Tuesday 2 April, 2024
Content warning: this newsletter describes AGSEM’s negotiations with McGill around policies on harassment, discrimination, and sexual violence. It also discusses instances of transphobia.
On Tuesday, April 2nd, 2024, AGSEM and McGill met for their 20th negotiations session, the second since the beginning of TAs’ strike last week, and the sixth session in conciliation. As usual, the bargaining team was joined by rank-and-file workers in the room.
Following our previous meeting a week prior, AGSEM worked on a new proposal for this meeting. We presented this proposal, which covered:
Article 6, on harassment, discrimination, and sexual violence,
The issue of TA hours being reduced when enrolment stays the same or increases, and, of course,
Rates of pay.
At present, we are not demanding separate funds for healthcare. This has been a difficult choice informed by the priorities of our members and what the bargaining committee sees as a realistic path forward.
On article 6, the employer has indicated that they are not interested in adding language in the Collective Agreement (CA) which is not included in McGill’s Policy Against Sexual Violence and/or Policy on Harassment and Discrimination. While we have pointed out limitations in these policies, we have come to an agreement on many aspects of our proposal by bringing language from these policies into the collective agreement. However, on some items we continue to push.
At our January 30th, 2024 assembly, the bargaining committee was instructed by TAs to stand firm on the issue of misgendering and deadnaming of TAs as a form of harassment. So, we did. We proposed a new letter of agreement (LoA) on protecting the rights of transgender TAs.
On the topic of TA hours being reduced, we proposed:
To hold an annual meeting at which the relevant parties of the university discuss teaching support budgets and the allocation of TA hours, open to the entire university community,
To include information on teaching support budgets, and to justify any reduction in hours for a TA contract, in the tentative lists sent to union delegates, and,
In another LoA, to establish a joint committee with a mandate to investigate and address the issue of TA hours being reduced, and make recommendations on how to solve the problem.
And finally, on wages, we gave McGill two options:
A three-year contract, with a total raise of 14.0% over the lifetime of the CA, or,
A four-year contract, with a total raise of 21.0% over the lifetime of the CA.
These proposals both start on August 1st, 2023, i.e., the raise in the first year would be applied retroactively. McGill’s first proposal in February was a CA over five years; all offers and counter-offers since then have been for a CA over four. A three-year contract would be a major win for AGSEM. Given that TA membership turns over more rapidly than many other workplaces, a three-year deal means greater institutional memory and a greater continuity between this round of bargaining and the next. University of Toronto recently averted a strike by signing a contract with a 12.8% raise over three years.
On wages, McGill indicated no interest in a three-year contract, nor in adding more to their wage proposal. McGill’s last official offer, on March 19th, 2024, was 4.25% and then 2.25%, 2.0%, 2.0% in the following years, for a total 10.5% over four years.
On the issue of TA hours being reduced, McGill indicated concern about the establishment of any sort of mechanism to address the issue. We reiterated that our goal in drafting our proposal was to establish greater transparency and collect information on teaching support budgets and the allocation of TA hours.
We reminded McGill that, in 2017, 48% of TAs reported working over their contract hours while not being compensated, leading to approximately $1 million in unpaid wages per year. Compare this $1 million to the total TA budget line of $13 million. We reminded McGill that we are aware of certain hiring units cutting TAs’ contract hours in response to wage increases, even when undergraduate enrolment stays the same, so that TAs never actually see the wage increases they fight for. This is bad for the workload of TAs and professors and bad for the quality of education at McGill. At times, McGill has expressed skepticism that this currently happens or would ever happen. However, when we shared concerns that hiring units will employ this strategy of reducing TA contract hours in response to any wage increase, McGill retorted that they understood why some hiring units might reduce TA contract hours. The employer has fluctuated between claiming that this problem might not exist and claiming that they understand why hiring units would cut hours. As on many issues, McGill’s arguments don’t seem to follow a coherent vision of a fair deal; rather they appear to be ad hoc justifications for pre-decided positions.
While frustrating, the discussion did yield some fruit: McGill agreed to make some phone calls and see what they could put on the table. After our March 19th meeting where the employer claimed they were unable to reach their higher-ups to get a better offer, this was a welcome change in dynamics.
After waiting three and a half hours for McGill to return to the table, we were hopeful that those phone calls would bring us closer to a deal! But, once again, McGill disappointed. McGill had a counter-proposal on only one item from our proposal: our proposal to hold an annual meeting at which the relevant parties discuss teaching support budgets and the allocation of TA hours. McGill’s counter-proposal eliminated the specific discussion of teaching support budgets on a faculty-by-faculty basis and aimed to restrict attendance of this meeting to one union delegate per Faculty rather than the broader University community. Nothing on wages, nothing on a LoA on protecting transgender TAs’ rights, and a summary refusal of our other proposed articles addressing the issue of TA hours being reduced.
Both parties had, at this point, been at the Ministère du travail for about 6 hours. But we remain committed to finding a deal that could end the strike. We therefore crafted—in a little over an hour—a new formal global counterproposal. This counter-proposal contained:
Our original LoA on protecting transgender TAs’ rights, with the clarification that repeated and/or intentional deadaming / misgendering constitutes harassment. These qualifications were added in response to the employer’s concerns during earlier discussions.
