Home arrow Forums arrow Your Union arrow Paul Moist has no ideas

Paul Moist has no ideas

page: prev  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  next
Display posts from previous:
Author Message
Cupe Doll
Post Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 10:08 pm

Joined: 06 Jan 2010
Posts: 69
Location: Toronto 		The disqus commenting system did it all automatically. No account has been created -- but yes, email notifications ("spam") are also automatically generated.

Apologies for whatever inconvenience. I shall remove all.
Back to top profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www
The Third Element
Post Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:27 am

Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 363
Okay, WTF... I have a some time – I’ll ask, I don’t mind looking dumb.

Doll, I have read much (not all) of your discourse, visited your site, and I have spoken with York people in the past about the goings on there. I am the Right hand side of the argument, which is to say, I am a capitalist, so my opinions on this board are always given with that proviso and I don’t like business unions and Paul Moist is one of the businessiest there is. That said, I’m not real fond of neo-intellectualism either.

(I’m going to skip all the CUPE slapping, biting, scratching and rolling on the floor, suffice it to say, CUPE 3093 and the CUPE National don’t get on. To summarize:
    1 - CUPE is as dysfunctional as a pedophilic priest (never mind all of you).
    2 - Bargaining was poorly handled with unreasonable demands and instead headed off on an ideological crusade. (neo-liberalism etc.)
    3 - Something happened to turn Tuition Indexation (A good thing) into Graduate Financial Assistance (a bad thing).
    4 - You have been legislated back to work.
    5 - York U is not a bad guy but painted, to a degree, as a victim, along with the students. (Presumably of CUPE’s ideological crusade against York’s neo-liberal stance?)
    6 - You disagree with the tactic of striking students out of their cash.


Quote:
SIDE BAR: This sort of stuff misses many people… me included: Our innocent yet radical democratic revolutionary self-narrative is doddering. I have no idea what that means.


Onward, can you do me a favour and dumb down your point to a level I can keep up with? Is there an "ideology" or "mission statement" or something concise that I can look at that tell me *why* you want our attention?

I don’t agree with a strike against students, but I am not the audience this site is going to reach so I hope that’s not it. You have made me agree with Sharyn, and I *hate* doing that too. Mad

To close, I had started this exercise with some disdain but have grown to the task so, can you tell me why I know all of this now? As in, what’s your point? I think it is just to tell the world that it wasn’t 3903’s fault and CUPE has their collective (pardon the double entendre) heads up their ass? Or, would you like to create something great from the ashes – Phoenixes and all that. I am sincerely interested to know.

… or did I just waste a 1/2hr of my life.

_________________
No Beast so fierce knows but some small amount of pity, but I know none and so I am no beast.
~ Richard III
Back to top profile :: pm
SharynS
Post Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:23 pm

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 2883
Location: the 'puter 		Gawd help me, I'm impressed 3E. I have no idea how you managed to dig through the rubble and come out with anything. Let alone something to "agree" with" (gawd help you).
Quote:
I think it is just to tell the world that it wasn’t 3903’s fault and CUPE has their collective (pardon the double entendre) heads up their ass?
Interesting, the impression I have from CD's posts is that they blame 3903'rs for this debacle (student "death sentence") and that they believe had they stuck with and followed business man Moist's direction the world would be on a better path.

More later, gotta' work.

_________________
Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. - Salman Rushdie
Back to top profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www
Cupe Doll
Post Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:48 pm

Joined: 06 Jan 2010
Posts: 69
Location: Toronto 		Well Sharyns, Element,

I really don't get where you're coming from. Or why.

First there was enjoyment.

Quote:
Awesome Cupe Doll, I couldn't help getting lost a few times but, one way ticket or not, I also couldn't help throughly enjoying the trip.


Then there was interrogation. Weird -- but no big deal.

And now -- what? You really truly want to know where I'm coming from? What my agenda is? Which side I'm on? What?

Why care so much? Why care at all? Like, in the first place? Why not just enjoy the ride?

Alternatively, if you can't deal with what I posted? Just ask I not post here again. No big deal either way.
Back to top profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www
wm pasz
Post Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 10:12 pm

Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 1219
Location: Toronto 		Hi Cupe Doll - avid Local 3903 watcher here. (Don't worry about the sudden change in temperature - people get excited whenever TTE shows up - although I think he's an OK guy.)

Here is a bit of perspective 3903/YU that you may find interesting or at least food for thought:

I agree with you that the students were the collateral damage in the strike - both sides threw them under the bus and then tried to get them onside as props. Fortunately neither side was successful and both only succeeded in pissing off 50,000 people - 50% of whom now say that they'd rather be going to school elsewhere.

