Board Minutes June 2025: Difference between revisions
→Bargaining Committee Report
Adam.burgess (talk | contribs) |
Adam.burgess (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
*It was quite a mental exercise writing for current long-term / dedicated staff as well as any potential new staff. | *It was quite a mental exercise writing for current long-term / dedicated staff as well as any potential new staff. | ||
*Current clause suggests a mandate for board to write grants to find COL increases-- should be made more open-ended, a shared responsibility between staff and board, including all revenue streams, while still recognising that it is an expectation to prioritise COL increases. | *Current clause suggests a mandate for board to write grants to find COL increases-- should be made more open-ended, a shared responsibility between staff and board, including all revenue streams, while still recognising that it is an expectation to prioritise COL increases. | ||
*Some clauses currently reference involving the Union, which should be clarified to refer the workers, not CUPE. The intention is for workers to always have access to CUPE representation if needed, but for no one to | *Some clauses currently reference involving the Union, which should be clarified to refer the workers, not CUPE. The intention is for workers to always have access to CUPE representation if needed, but for no one to ever have to contact the union if all is going well. | ||
*Re: the Volunteer clause: If layoffs were needed, replaced by volunteer labour, we would not be in violation of the clause because it would be financial pressures necessitating the layoffs, with the volunteer replacement coming after. But what if it was a change in strategic direction, or for example a great new volunteer who wants to do social media or something like that? It could be done if it were approved by the LMCC; even then you risk a grievance, and that's just a risk you take. This discussion raises the stakes on who represents staff on the LMCC - yes, there could be conflict. CUPE 1099 president is an ex-officio member of the LMCC, so they would be aware of our decision-making in that capacity. How is staff representation on the LMC determined? - by the staff-- and if there's serious conflict between them they could involve the union. | *Re: the Volunteer clause: If layoffs were needed, replaced by volunteer labour, we would not be in violation of the clause because it would be financial pressures necessitating the layoffs, with the volunteer replacement coming after. But what if it was a change in strategic direction, or for example a great new volunteer who wants to do social media or something like that? It could be done if it were approved by the LMCC; even then you risk a grievance, and that's just a risk you take. This discussion raises the stakes on who represents staff on the LMCC - yes, there could be conflict. CUPE 1099 president is an ex-officio member of the LMCC, so they would be aware of our decision-making in that capacity. How is staff representation on the LMC determined? - by the staff-- and if there's serious conflict between them they could involve the union. | ||
*Wage Reopener clause has yet to be drafted-- the spirit is that we respond to events as they come up, rather than building in some particular wage increase multiple years out. It might be a more broad Clause Reopener rather than on wages specifically. | *Wage Reopener clause has yet to be drafted-- the spirit is that we respond to events as they come up, rather than building in some particular wage increase multiple years out. It might be a more broad Clause Reopener rather than on wages specifically. | ||