After months of waiting, yesterday TSSU finally received a counter proposal from SFU, but it was lacklustre and disappointing. SFU said it is difficult to bargain after the arbitrator’s decision on who is and isn’t an RA had resulted in an “elephant in the room” because, despite the clear and forceful language of the Sept 12, 2022 Arbitration, the Employer still thinks that most graduate students RAs are not employees. Even on clear and urgent issues such as fieldwork bullying and harassment where the Employer said negotiation is possible, SFU would not engage in discussion at this time. In light of this, both parties agreed to cancel Friday’s bargaining.
SFU’s monetary proposal came nearly a year after their insulting $17 / hour offer that had other items below the Employment Standards Act. Instead of revising that offer, in the many months since, they chose to make no wage proposal and just say in the future they’d make some proposal consistent with Dr. Johnson’s July 19, 2022 communication with respect to pursuing certification to become a Living Wage Employer. SFU still wants to deny every RA who is a student any benefit including ISHF, extended health, and dental benefits but they’ll consider the living wage announcement which they’ve already told workers may take up to 3 years.
Most concerning, the administration prefaced their entire proposal package with a clause stating they reserve the right to go backwards on their proposals should it become clear that their understanding of the arbitration decision is wrong. By demanding the right to go backwards, SFU is effectively saying that if more people end up in the Union, they want to be able to pay people even less and give them fewer rights. This is very concerning because their understanding has no objective basis in the arbitrator’s decision and because their interpretation of the decision has progressively gotten worse in the last month and a half, since the decision was issued.
Their stated understanding of the decision is that for grad student RAs:
You are NOT an employee if:
- your RA supervisor and thesis Supervisor happen to be the same person, OR
- your RA duties contribute to your thesis or your general training as a scholar, even if this training is unrelated to your thesis, and
You MAY be an employee if your RA supervisor is not your thesis supervisor, so long as it does not contribute to your general training as a scholar. In an academic workplace, where every RA job involves scholarly activity, this argument creates a huge loophole.
This is clearly out of line with the arbitration decision since the decision makes it clear that:
- “It was not left to SFU’s discretion to decide who would and who would not become SFU employees” para 468,
- Any expectation of duties, regardless of whether or not it contributes to a student’s training as a scholar or their thesis, in concert with compensation from grant funds is considered employment, and
- if “there are characteristics of both employment and educational relationship in a research university, the dependency and protective need of the weaker student party favours a determination that the relationship is employment” para 464.
It’s been over a thousand days of delays and misinformation from SFU. It’s frustrating. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have hope. Back in 2019 SFU stopped paying MSP premiums for international students. In response workers rose up, took over a meeting with SFU’s President, continued to agitate and, after 6 months, SFU finally agreed and started paying premiums again and reimbursed people who missed out. Clearly it’s time to immediately take action to show our collective power. If you’re as upset as your contract committee, then email Maria and Félix at organizer@tssu.ca and tell them you’re mad. Let’s strategize our next move.