A fundamental problem between YU and 3903 is that the latter refuses to fit into the institutionalized model of unionism that is so entrenched in North America that nobody can see why it might be a problem in a place like YU, with a group like 3903. The local has always had an ideological orientation, and that really shouldn't surprise anyone in YU administration (given the organization's history). You know, you get a lot of younger people together, encourage them to study all sorts of political, ideological, social justice related subjects, then you hire them on to work alongside staunch union members who have done well for themselves by taking hard positions in collective bargaining and, well, what do you think is going to happen? They're going to bring that ideological bent to the bargaining process. The only thing that's surprising is that all those well-paid, over-credentialed experts in the administration haven't figured this out. They continue to try to "deal" with 3903 the way they deal with the office workers and maintenance workers unions (that play ball by the conventional rules) and every time around the same things happen. If you were around for the 2001 strike, you probably notice some really big similarities - history just keeps repeating and repeating and nobody notices or wonders why.

So, part of the problem is you have an administration that keeps trying to pound this bargain the old fashioned way and can't see the woods for the trees.

But there's also a misconception on 3903's part and that's this whole theory that YU has become a tool of neo-liberalism. No so. YU is just a mammoth bureaucracy filled with self-serving bureaucrats behaving the way self-serving bureaucrats do. It's really surprising that nobody has nailed this yet because from a certain vantage point it's really painfully obvious. Maybe it's because from where the 3903 leaders and members sit, this isn't apparent so they've landed on a theory that makes sense to them. But it isn't so. The bureaucrats who run the place could care less about ideology, capitalism, neo-liberalism or any other ism. They're just guys out for themselves - and their self-serving behaviours lead to disastrous decisions for the organization. There's a whole wierd dynamic that takes place in bureaucracies, especially when you introduce the possibility of big bonuses and other rewards that inherently encourage self-serving behaviour. This is a whole other topic though and I don't want to steer too far off your initial subject.

But suffice it to say that both sides fundamentally misunderstand eachother and play games that leave a lot of innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire. If the situation is ever to change for the better the administration is going to have to recognize that the 20th century labour relations framework (developed for factory owners in the mid 1940's) doesn't work well in the 21st century learning institution. It won't be easy to turn things around but things will only get worse if no one tries.

Looking forward to hearing back.

_________________
Time is on the side of the oppressed today, it's against the oppressor. Truth is on the side of the oppressed today, it's against the oppressor. You don't need anything else. - Malcolm X
Back to top profile :: pm :: www
Cupe Doll
Post Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 1:45 am

Joined: 06 Jan 2010
Posts: 69
Location: Toronto 		Hi wm pasz. Thanks for your thoughtful -- and thorough -- comment. Not much I can disagree with there. Your views would, of course, get you harassed as a right-wing dissident voice inside 3903.

As you say, we've always been ideological. But still, in 2000 we were fighting for something. Whereas in 2008 our thinly veiled goal was to cripple the employer through deadlock and thereby pressure government to concede our demands. We were striking out to hurt the neoliberal enemy.

Something significant changed between the 2 strikes. It wasn't that we got more ideological. That's probably not even possible. It was that the most radical elements managed to eliminate every limitation on their power and manipulation of the membership.

Nobody's written much about the way this was accomplished. Nobody can write much since there was a gag order involved. But, in however general terms, I intend to tell that tale. And afterwards I'll re-post it here if anyone's interested.
Back to top profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www
wm pasz
Post Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:23 am

Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 1219
Location: Toronto 		Maybe if we put our head together...since we both have a "perspective", so to speak. It's interesting that you noticed a difference in the local's objectives in the eight year span between the two strikes.

Something that I think had an effect on this (although there were likely many factors) is that the administration brought in a particularly draconian head of human resources and labour relations. This guy and his second in command ushered in a Kremlinesque era labour-management relations at YU. Relations with all unions became significantly strained during this period. For instance, the 2003 negotiations with 3903 (or it may have been in 2004 - not sure off the top of my head) almost resulted in a strike (a deal was reached at the 11th hour).

The AVP of HR (who was, ironically, hired to bring labour-management relations out of the dark ages) had an especially visceral disdain for the local (which he considered to be run by a bunch of crazy "commies" - yes, when was the last time you heard that term?) who needed to be crushed. This kind of attitude can't help but have an impact on the relationship. My guess would be that it did and that it likely led the leaders of the local to conclude that the "employer" had retained this guy as part of some neo-liberal plot to put the boots to the unions.

The reality is that senior leaders in Canada's public institutions generally have no clue about labour-management relations, are frightened of unions and have a lot of antiquated ideas as to what they're all about. They rely almost entirely on their in-house experts to advise them as to strategy in collective bargaining, and relations with union leaders in general.

If you put this together with a leadership that was maybe somewhat more radicalized than in the past or more prone to looking for neo-liberals under their beds, well, I can imagine that they might respond viscerally in-kind.

