[Fdu] possible dalhousie strike--

[Peter Fitting]

President?s Column 
Time to decide 


(Feb 7, 2012) We need to vote on our willingness to strike. The principles of the pension plan (listed below) are worth striking over. At a university with salaries below the average of our comparator group, a strong pension plan is essential. 


The DFA's negotiating team has signaled to the Board that we are willing to discuss a jointly sponsored model and we have provided a framework under which that discussion might take place. They have proposed nothing on the pension plan in conciliation. Their only proposal, presented to the Pension Advisory Committee some time ago, would strip away our veto while retaining theirs, leaving a "jointly sponsored" plan entirely in their hands. No one should have to agree to such terms. 


This round of negotiations has been dominated by news of the pension crisis at Dalhousie University. The Board of Governors' negotiating team has insisted that the University's pension plan must change to a jointly sponsored model, and originally were insisting upon such a move even in the absence of legislation and regulations allowing such a pension governance structure in Nova Scotia. 


Over the course of this academic year, it has become obvious why the Board of Governors ignored our arguments that such a move should not even be contemplated without legislation and regulations in place. Their representatives had been lobbying the Nova Scotia government to influence legislation and regulations. 


They lobbied without telling the DFA that they were doing so-in direct contravention to Article 9 of our collective agreement-and minimized their circumvention of the collective agreement after we discovered their tactics. They have made it abundantly clear that they are willing to do just about anything -whether fair or foul-to get this change to the pension plan. 


Last week, at the first day of conciliation, the DFA's team put on the conciliation table a framework that will protect the fundamentals of our pension plan. This framework would: 1) preserve our veto over pension changes, 2) leave to the Board of Governors any accumulated pension deficit up to the date of the change to a jointly sponsored plan, 3) acknowledge that our pension contributions may increase, but will be capped, and 4) require that DFA Members ratify any final changes before changing governance of the plan. 
 
This framework will protect what is best about our current pension plan. It will also enable the Board of Governors and the DFA to negotiate the terms under which a jointly sponsored pension plan might come into force at Dalhousie University. This framework will also enable the Board of Governors to access the solvency deficit exemption built into the new regulations, which will save them approximately $50 million per year. It's fair to say that we are meeting them more than halfway on this. 


The Board's unwillingness even to mention the pension plan in response to the DFA's proposal at conciliation was bewildering in the extreme. Considering how fixated the Board has been on this change to pension governance, we could not believe that the Board did not even acknowledge our willingness to help them with their problem. 


This is a problem in which the Board has played a significant role, and their only attempt to resolve it has been an onslaught of "pension town halls," negotiating directly with our Members in the Dal News and other instruments, and not-completely-forthcoming accounts on the Dal Human Resources website of how negotiations are going. (Imagine the DFA team's surprise when they read on the HR website that the first day of conciliation had seen "agreement on a number of non-monetary issues and ... progress on a number of others." Let's be clear. Nothing was signed off on Wednesday, February 1. There was no agreement.) 


The Board's unwillingness to engage with our pension proposal brings up a quite disturbing question. If they aren't willing to discuss a jointly sponsored plan, now that we've put the issue on the table, what do they really want? 


The Board of Governors' negotiating model has always been based on brinksmanship. 


Since 1997, negotiations here have seen two strikes, two rounds of conciliation, and only one round agreed at the table, and even that settlement (in 2004-05) followed consecutive strikes. Perhaps in that round, the Board of Governors recognized that the University could not afford three successive strikes. One would be hard pressed to find another recent record like that at a Canadian university. 


I believe that the Board of Governors has been willing to push us to the brink because they feel we will not vote to strike. Even though we have in the past, they feel that it is always worth the gamble that the DFA won't go out, and so each round they have pushed far beyond what most would consider "hard bargaining" right up to the line where "bad faith" begins. 


But if we are not willing to show the Board of Governors that we are willing to strike to preserve the fundamentals of our pension plan, it is difficult to see what we might be willing to fight for. If we've received brinksmanship so far, this only promises to get worse in the future if we do not take a stand on this crucial issue now. With a proposal on the conciliation table, our position is very strong, both to go out on strike, and to return with a reasonable settlement. 


The DFA is a large and varied group of intelligent, committed people. That is the great strength of our group, and it's been my priority during this round of negotiations to respect this character of our Membership by keeping the tone of negotiating bulletins factual and denotative. My own columns have tended to be slightly more rhetorical, but only slightly, again, in respect to who our Membership are. I have wanted to tell you what to think about, not insult you by telling you what to think. 


We are at a point, though, when I have to say that if we vote against a strike or have a weak strike vote, the Board of Governors will enforce a jointly sponsored pension plan upon us and our negotiating team -- who have worked tirelessly under very trying circumstances -- would have no bargaining leverage whatsoever. I would hate to imagine what that plan might look like. 


A strong strike vote will give us leverage. A weak strike vote will end this process with all of us being forced into a pension plan that will leave our futures in peril. 


It's really that simple. 




Dr. Anthony Stewart, President 
Dalhousie Faculty Association 
 
 


----- End forwarded message -----


 

Associate Professor
& Co-editor, Review Section, The Journal of Peasant Studies

SOSA, Dalhousie University 
6135 University Ave
PO BOX 15000 Halifax, NS
Canada B3H 4R2

http://sociologyandsocialanthropology.dal.ca/Faculty/Elizabeth_Fitting.php 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.physics.utoronto.ca/pipermail/fdu/attachments/20120208/e3143ed6/attachment.html