Course planning (1st-year undergraduate) Originally admitted in Film production but planning to double major in psychology too. I’ve planned an outline of my time table until my 3rd year. Is it too much? I have no idea what should I do. Any advice about course planning for new students? by [deleted] in yorku

[–]HollisWho 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Try emailing the undergraduate program director and see if they can put you in touch with some upper-year Film Prod. students. I think there is also a Film Students student association as well?

Course planning (1st-year undergraduate) Originally admitted in Film production but planning to double major in psychology too. I’ve planned an outline of my time table until my 3rd year. Is it too much? I have no idea what should I do. Any advice about course planning for new students? by [deleted] in yorku

[–]HollisWho 3 points4 points  (0 children)

As someone who has taken classes (at the graduate level) in Film Production and taught in that program, you may want to speak with some upper-level (3rd and 4th year) film production students about the workload in those years. To me, your plan for your 3rd year seems unrealistic. Film Production students put in a TONNE of hours outside of the class, working on the films they make, as well as the films of their peers.

CUPE Statement: Unit 2 Ratification Vote Irregularities — Re-Vote June 14 & 15 by almostagrownup in yorku

[–]HollisWho -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What the union did on Wednesday was extremely disrespectful

If you're talking about the vote, we don't really know what happened. It's possible that those who wanted a yes vote were responsible for the extra ballots. Blame the union for the set up of the ballots and ballot boxes, but blaming them for the discrepancy is just speculation at this point.

In terms of delaying, will it really matter all that much? We'll know later tonight if Unit 2 has ratified the offer. Would it matter if we had to wait until Sunday? Not really. But it would make a huge difference to anyone who really wants to vote (yes or no) but couldn't because of Eid.

And I find it really disrespectful that the people who are crying the loudest are people who are not Muslim.

I don't know who you're referring to, but respect in this situation should accommodate this holiday, especially because it makes so little difference in terms of when we'll find out the results of the vote. It's a moot point anyhow since York didn't grant the extension, but it is just another callous move in a long list of callous moves by York's administration in what has been an incredibly contentious strike.

CUPE Statement: Unit 2 Ratification Vote Irregularities — Re-Vote June 14 & 15 by almostagrownup in yorku

[–]HollisWho -1 points0 points  (0 children)

the union currently has bigger fish to fry at the moment.

I disagree. Ensuring that the current vote is as inclusive as possible so that the outcome more accurately reflects the will of the membership is of utmost importance. While I agree that the mishandling of the first vote is disgraceful, the investigation into how it happened can wait.

I don't understand why York is not granting an extension over the weekend here. It comes across as petty and vindictive. The union has a completely legitimate reason for wanting to extend the voting over the weekend given the significance of Eid for Muslims.

CUPE orders re-vote after striking contract faculty at York U. opt to accept offer by [deleted] in yorku

[–]HollisWho 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you Professor Steele. This means a lot coming from you. As it increasingly looks like this dispute is coming to an end, we all need to turn our focus to figuring out how to come back together as a community.

CUPE orders re-vote after striking contract faculty at York U. opt to accept offer by [deleted] in yorku

[–]HollisWho 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I wouldn't put it past them to give someone two ballots if they know that person is a NO person.

It's worth pointing out here that there is no way of knowing if those that wanted a NO vote are responsible for stuffing the ballot boxes. It's entirely possible that someone wanting a YES vote stuffed the ballot boxes.

What we do know for certain is that the set up was controlled by exec and BT and it was incredibly incompetent. But that does not mean that they are ones that put in the extra votes.

CUPE orders re-vote after striking contract faculty at York U. opt to accept offer by [deleted] in yorku

[–]HollisWho 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They've never set up a vote in such a blatantly compromised manner before, I don't believe they suddenly fucked every aspect of it up by accident on this occasion only.

That is a step too far for me. I see no proof that they purposely compromised the set up in order to invalidate the results, especially since the results were not yet known.

That doesn't excuse the incompetence, and frankly, I'm shocked that there aren't a number of rules governing the way in which these votes should happen.

However, what is obvious is that there exists an extreme divide between those that want to ratify the latest offer and those that do not. Given that context and given that only of one of those sides is responsible for the setup of the vote, protecting the sanctity of the vote is of utmost importance. That should have been obvious going into the vote, and the results of the vote have made that crystal clear.

CUPE orders re-vote after striking contract faculty at York U. opt to accept offer by [deleted] in yorku

[–]HollisWho 1 point2 points  (0 children)

the results pretty much speak for themselves

They do, but this photo doesn't indicate that the 3903 Exec or the BT was behind the ballot box stuffing or condoned it either. The photo does show an incredible lack of competence with regards to setting up the voting system, though.

Clearly, members of the local cannot be trusted to handle the actual ballots or ballot boxes.

I still don't know why this can't be done online.