Here's something interesting - most people whose lives are affected by these labour-management disputes would not think to look at the actual personalities involved. There's this myth that the people on either side of the table dutifully and dispassionately represent the interests of their constituency but that's as much a myth on the union side of the table as it is on the management side.

Anyway, just one other thing I wanted to comment on and that's the National Office's motivation for the trusteeship. IMO, it has a lot to do with trying to smooth things over with the Ontario gov't. If there's one thing that's important to bureaucrats - union or management - it's keeping up good relations with other bureaucrats, especially government bureaucrats. Since before the back to work legislation was passed, the word on the street was that the McGuinty administration and the Ministry of Labour was royally pissed with both sides for their not-very-conciliatory bargaining and for forcing the gov to have to legislate an end to their dispute. CUPE National is as interested in making amends as YU so it's doing its best to show that it's bringing the unruly local into line.

I'll check back in a bit.

_________________
Time is on the side of the oppressed today, it's against the oppressor. Truth is on the side of the oppressed today, it's against the oppressor. You don't need anything else. - Malcolm X
Back to top profile :: pm :: www
The Third Element
Post Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:33 am

Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 363
I am more than mildly interested in anything that will take a Business Union like CUPE and turn it into a collective of like minded workers with an interest in protecting their right within the workplace. In other words, I like to watch "U"nions become "u"nions.

The last two posts have given more clarity to the ongoing drama, now I would be interested to hear what 3903 has planned for its continues evolution.

I think my trouble is that I have trouble reading more than 5 or 6 paragraphs. Past that I have attention issues.

Thanks for taking the time to bring us up to speed - what's the next plan?

_________________
No Beast so fierce knows but some small amount of pity, but I know none and so I am no beast.
~ Richard III
Back to top profile :: pm
Cupe Doll
Post Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 9:25 am

Joined: 06 Jan 2010
Posts: 69
Location: Toronto 		WMP? You're missing my point. And I think you're missing it on purpose.

First you said there was no real difference in the past 8 years: ".. history just keeps repeating and repeating..."

Then I said yeah, there totally was a difference. Inside 3903.

Then you said how interesting it was I noticed a difference -- and proceeded to outline 101 differences. But *not* inside 3903. Rather, in the admin.

And each 101 differences you outlined in the admin? Bears zero resemblance to any reality I'm familiar with.

Quote:
.. the administration brought in a particularly draconian head of human resources and labour relations. This guy and his second in command ushered in a Kremlinesque era labour-management relations at YU.


What "draconian head"? The dead guy? What "second in command"? The devout Chomskyan? What "Kremlinesque era"? And when? In what conceivable world did any of this happen the past 8 years inside the garden variety bloated admin bureaucracy?

"Kremlinesque" stuff happened all over the place. All over the place inside 3903. And nothing could been more "Kremlinesque" than the purging of our singular staff rep.

The tale will be told. Gag orders on parties to legal settlement can't forbid third parties telling their own experiences. What has been eye-witnessed.
Back to top profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www
wm pasz
Post Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:38 pm

Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 1219
Location: Toronto 		I have found CD that in these online exchanges it is helpful to avoid the temptation to parse phrases and hunt for apparent contradictions and intentions. We're not doing a thesis defence or analyzing the other side's bargaining proposals. These online venues have their limitations and one of those is that you can't have quite the full, fluid kind of conversation that we might if we were sitting around over a coffee.

That said, let me clarify - history did indeed repeat itself in that the progress, tenor and strategies employed by both sides in the negotiations in 2000-2001, 2003-2004 and 2008/2009 had some significant similarities. So did the outcomes (with the exception of the "near miss" in 2003-04). During this period, the relationship between the two groups became increasingly strained and mistrustful and each side crystallized its own theory as to why the other was behaving the way it was (admin: rabid ideologues had hijacked the local, local: rabid ideologues had hijacked the administration). I'm interested in learning more about the differences of changes that you observed or perceived as taking place within the local. Certainly there were changes within the internal culture of the administration during this time and when you roll these all together, the effect on bargaining was that it was, time and again, dysfunctional and acrimonious with predictable results.

And yes, the dead guy and the devout Chomskyan (I take it you're referring to Chomsky the linguist rather than Chomsky the dissident?) had a big part to play in how things played out and a significant influence on the organizational culture. I don't doubt that some of this is at odds with how the picture looked/looks to you. But consider that this may be because there are dimensions of the picture that you weren't able to see. In the compartmentalized world of the bureaucracy, we all see pieces of the picture but rarely are able to see the whole thing. A lot goes on behind those closed doors and hallway conversations. Of course, if people are able and willing to put their various pieces together then a clearer picture begins to emerge - one that may surprise everyone in one way or another. it would not be inconceivable, for example, if upon seeing the fuller picture we might discover that in some respects the internal internal cultures of both organizations began to resemble each other as their relationship became more and more dysfunctional and each became more wedded to playing power games and a certain sinister view of the other. The "Kremlinesque" behaviours that I refer to include secrecy, disinformation, abuses of power such as arbitrary dismissals and intimidation of non-conformists and suspected rivals. If you perceive these as being in evidence in the local's internal culture, they were very much alive on the other side of the fence as well.

