My apologies for the cross-posting, it's just easier this way. I haven't been able to respond individually to many of the supportive posts that I have received, I've tried...
"Here's the deal..."
After 4 days of closed-door discussions a tentative agreement was reached. This fell right in the middle of the final course restructuring (Feb 4) and the recommendations by a Task Force for Funding (that CUPE 3902 had been excluded from). The contents of the "deal" were not disclosed until the general meeting last Tuesday. Part of the "agreement" held that the matter be resolved before Thursday - putting severe time constraints on possible discussion. The administration had shacked us in a hall that seats 600, knowing full well that the union has 2400 members. So the meeting wasn't off to a good start from the beginning. After an hour so of struggle and confusion, the meeting was moved to convocation hall, which seats about 1800. There was probably around 1000 people present. Lacking microphones, the deal was disclosed. Basically, it is the same deal offered in Jan (about 2% increase in wage, dental, 4 appointments instead of 3...), with a few extras thrown in - a lump sum signing bonus ($400+ / person) a position on a few funding committees and some back-to-work protocol.
The losers: the 50+ people who got canned one week into the strike, they have to apply for a bursary based on financial need and everyone who wanted some sort of tuition relief (ie. 90% of the union).
There was a ratification vote, which passed after a 4 hour screaming match (most of the people expressed outrage - directed at the negotiating committee). The vote on the agreement then took place Tuesday evening and Wednesday. It passed, with 60% or so for the deal and 40% against the deal. HALF of the membership did not vote.
My thoughts...
We were played by the administration right from the beginning. Not once did we ever move out what could reasonably be predicted by the administration. The admin called us "thugs" and we locked Prichard in a room for 3 hours. The admin set a deadline, and we jumped to get a deal before it came up. They acted as though they were going to break the union, and we acted as though we could be broken.
Ultimately (in my mind), the administration wanted to test the political atmosphere of the university (they did); depoliticize the campus by siphoning off energy from general interests (tuition, programming, classroom conditions) to particular interests (those of the TAs); drain the resources and energy of the union; split the political alignments of the student body, faculty and union membership by taking up a polemical position (for or against tuition relief) and; weaken the confidence of the union in its own leadership by offering something that 51%+ of the membership would go for. They managed to succeed in every single one of these goals.
In mourning and retrospect
The Union lacked undergraduate and faculty support - largely because the demands of the union were for wage increases or tuition waivers for TAs. Although the union supports the interests and demands of the undergrad and grad union, we were not effective or powerful enough to pursue these interests through out withdrawal of labour. Perhaps we should have demanded that tuition waivers be put in place not just for TAs, but undergraduates and graduates as well.
The union leadership (and membership) was unprepared - politically and administratively - to secure crucial support right from the start.
The membership desired a better contract, but did not have the resolve to demand it. In other words, there was a lack of committment to tuition relief - stemming largely from the financial differences between departments (esp. the sciences, the social sciences and the humanities).
The most tragic of the consequences is the internal infighting now present in the union. A majority of the membership voted "yes" out of fear (my assumption) - fear of decertification (a present threat from the provincial government) and a fear of making conditions worse for everyone involved (except the admin). Large portions of the membership hold the bargaining committee responsible for the "weak" agreement. In effect, almost the entire membership has been demoralized - the bargaining team are left feeling guilty and the membership betrayed.
I wish I had better news.
"disaster triumphant" ken