge, we would continue with the same practice.
I can see the potential benefits, and I appreciate how the added capacity and power of a united front would work to our collective advantage, but how does this look long-term? I sense that the benefits will require continual and ongoing negotiation inside a merged and unified bargaining unit.
- That is correct, but that’s the case with any diverse group including the group of PT Faculty members.
Would this reduce our future ‘asks’ on negotiations?
- Not necessarily. Each group would still identify and negotiate their top priorities and both groups would identify and negotiate our collective priorities.
How long are we prepared to strike if SMU refuses to negotiate a contract with TAs? It’s not a question of if, it’s a question of how long is the CUPE 3912 executive willing to have PT professors on strike.
- The CUPE 3912 Executive does not make unilateral decisions. Every decision is made in consultation with the membership. In addition, according to the Trade Union Act, Unions can only call a strike with the majority approval of the membership in a local or in a bargainig unit. This authorization is given as a strike mandate to the Bargaining Team until after a secret vote by ballot of all the employees as to whether to strike or not to strike has been taken, and the majority of such employees have voted in favour of a strike. However, even when there’s a Strike Mandate, the Union will not call a strike if a tentative agreement is reached. However, if no tentative agreement is reached, or when a tentative agreement is reached and the Bargaining Team presents it to the members to ratify it, if the members do not ratify it because they feel that their top priorities have not been achieved and the union is in a legal position to strike, the union can go on strike and remain on strike until the the majority of the members accept a better offer.
Why are we doing this (or considering it as a viable course of action)?
- As a PT Faculty member put it: “A merger would facilitate efficiency and alignment.” We are also doing it out of solidarity and because together we’re stronger, now and in the future. Merging could be a substantial opportunity to build strategic and worker-based leverage.
If you have more questions or concerns, please contact Erica Fischer, CUPE 3912 SMU VP, Part-Time Faculty, or Samantha Williams, CUPE 3912 SMU VP, Teaching Assistants.