Why it didn’t come correct is the big question. Given the justifiable outrage over the reduction, it’s not surprising they “corrected” it.

“Gee when did it become such a controversial notion that managers/bosses/supervisors would have something to say about employees’ performance?”

When a portion of the money offered was actually bargained for in a past Collective Agreement, and it hasn’t yet been delivered (according to CUPE). The money then was naturally not tied to reviews, so something promised to an employee could now be taken away by an unfair review.

Admittedly with the grievance process in place, there is less of a problem, but the subjective review system is pointless anyway.
http://blogs.usask.ca/concernedacademics/2007/11/publish_your_letters_to_the_ed.html#comment-31984

I have a lot of discussions with my wife and hearing how supervisors and management treat their staff there is unreal. I would hope this isn’t the case for all areas, but it is sounding like a common problem. One of the deans (he has since resinged) of the one of the colleges has openly on several occassions told the vet technologists they can do without them. Interestingly enough that entire college is now shut down. Surgeries are overbooked and almost on a daily basis, these techs are required to work through their lunch breaks and after hours. Now they do get overtime for this which is a nice benefit, however, it gets stressful after a while to work 9 - 10 hours straight without any sort of break. These people have no problem working the extra time once in a while but it is such a common occurrance it starts to wear on a person. To add to this, the supervisor starts to question their overtime trying to make it look like they are falsifying their OT claims. So here you have hard working employees that are going the extra mile for their area and then get questioned about it. That is just one example of mistrust. This same dean denies training to most of these people because he feels training is a waste on them.

One of the benefits these employees have is the availability of two days a year for family day. It is meant to allow employees to take a day to catch up on appointments or get things done. Every request for these days has been denied in my wife’s department. Even when one was for a medical emergency.

Another example is the performance evaluations I eluded to earlier. These methods of evaluations are unfair and breed mistrust.

The question is, how do you grade an increase in performance for someone like a janitor. A person is only capable of doing so much work in a given day. There is only so well one can mop a floor, so fast one can type a document or properly take blood from a human or animal. When I talked about business models earlier, the methods chosen by HR are what is used by companies that can clearly define performance. Specifically: For each $100000 worth of equipment you sell you will get $1000 bonus or if we land this contract we will promote you. At the UofS The janitor is limited in what he can do. It’s not like he can earn a bonus by going and cleaning the Dairy Queen bathrooms as well. He has a defined set of duties in a defined area. One would think as long as he does his job and does it well, he should get his bonus. The problem is, HR has not properly defined what performance is. Right now it is a vague term being applied to everyone. With so many differing jobs within CUPE 1975 one can’t blame a member for being paranoid at having this placed into a contract.

Yes there is a chance that you will have jerk bosses but with the right to grieve the risk of unfairness is mitigated. Yes grievances are time consuming which is why we can expect the Universities to act in good faith in dolling them out. One more incentive for them not to be withheld “unreasonably”. The goal of having an effective, efficient workplace should trump the relatively minute chance that the grievance procedure would uphold an unreasonable withholding. If the grievance process is good enough for unfair terminations/suspensions/etc. it should be good enough for determining whether or not an increment should be paid.

As for redlining. I reviewed the UofS HRD website almost every half hour on the day the final offer came out and the “correction” followed in short order. The Union on the other hand took days to update their information and took no steps to particularily point out
the correction.

According to s. 11(1)(a) of the Trade Union Act communicating with employees is not an “unfair labour practice” unless those communications “interfere with, restrain, intimidate, threaten or coerce an employee in the exercise of any right conferred by this Act”. Communicating managements position does not meet this definition. The union does not have a monopoly on communications with striking workers.

Grievances are horrible to deal with. Average time is about 2 years to complete a grievance and can easily cost upwards of $10000 to complete. That is by no means cost effective or efficient. HR wants to implement a policy of performance reviews with absolutely no plan in place on how to deal with it. As a comparison, would you honestly sign a contract to have a house built where the only wording on the contract is We will build a house for you?

As for the redlining pay, those were the correct numbers until the UofS, well after contract talks had ended, submitted an altered final offer. In addition, the numbers of 5%/5%/5% are one time payouts for each of the next three years and are not added to their salary. In 2010, they will not see any more increases.

As for your comment on the unfair labour practice by the union, you need to give your head a shake. The union represents the memebership in negotiations and are the ones that are allowed relay information to its members. This so called email you speak of was not received by my wife. In addition, you want to talk unfair labour practive. How about the UofS having mailed out twice now - the final offer directly to the employees. That my friend is an unfair labour practice as the UofS is not to negotiate directly with the employees.

I have a correction to the 1% benefit comment I made previously. This amount is actually .9% that was bargained last contract and was never implemented. In the new final offer only the UofR will get the .9% implemented provided they accept terms set out by the UofS (not stated in the aggreement) plus a one time injection of $30000. The UofS is going to do a one time cash injection of $100000. There are no further comments on percentage agreements in the final offer yet the UofS pretends to portray these as % increases.

- I see NO reason why pay cannot be tied to performance if the decisions to withhold the increments are GRIEVABLE.
Why are so many people determined to stand up for the worst employees among us? Given the number of people who actually had the increment withheld, the UofS’s guarantee not to withhold until 2009 and the ability to grieve it is HARDLY a “conditional” raise.

- What the HECK is wrong with a “business model”? Is that union speak for “we only recieve what the market will pay for similar services”? Heaven Forbid!

- You shouldnt make your decisions on the strike on “creepy feelings”. Your decision should be based on the numbers which say one thing quite clearly: 99% of the employees will recieve more than the provincial average income average even if you take into account the benefit cuts. THAT is all that matters.

- Chris L’s numbers are by his own admission a “hypothetical maximum”. The dental numbers he provides assume that someone maxes out their dental plan every year. BTW 50% for non-preventative orthodontics is pretty standard compared for the medical plans I have encountered. It is the same thing I am being offered by my employer. As for the long term disability he is still using the max that someone would end up paying (ie people who are recieving raises that will WAY WAY WAY more than cover the loss).

- If UofR is being dishonest so is CUPE. The claim that the red-lining pay (I think thats the word) was only 4.5, 4.75, and 5 for days after the University corrected the offer to say that it was 5 each year. THAT is dishonest IMO.

No matter how you spin it and how much you dig into the benefits cuts, and what the 17% actually comprises the simple undeniable fact still remains: that CUPE employees will outpace the rest of the province, at the expense of the rest of the province. These arent apples and oranges. They are directly comparable. I see no reason why university employees should outpace everyone else simply because they are using a strike as a pressure tactic.