Carson Jerema and the Pimple Patrol at Macleans Strike Again...

Have a read of Carson Jerema's latest article entitled : Student representatives worthy of applause

Many students this past winter remember the ugly labour dispute at St. Thomas University. Many students and members of the community were surprised to see the St. Thomas Student Union take on a more combative and hands on role during this strike. Jerema believes the STU SU should be commended for taking the side of the employer during a heated labour dispute, opposing professors and the part-time instructors also in the professor's union. This is a another shot, in a line of shots coming from macleans magazine that has a consistent bias.

Jerema makes note of the unprecedented role the SU played by taking sides in the dispute by openly endorsing the administration's offer to the faculty association. Although this is certainly a novelty, I'm not convinced it's worthy of distinction or commendation. What is unprecedented, and what Jerema fails to note in his article, is that the administration is responsible for the strike (which many supported and felt was justified, both morally and legally), and it was the administration that brought the negotiations to a stand-still and locked out the professors during the Xmas holidays. The lock-out is the event that has no precedent in the history of faculty and administration dealings in Canada. They never happen and it surprised everyone when they did it.

Furthermore Jerema's representation of the faculty association's demands are doubtful and his claims were called-out in the comments section. Jerema's arithmetic should be closely scrutinized here.

I categorically reject some assertion's made that professors do not deserve a real union and that their association should not be allowed to engage in workplace actions, such as a strike. The idea of the spoiled university professor is a myth, and the logic that the already well paid have no right to work through their representatives to maintain and improve working conditions is wrong-headed and just plain stupid (for the record Jerema, I know you didn't say this in your article). What the author failed to mention was that many part-time faculty were making more on strike-pay than their regular salaries paid.

The increasing workload put on professors and the increasing use of part-time instructors was a significant issue in this dispute. Over working professors which leads directly to many universities relying on casualized labour in the form of sessionals and stipends directly leads to lower quality education. These part-time lecturers go without office space, often without benefits, and ofcourse receive appallingly low pay for their level of education and amount of responsibilities. This is a trend going on throughout our country's universities and it needs to be addressed as it is hurting the quality of our university education. With this in mind, the aims of the faculty association are in line with the interests of students. In this respect the faculty association should be commended.

To be fair, I agree with Jerema that compensation for students is necessary and just. However, it is not significant that the faculty union was named in the lawsuit, as that is standard procedure (to sue all party's involved, regardless of actual liability). It is not likely that the faculty association could ever be held legally liable. The administration caused the dispute, they are in a contract with students to provide education, and they clearly broke that contract. Therefore they should pay, and congratulations to the STU SU for doing it.

In times of crisis, people and organizations show their true colors. STU SU should be suspect for acting in the interests of the administration, running counter to the interests of students.The STU SU's actions this past winter should be a wake-up call to students at St. Thomas: your "union" has demonstrated a huge conflict of interest.

For the record, it's obviously a hard place for a student to be in. The nature of a dispute like this makes the students a valuable tool or a potential bargaining chip, and that's precisely what happened. Students should be wary of an organization purporting to stand up for student rights, that sides with the same administration that charges exorbitant tuition fees every year. It is also more than likely, that the actions of STU SU prolonged the dispute by taking sides, and weakened the bargaining positions of professors.

In the parlance of trade unionism, there are two terms that apply to what the STU SU did, scab and yellow dog. Scab obviously applies more directly to a picket line and crossing it, however it is generally used as a more general terms of someone who sides with the stronger side in a dispute (i.e. the employer).

Yellow Dog is more of an uncommon term, however it is useful here in that it adequately describes STU SU's actions. Yellow Dog unions (or company unions) are an old trick in the book of tricks in order to control dissent in the workplace or in this case, on campus. Yellow Dog unions appear to be independent bodies but in actuality they are designed to create the illusion of a union or representation from an independent organization to an employer or university administration (case in point). During the negotiations the STU SU organized students to occupy a room in the hotel where negotiations were taking place in order that the administration could use these students as a pressure tactic on the professors.

Historical research on the Canadian and American student movement demonstrates the university administration's almost constant vested interest in controlling and co-opting the student movement. This was especially apparent during the civil rights movements in the US and Canadian university administrators, in turn, saw the need to control what they saw as a growing tide of student unrest and rebellion. They have been successful in some places and not so successful in others. New Brunswick, I'd argue is one of those places where administrations have been successful in co-opting student leaders. The actions of STU SU is indicative of this trend in New Brunswick and students should be alarmed. We pay for these organizations and they should be independent.

The fallout form this ugly chapter in St. Thomas University's history is clearly detrimental to the institution. Many professors merely put in their hours and go home as soon as they can and many friendships and working relationships have been ruined. The spring convocation this year was clearly absent of the usual accompaniment of faculty wishing to see their students graduate.