Home
Forums
Your Union
Paul Moist has no ideas
Forums
Your Union
Paul Moist has no ideas
Paul Moist has no ideas
| page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 next | |
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
| Cupe Doll |
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 5:30 pm
|
|
Joined: 06 Jan 2010 Posts: 69 Location: Toronto |
Addressing members of CUPE Local 3903 on January 26, 2010, Paul Moist found himself confronted by a sparse, reproving audience. But of course chill was in the air inside Osgoode Hall’s Moot Court. Local 3903 is deep under Administration by CUPE National — with no real end in anyone’s sight. And since Paul Moist is President of CUPE National — who can be more to blame for 3903’s prostration? Paul Moist’s 3903 reception could be nothing but chill. Under our circumstances, why would local 3903s turn out receptive?
Regardless how chill the reception, though — Paul Moist never seemed fazed. Not one bit. He spoke with calm, with dignity, with respect and sympathy for us, his unreceptive audience. Brother Moist’s message to local 3903s was simple. As an autonomous Local, we 3903s are mostly free to do whatever we want. But why would we want to do what we did? Why would anyone, ever, want to do what we local 3903s did? Why, rather than take advantage of National’s tremendous resources to help us during the strike, would we want to freeze CUPE National out? Why would we want to negotiate in manner so counter-productive, perhaps even illegal to any possibility of reaching consensus at the bargaining table? Why would we want to harass members of our own executives so badly that they later break down in conversations with Brother Moist? Why was the sole positive, personal comment Brother Moist received when attending during our strike have to be whispered by a member of our bargaining team? Why would we want to terrorize members of our own bargaining teams against openly expressing even innocuous comment? Why would we 3903s want to go shooting our own feet that way? Why would anyone ever want to be so self-destructive? The message to us 3903s was probably not meant sarcastically. There was no probable cause for Brother Moist to get profoundly rhetorical. He was delivering what from him was simple, clear, constructive and sincere criticism. Like, of course we 3903s couldn’t have intended to be so self-destructive. We 3903s have just been making some terrible mistakes. That’s all. Because however terrible our mistakes? They could never have been intentional. No way are 3903s that crazy self-destructive. From Brother Moist’s perspective, our mistakes must have been honest. Honestly innocent. Oh. Brother. We 3903s are not naive, mistaken, innocent fools. What we are is out of control ideologues. Similarly, we are not particularly self-destructive. What we are is generally and utterly destructive of everything we imagine as the neoliberal status-quo. None of this should be news. It has been spelled out too often to remain the least bit news-worthy. But just in case. On whatever vanishing chance it might help Brother Moist understand. Let’s repeat once again. One need not have purchased the t-shirts or personally unfurled banners demanding the impossible. One need not personally been present at general meetings when we railed and rallied against neoliberalism. No need to have been there and done all that. Our record is clear. The record how proudly we hailed striking out against the neoliberal enemy. The record why our demands had to be so impossible. Eric Newstadt for one example, in the very first paragraph of “The Neoliberal University: Looking at the York Strike”, wrote: .. the tenor of the action was and remains pitched firmly at rolling back the “neoliberal university”… Only much later did Tyler Shipley — who most officially spoke for us local 3903s — so vehemently object to Tyler McCreary even suggesting our “leading members gleamed with revolutionary ardour.” Yet Shipley, in “Demanding the Impossible: Struggles for the Future of Post-Secondary Education”, went on to declaim how YorkU “has embodied the troubling neoliberal shift,” how “the neoliberal university replicates itself in ever more nefarious forms” and how we must all become “more militant” challenging “the neoliberal status quo.” And how are we more militant 3903s supposed to challenge the entire “neoliberal“ status quo? Shipley doesn’t leave us hanging in the dark. He can’t. Because Shipley doesn’t just gleam revolutionary ardour. He blazes the whole-hogging militant trail for us: .. ‘demand the impossible’ and leave university administrators no choice but to demand, in turn, adequate funding from the province… Demanding more than what is currently ‘possible’ is simply insisting that the state alter the circumstances that define that ‘possibility’… Thus, Tyler Shipley makes the record how we struck out not just clear — but indelible. We were never out there to better membership working conditions — which we believed were best in our sector anyway. Contrary to our strike mandate, contrary to any principle of democratic governance, we were out to force YorkU’s hand to in turn force the hands of government. How? Obviously. By bringing about an intransigent hostage situation. By exploiting 50,000 York students as hostage pawns. We struck for an unelected coup to force the hands of governance — and it worked. We totally forced all hands. Against us. Our ideologues’ broadest strategy, as 3903s knew and mostly approved, was to prolong deadlock until the academic year was nearly or entirely lost. Until YorkU either capitulated or got busted. Nothing was to be resolved by negotiation. Our bargaining team was either