On the problem of TA hours being reduced, McGill’s proposal on the annual meeting to discuss teaching support budgets, with some modifications:
That attendance would be open to one union delegate per Hiring Unit, rather than one per Faculty (hiring units are generally responsible for hiring in one department—for example, in the Faculty of Science, there are hiring units for Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and other departments),
The discussion of teaching support budgets and allocation of TA hours on a faculty-by-faculty basis, and,
Justification from the University in the event of a decrease in these budgets or allocations.
We also adapted McGill’s earlier proposal for a LoA on the problem of TA hours being reduced, where McGill proposed establishing a committee responsible for investigating the misalignment of TA contract hours.
On wages: 8.5%, 3.0%, 3.0%, and 3.0%, for a total of 17.5% over four years.
We made it clear to McGill—this is a deal we could bring to our members for a vote. As we’ve done many times over the past several sessions, we showed McGill a path to a deal that could end the strike.
AGSEM and McGill began by discussing the LoA on protecting transgender TAs’ rights. The preamble of our proposed LoA stated:
WHEREAS, transphobia is on the rise around the world;
This phrase was not a major demand, it was merely table-setting to get to the important commitments we were hoping to get from McGill—we did not expect this to be controversial. One need only look at the staggering uptick in transphobic legislation across the United States, the move towards denying trans children their rights and erasing trans folks from the curriculum in Alberta, or the multiple protests right here in Montreal denouncing “gender ideology”. One of these protests of so-called “gender ideology”—a misogynistic and transphobic dogwhistle used by the far-right globally—occurred a two-minute walk from McGill’s Roddick Gates in September of 2023.
McGill expressed discomfort or even disagreement with our claim that transphobia is on the rise around the world, stating that it was a “big” one which would require “evidence” and/or “data” to back up. McGill also questioned whether the CA was the right place to address the issues of any one specific group. In sum, McGill had “no appetite” for any LoA protecting the rights of transgender TAs, and expressed skepticism that transphobia is indeed on the rise globally.
We then discussed the problem of TA hours being reduced. Discussion was useful and frank and indicated that the two parties might be able to reach an agreement. AGSEM expressed a desire to keep negotiating, while McGill did not seem keen to continue. The third-party conciliators suggested a brief recess before reconvening.
When we reconvened, we were surprised to receive a “final” global offer from McGill. McGill’s latest proposal, as submitted in writing, contained:
On the topic of TA hours being reduced, two items:
McGill’s original proposal on the establishment of an annual meeting, from a few hours prior, with the text: one Union delegate “per Hiring Unit”, as opposed to one per Faculty.
A Letter of Intent with the goals of (1) establishing a standing item on the agenda of the Labour Relations Committee, to address TA workloads, (2) establishing a Working Group of University and Union representatives to examine workload issues, and (3) for this Working Group to share its findings and recommendations with the Provost and Executive Vice-President by the end of 2025.
No letter of agreement protecting the rights of transgender TAs.
On wages: 5.5%, 3.0%, 3.0%, and 3.0%, for a total of 14.5% over four years.
While these offers were lower than AGSEM’s demands from earlier in the day, we nonetheless convened to discuss McGill’s offer. We were grateful to see the language of one Union delegate “per Hiring Unit”, as opposed to one per Faculty. Rather than a closed door meeting, having a delegate per Hiring Unit attend such a meeting would allow considerable input from across the university—it makes the difference between a small meeting McGill could sweep under the rug and one with meaningful input and accountability. The inclusion of this amendment suggested that McGill might in fact be getting serious about a deal. We were still far away on many items, but it reflected movement that we were grateful to see.
But this gratitude was misplaced. Shortly after AGSEM convened, McGill sent a follow-up email. They had made a typo. They retained their proposal of one Union delegate per Faculty.
This was not an inconsequential typo. To accidentally include something of value to the union in a “final global offer”, and then retract it in an email, is a big mistake. When parties accidentally send something like this it is common for them to just cut their losses and accept that their concession is now part of the offer. McGill did not even apologize for their mistake. We expect better from McGill at our 20th session of negotiations, during an active strike. Such carelessness and disrespect does not suggest the employer is serious about finding a deal. In this context, AGSEM expressed our disappointment with the employer and suggested that we had lost any room to find a deal during the day. This was not an easy decision, but a necessary one. AGSEM TAs deserve to be taken seriously by the employer and if the employer is not committed to basic competence and respect during negotiations there is no deal to be found. After 11 hours, the session ended.
This was not an easy session. We made some tough concessions in the hope of finding a deal. At moments it seemed within reach, but the employer was unwilling to make the kind of commitments that could have allowed a deal. We have told McGill in no uncertain terms what they need to do to come to an agreement.
While McGill seemed at times unwilling to come to a fair deal and end TAs’ strike, we acknowledge that both parties are making moves and we are approaching a deal. AGSEM looks forward to continuing negotiations with McGill in the very near future so that we can come to an agreement and end our strike.
United we bargain, divided we beg!
Love and solidarity,
Your Bargaining and Bargaining Support Committees