Also I don't think I called YU a "garden variety" bloated bureaucracy. It was that at one time but with the ascendancy of the dead man, all that changed to the point that YU is now a bureaucracy on steroids. The only way to cure this is to begin to explore how it got this way by understanding what people actually did, what decisions they made and how they influenced the behaviour of others and not what hidden ideological hands may have been guiding them. So yeah, if you've got something you'd like to share that would help towards that end, by all means!

TTE - CP may have more of a perspective on this but from where I sit I don't see this local becoming a small "u" union any time soon. Interestingly, it does have a democratic framework and engages in more democratic practices than the large "U"'s but the ideological baggage is going to be a problem. You can't have a truly member-centered organization if members are expected to conform to the ideological precepts of leaders and where leaders' actions and decisions must fit within a certain ideological frame of reference. That's my take on this anyway.

_________________
Time is on the side of the oppressed today, it's against the oppressor. Truth is on the side of the oppressed today, it's against the oppressor. You don't need anything else. - Malcolm X
Back to top profile :: pm :: www
The Third Element
Post Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:36 pm

Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 363
<ding!> that's my attention timer going off. I am thinking that as interesting as this is, like so many other causes that float past this fine electronic medium, I just don't have the time.

For me, it now seems like I am watching a union raid. I don't have a home team to root for.

Later group.

_________________
No Beast so fierce knows but some small amount of pity, but I know none and so I am no beast.
~ Richard III
Back to top profile :: pm
Cupe Doll
Post Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 8:43 pm

Joined: 06 Jan 2010
Posts: 69
Location: Toronto 		To the contrary WMP. By paying attention to consistency and contradictions, conversations like these become fluid in a way narrower exchanges can't be.

There's no doubting your eloquence. But there's also no doubting you're determined to change the topic -- and exaggerating analogies to do so.

Quote:
I don't doubt that some of this is at odds with how the picture looked/looks to you. But consider that this may be because there are dimensions of the picture that you weren't able to see.


That's the whole point. I've got no intention to testify anything I haven't seen. So why should I get distracted by spurious insinuations of a false immoral equivalence that does not even exist?

See? You can't distract me by making the employer out as equally diabolical. There's no cause for me to defend the employer. I haven't got any fetish for bureaucracy. But I do have cause to expose the evils of my loco local.

So. Let's say you really have witnessed equivalent employer-side evils. Well -- get your own damn whistle out. We can blow whistles together. Have a party. Hold a rally. Block traffic.

But if you're blowing wind like I pretty much know you are? Like, to distract from my superb whistle blowing? Buddy -- that makes you less than second fiddle. Doesn't even make you an honest second whistle.
Back to top profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www
wm pasz
Post Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 9:54 pm

Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 1219
Location: Toronto 		I'm trying to understand why you are becoming so antagonistic. I'm trying to have a conversation with you. That's what people do in these venues. I'm surprised you're not open to information that might help you gain a fuller perspective but then again that's one of the symptoms of being too long in the big org - people get suspicious of everybody. Nice to have met you though.

_________________
Time is on the side of the oppressed today, it's against the oppressor. Truth is on the side of the oppressed today, it's against the oppressor. You don't need anything else. - Malcolm X
Back to top profile :: pm :: www
Cupe Doll
Post Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 12:37 am

Joined: 06 Jan 2010
Posts: 69
Location: Toronto 		Ok, fair enough. Maybe I got a little carried away. It isn't personal though -- so please don't take it that way.

Here's the thing. Denial of responsibility and false justifications inside 3903 are almost invariably couched in terms of how diabolical the employer is -- and what a democratic membership-driven local we are.

So even though you only made these points a couple times in conversation with me -- I responded as if I was already nauseated how often I heard them before. Which, indeed, I was. Nauseated. But not through any fault of yours.

So, again, apologies.

Quote:
I'm surprised you're not open to information that might help you gain a fuller perspective..


Actually, I am. But I'd appreciate a little more specificity.
Back to top profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www
wm pasz
Post Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 2:17 pm

Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 1219
Location: Toronto 		What sort of specifics are you interested in?

_________________
Time is on the side of the oppressed today, it's against the oppressor. Truth is on the side of the oppressed today, it's against the oppressor. You don't need anything else. - Malcolm X
Back to top profile :: pm :: www
Home arrow Forums arrow Your Union arrow Paul Moist has no ideas
Page 3 of 9
page: prev  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  next
Display posts from previous:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group