explicitly forbidden to bargain — or, in any event, was to have no real authority when it did. And we 3903s knew all about it. We mostly approved it. We enforced and reenforced it. But we couldn’t admit to it. Not only because, for our deathlock to work — we had to deny it existed. Not only that. It wasn’t just tactical or strategic, us professing the utmost best-faith on our part — and how YorkU was acting in faith worse than death. It was more than that. It was ideological. It was emotional. We were the good guys. If it hadn’t been so tragic? It would have been hilarious. Us so earnestly pretending to negotiate at the table — while doing our utmost to kneecap YorkU under the table. While YorkU and third-party mediators got so nauseated — they refused even seating the same table with us any more. So that each time Shipley, our media bro, repeated how anti-bargaining YorkU was? In a manner of inspired hypocrisy, it sounded almost true. And it surely prolonged our deathlock, with time crossing more firmly to our side each passing day. Until those final moments when all our time instantly ran out. Now. To answer those questions Brother Moist implied. Why did we have to freeze out CUPE National? Because CUPE National’s help was nothing but a hindrance. Because CUPE National is a bureaucracy stuck in long past, outmoded thinking that striking is to win better small-time deals for memberships. Because CUPE National was striving to help reach some squalid, paltry consensus at the bargaining table. Whereas we 3903s struck out to destroy the neoliberal status-quo. Which meant consensus at the bargaining table could never be allowed. Our death-lock siege had to remain in force until YorkU was capitulated — so that the hands of government would accordingly be forced to serving our impossible demands. Why would we negotiate so counter-productively to any possibility of reaching consensus? Because we 3903s struck out to destroy the neoliberal status-quo. Which meant consensus at the bargaining table could not be allowed. That’s why our demands had to remain impossible. And if ever our own bargaining teams appeared to approach any sort of consensus with the enemy? Then our own bargaining teams had either to be forbidden to bargain — or sufficiently undermined so they effectively could not. Why would we harass members of our executives so badly they break down? Well, we have our dissident voices. 3903s who don’t share our local ideology. Our local sub-culture. Our revolutionary anti-democratic fervour. Not a problem — we know how to silence dissident voices. But when dissidents get elected to executive positions? They can become dangerously counter-revolutionary. Collaborators with the enemy. They need to be specifically neutralized. That’s when regular crowd-control methods must give way to more targeted, more personal, more intimate harassment. Why would we terrorize members of our own bargaining teams against openly expressing even innocuous comment? Well, heck. All 3903s must experience some fear when expressing dissent. More particularly, though? Bargaining team members are more prone to becoming confused. More prone to start thinking theirs are heroic individual struggles against impossible odds from all sides. In reality? Their only real task last year was to help preserve illusions that we bargained in good faith while the enemy did not. To preserve our death-lock. But it is nearly inevitable. Bargaining team members forget what they are to not do. Repeatedly often last year they wound up trying to bargain in good faith. Thereby raising spectres of negotiated settlemens — jeopardizing our death-lock to capitulate the enemy. Bargaining teams could not be allowed to jeopardize our death-lock by effectively bargaining in good faith. Sometimes this required ensuring that bargaining team members could do nothing effectively. Failing which? They became replaceable at the spur of any moment. Brother Moist? Please understand that local 3903s are not foolish, naive or error-prone. We are just ideological. Ideologically out of control. Have you got any intent or ideas to fix our “dysfunctional“ local? |
| Back to top | profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www |
| SharynS |
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:52 pm
|
|
Joined: 28 Jan 2006 Posts: 2883 Location: the 'puter |
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. Quote: Demanding more than what is currently ‘possible’ is simply insisting that the state alter the circumstances that define that ‘possibility’… Did I miss the ending though, what became of 3003's negotiations, how did it end? _________________ 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 |
Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2010 12:26 am
|
|
Joined: 06 Jan 2010 Posts: 69 Location: Toronto |
Hi SharynS,
After the second longest strike ever in our sector, just before the academic year had to be canceled, the Ontario Liberals legislated us back to work. And then, after getting legislated back to work, CUPE National placed us local 3903s under Administration. For ongoing updates how it's playing out, check http://ultimatecultureclash.com/york-university/behind-the-3903-scene and http://ultimatecultureclash.com/york-university/behind-the-3903-scene/administration-updates |
| Back to top | profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www |
| SharynS |
Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2010 5:32 pm
|
|
Joined: 28 Jan 2006 Posts: 2883 Location: the 'puter |
Two distinct topics to choose from; administrative hijacking and negotiating tactics/principles. Lucky for me, in this case, neither are mutually exclusive, far from it.