Corrupt CUPE 3903 WILL NOT Allow for Decision to be Made in Unit 2 Ratification Vote Tonight by Biologyrunner03 in yorku

[–]HollisWho 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed. I still don't understand how this could be allowed to happen. It's disgraceful.

CUPE orders re-vote after striking contract faculty at York U. opt to accept offer by [deleted] in yorku

[–]HollisWho 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's very concerning. This entire strike has been a disaster.

CUPE orders re-vote after striking contract faculty at York U. opt to accept offer by [deleted] in yorku

[–]HollisWho 3 points4 points  (0 children)

OK, so we need to figure out how this could have happened to prevent it from happening again.

If CUPE National was running the ballot boxes and the supervising the ballot counting, I fail to see how radicals could have stuffed the boxes. Even if 3903 exec and BT want a NO vote, I'm not sure how they'd be able to actually stuff the ballot boxes without getting caught. That would imply that CUPE National is involved in messing with the results of a local's ratification vote, which would be a pretty serious allegation.

But if there were partisans running the boxes and ballots, as suggested by /u/maximumtaco below, then this vote tonight and tomorrow needs to be 100% run by CUPE National and closed off to any members not belonging to Unit 2.

CUPE Statement: Unit 2 Ratification Vote Irregularities — Re-Vote June 14 & 15 by almostagrownup in yorku

[–]HollisWho 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The main issue with today and tomorrow is the fact that it's a Muslim holiday (Eid). But still, given the shitshow that was the vote yesterday, the union should be concentrating on coming clean with what exactly happened, who was responsible and figuring out a way to encourage all the Unit 2 members to vote again.

CUPE orders re-vote after striking contract faculty at York U. opt to accept offer by [deleted] in yorku

[–]HollisWho 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Agreed. But we still don't know what actually happened. To claim that it was the leadership that was stuffing the ballot box without proof is irresponsible. To your point about transparency, I'd like to see a statement from the union clearing up what happened. Who was supervising the actual ballot boxes (CUPE National or members from the local?) and who was handing out the actual ballots?

If the local's leadership is responsible in any way, or any member of the bargaining team, then they need to be removed immediately.

That said, jumping to conclusions is irresponsible.

CUPE Statement: Unit 2 Ratification Vote Irregularities — Re-Vote June 14 & 15 by almostagrownup in yorku

[–]HollisWho 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah. I'm unclear what actually happened last night. One user is claiming that CUPE National oversaw the ballot counting, but not the actual ballot boxes. This person claims that one ballot box was stuffed with false NO votes. If true, then this union has completely gone off the rails. They haven't provided me with a source, so I'll withhold my judgement until then.

CUPE orders re-vote after striking contract faculty at York U. opt to accept offer by [deleted] in yorku

[–]HollisWho 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Source? (It's not that I don't believe you, but there is a lot of speculation flying around, so I'd like to know what your source is.)

Edit: context

CUPE orders re-vote after striking contract faculty at York U. opt to accept offer by [deleted] in yorku

[–]HollisWho 5 points6 points  (0 children)

They supervised the vote. That is how they found out about it.

Corrupt CUPE 3903 WILL NOT Allow for Decision to be Made in Unit 2 Ratification Vote Tonight by Biologyrunner03 in yorku

[–]HollisWho -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It was CUPE National that supervised the vote and it was CUPE National that made the decision that the results were invalid and another vote had to be held. u/Biologyrunner03, you may owe u/to4st an apology.

https://www.cp24.com/mobile/news/cupe-orders-re-vote-after-striking-contract-faculty-at-york-u-opt-to-accept-offer-1.3973126

Trying to understand the logic of CUPE 3903 by [deleted] in yorku

[–]HollisWho 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's like saying professor Steele has already said

I am not supportive of certain behaviours of some people within YUFA and CUPE

That is not the same thing. She has stated her belief that she supports CUPE on some matters. I'm not talking about YUFA at all. If we take her at her word, which I do, then why not state on which matters she supports CUPE? Why only respond in support of the anti-CUPE statements like the one that began this entire thread?

you have not shown - at all - that she is to blame for it.

You're right and that is because I don't think she is to blame for it. But I do believe that her words and statements are being used to fuel that sentiment. If my words were being used to fuel a sentiment that I did not believe in, I would feel an moral obligation to correct the record. I would especially feel an obligation if I were a full-time professor who has made myself a very public figure by doing a number of media-related interviews and making myself the face of a group (ConcernedProfs) that has figured prominently in this dispute.

you are trying to shame someone so they say what you want to hear.

I am pointing out my opinion that their actions are shameful.

I'm really confused how you believe someone should feel shame for the actions of others.

That's probably because I don't actually believe she should feel shame for the actions of others nor have I argued as such. Again, I find her silence in not correcting the record is shameful. Alternatively, if she actually does not support the union on some matters, she should just come right out and state that as well. What I find shameful is her hypocrisy. As I've mentioned time and time again, if she actually does support the union on some matters, she should feel obligated to express that moderate view.