So it's not at all out of line to ask if the employer has been officially identified - Government or University(ies)? What (where) are those arguments? Just an observation but if the basics aren't resolved how do you move on to or hope to resolve the complex? _________________ 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 |
Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2010 6:42 pm
|
|
Joined: 06 Jan 2010 Posts: 69 Location: Toronto |
Hi SharynS,
The employer is York University. But I don't really see any of it having much to do with the employer. As to hoping for resolution.. I'm pretty sure the majority in our local don't. Whole point being how we harnessed deadlock to advance our radical agenda. The (Liberal) government did not legislate us lightly -- but ultimately it probably saw no other choices. I'd bet even an NDP (progressive-left) government would have legislated us back to work. There would have been yet more talk about the right to strike and negotiated resolutions at the bargaining table -- but we made that impossible from the start. There's very few in my local that would agree that's true, of course. Far as most are concerned, our employer is the devil -- and I'm just crazy. Except I'm not. I'm not even against the revolution. I just believe honesty's the best policy -- even when it comes to revolutions. |
| Back to top | profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www |
| SharynS |
Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2010 7:18 pm
|
|
Joined: 28 Jan 2006 Posts: 2883 Location: the 'puter |
From the Background Paper 2010: Quote: The likelihood of a province-wide strike appears to depend on CUPE’s success in bringing the Government of Ontario to the bargaining table. To date, Ontario’s Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities has stated that the Government of Ontario does not wish to bargain directly with CUPE Ontario. The minister maintains that universities are autonomous employers and should each negotiate local collective agreements with their own employees. Quote: I just believe honesty's the best policy _________________ 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 |
Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 12:17 am
|
|
Joined: 06 Jan 2010 Posts: 69 Location: Toronto |
The context was the 2008-09 CUPE Local 3903 strike at York University. The subsequent legislation ordering 3903 back to work. And the current Administration of 3903 by CUPE National.
Sorry. Must've forgot that my local really is local. |
| Back to top | profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www |
| SharynS |
Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 12:43 am
|
|
Joined: 28 Jan 2006 Posts: 2883 Location: the 'puter |
Thanks I got that part, what isn't clear is your position.
_________________ 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 |
Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 1:43 am
|
|
Joined: 06 Jan 2010 Posts: 69 Location: Toronto |
My position is that the ends never justify the means -- because distinctions between "ends" and "means" are either arbitrary or become invariably self-serving.
Totalitarian means cannot lead to magnificent ends. Practically, that means I'm pissed at how we 3903s exploited our students -- while justifying it as resisting exploitation. Like, we 3903s were so against students paying for education -- we ruined the education our students already paid for. Isn't that just too much hypocrisy? Calling ourselves "valued educators" while ruining our students' education? That's no better than fire fighters turning to arson. Anyhow -- apologies if you got back more than you asked. But you did ask 
|
| Back to top | profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www |
| SharynS |
Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 3:33 am
|
|
Joined: 28 Jan 2006 Posts: 2883 Location: the 'puter |
Quote: Like, we 3903s were so against students paying for education -- we ruined the education our students already paid for. edit= and when? _________________ 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 |
Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 1:26 pm
|
|
Joined: 06 Jan 2010 Posts: 69 Location: Toronto |
Quote: who and what do we sacrifice Only ourselves. Ever. Got no right to sacrifice anyone else. And when they want to sacrifice you in a "good cause"? When they say their ends justify the means by which they'll be sacrificing you? Tell them no cause can be better than stopping humans from sacrificing everything for their own ends. |
| Back to top | profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www |
| SharynS |
Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 3:52 pm
|
|
Joined: 28 Jan 2006 Posts: 2883 Location: the 'puter |
It doesn't appear to me that 'students' were tossed into the lion's den. A blip in education is certainly not nice, a nasty inconvenience at best. In the end the sacrifice we're talking about is monetary and no way near a death sentence. Given the tension that still exists, I'm assuming the 'ends' are yet to be seen and the means yet to be be weighed.
I am interested to know what you think should have been done differently Cupe Doll. What would have been a better strategy for a better outcome. _________________ 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 |
Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 6:09 pm
|
|
Joined: 06 Jan 2010 Posts: 69 Location: Toronto |
Sorry SharynS. Can't agree with you that our students didn't get tossed into the lion's den.
Had we struck out militarily then it would obviously have been a death sentence for many students. But it was an economic siege -- not a military siege. So many students only suffered economic death sentences. How we exploited our students is no different from how child soldiers get exploited -- with the singular exception that the context of our exploitation was labour economic instead of military. Re your question about what better strategy would have been? Depends whether you're asking how we might have exploited students to yet greater advantage. Or whether you're asking how we could possibly stage revolutions without exploiting students so much. Or whether you're asking why we're staging revolutions instead of negotiating like reasonable adults. Like, why we'd want to go shooting our feet the way we did. If you're asking that last question? It's a good one. And it brings us full circle back to the article we're commenting on. Because that's precisely the question Paul Moist was asking us. |
| Back to top | profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www |
| SharynS |
Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 6:40 pm
|
|
Joined: 28 Jan 2006 Posts: 2883 Location: the 'puter |
Life altering perhaps, life threatening, not even close CD. Quote: Had we struck out militarily then it would obviously have been a death sentence for many students. Quote: So many students only suffered economic death sentences. Quote: How we exploited our students is no different from how child soldiers get exploited Quote: with the singular exception that the context of our exploitation was labour economic instead of military. As far as which question, that's easy. You're the one with the obvious beef surrounding these events. I'm asking how you would have seen it play out better. _________________ 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 |
Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:35 pm
|
|
Joined: 06 Jan 2010 Posts: 69 Location: Toronto |
Quote: Life altering perhaps, life threatening, not even close CD. Hope you realize we are not disagreeing with each other. 3903s never physically killed or maimed anyone in this strike. So you're right we didn't (literally) throw our students into the lion's den. You were also right to say ".. the sacrifice we're talking about is monetary.." With me so far? You were right on all that. But. Put that together. Why did you even introduce that literal lion's den when we're talking about economic sacrifice only? That's why I introduced your literal lion's den to a more metaphoric one. An economic lion's den. In accordance with how economically we sacrificed our students. See? We did throw our students into the lion's den. The metaphoric lion's den. The economic lion's den. So you're absolutely right. It's no literal lion's den. It's just an economic lion's den. But it's bad enough, throwing our students into the economic lion's den. Because a classic term for how we sacrificed our students economically is exploitation. On top of which? Exploitation is precisely what we claimed to be fighting against. I hope it's clear. I'm not saying we're killers or anything. I'm just saying we're hypocritical exploiters. But isn't all this explaining silly? Didn't you understand what I was saying all along
Quote: I'm asking how you would have seen it play out better. Not so much ideology. |
| Back to top | profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www |
Home
Forums
Your Union
Paul Moist has no ideas
Forums
Your Union
Paul Moist has no ideas
|
Page 1 of 9
page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 next |
||