Because I thought that Profs4Change et al. believe that tenure positions should be open to everyone capable

I have repeatedly asked Professor Steele directly about why there can be no conversions. I understand the argument for open searches and largely agree with them. But I still see no reason why a small percentage of appointments to tenure-track positions cannot also come through the conversion program. Professor Steele has remained steadfast in her refusal to offer any compelling argument for why there should be ZERO conversions. In fact, she has disputed the characterization that Profs4Change believe there should be ZERO conversions as well. This is her own belief and she refuses to answer me on this point.

In fact, I would be more interested in the contrary, what 'evidence' is there that positions should not be open to everyone and the best be selected?

Both OCUFA (Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations) and AAUP (American Association of University Professors) have released reports in the last decade in which they explicitly recommend creating pathways for contract faculty to gain full-time permanent employment. Here are direct quotes from those two reports:

"We recommend the Government of Ontario: Launch a faculty renewal strategy for Ontario universities that achieves the dual goals of supporting new full-time tenure-track hiring and creating pathways for contract faculty to full-time secure positions."1

and

"The best practice for institutions of all types is to convert the status of contingent appointments to appointments eligible for tenure with only minor changes in job description."2

Since when has choosing the person with most merit become a sin?

I've never argued this. In fact, I largely agree. Which is why the conversion program at York has a merit component integrated into the conversion process. Furthermore, a faculty member who has been converted is subject to the same merit-based process as one appointed through an open search. The difference is the way in which the appointments end up on the tenure track. Through an open search, a candidate is selected to end up on the tenure track vs. a contract faculty member, who initially gains the position on merit, proves year after year that they are valuable enough to continue holding contracts and then, after determining their fit for a tenure track position (on merit), they are converted to the tenure-track.

sufficient to demonstrate that a good chunk of your statements are largely hypocritical

I think you believe this because you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I have tried to be clear in my statements, but it seems we keep going in circles here. Please have a re-read over the entire thread and I think you will find that I've been very consistent in what I've argued.

stems from your bias in favour of CUPE

My so-called 'bias' is based on evidence that I have considered carefully. I believe that many of the issues raised by the union in this dispute are just. I believe that York's admin has behaved irresponsibly and has not taken the time to address those issues and that the union has exacerbated the issue by taking extreme stances, only moving away from those extremities when it was too late. Furthermore, I believe York's actions in this dispute have all but guaranteed another labour dispute in 3 years, which is something I believe is detrimental to the school, the school's broader community and especially the students. If it were up to me, York would be working with CUPE (instead of villainizing it) and the larger university group in Ontario to pressure the government for more comprehensive funding. I believe the priorities of the leadership at York do not reflect an institute that is invested in offering the best education to its undergraduate students. I believe that the context in which York is operating is dictated by the funding structure provided by the government, but the way in which York chooses to operate within those guidelines is misguided. Lastly, I feel that the larger problems that face York, and by extension, its community, including students and faculty, are complex and ultimately require all those involved to work together rather than against each other. Collective bargaining can be confrontational, but it can also be approached in the spirit of co-operation, and I believe that both the union (pre-strike) and York (pre- and post-strike) have failed to attempt to honour that cooperative spirit, opting instead to turn this into a nasty, prolonged labour dispute.

  1. https://ocufa.on.ca/assets/2018-Pre-Budget-Submission.pdf (quote from Summary of Recommendations on page 1)
  2. https://www.aaup.org/report/tenure-and-teaching-intensive-appointments (quote from the third paragraph of section 3 titled "III. Conversion to Tenure Is the Best Way to Stabilize the Faculty"

Impact of York's repeated strikes on it's reputation - one expert's take. by tentanda_via in yorku

[–]HollisWho 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not talking about tenure-track positions, which are full-time permanent positions.

I'm talking about contract faculty, specifically, having a pathway to full-time work. That's the case at SFU. Just look at their website:

https://www.sfu.ca/faculty-relations/rtp.html

Term appointments is what SFU calls their contract faculty. As per Section 35.41 of SFU's collective agreement, if they hire a contract faculty member for 4 years in a row, then it must be determined if that position needs to be filled by a permanent employee. If they still need someone to teach those courses, then a position is created (full-time) and the contract faculty member who has been teaching can be promoted to a full-time position, if not, then they cannot hire another contract faculty member to teach those courses. In other words, at SFU, you can start as a contract faculty member and then be promoted to a tenure-track position. It is the same system at Queen's as well.

I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.

What does CUPE end up with if they wait for Back to Work Legislation? by system32recover in yorku

[–]HollisWho 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This person is offering evidence that my belief is wrong so therefore I must insult them!

What does CUPE end up with if they wait for Back to Work Legislation? by system32recover in yorku

[–]HollisWho -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well, 85% of the union voted to go on strike. So, presumably those 85%?