|
York U Students?? (pg. 14)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by evil_cookie
It's unfortunate for the students, teaching assistants, instructors and other faculty members--respectively in their own personal views.
In respects to considering the long-term consequences, I don’t think it’s irrelevant at all. In fact, by the mere fact that you care enough to emphasize your girlfriend’s inopportune position, it makes my point towards you all the more relevant. That is to say, you should appreciate that perhaps you did and are naively generalizing about unionization, seeing as in the long term (most important factor in my opinion) she will do better as part of a union as opposed to not participating--especially in the education system.
As again with my objection towards the use of the word ‘hostage’; coupled with the aforementioned points, I merely pointed out that the word, in its attempt to obtain a benign response, demeans and discredits the process of unionization and its self-apparent benefits.
In short, it’s not black and white--and Smitty and I have been making the case that all this bashing towards the union, and the union alone, is unfounded and speculative at best. |
You've used a lot of big words here (several of them incorrectly, like "benign"), but you've effectively communicated next to nothing. Here's a rough translation:
"The faculty and the students are both getting screwed. But I think unionized workers are still better off unionized, so I don't blame the union itself for these problems, and I think the word you're using to describe unions is mean (though not necessarily untrue)."
We've seen mountains of evidence in the past decade of the damage that unions can cause to the public, the employers, and the economy in general. Do you have evidence to present intimating that any unionized workers would be unfairly treated without their unions, or just a lame post-hoc argument ("they're unionized, and they're getting good pay and benefits, so the good pay and benefits must be because of the union")? |
|
|
| evil_cookie |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
It's not as if they worked their asses off to become TAs and professors |
You call that an argument? Do you actually expect a serious response?
I’m glad you’re undergraduate degree is all you needed (an assumption I think I’m right about); but you’re completely talking out of your ass with demeaning the competitive and rigorous nature of graduate work.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Receptionist, maybe not. How about a project manager? Accountant? Engineer? Doctor or nurse? Surely you don't mean to tell us that these people are less educated or don't work as hard as university professors. |
I replied that Skipper’s oversimplified and actually blatantly wrong view of ‘everybody deserves the same job security’ is wrong. How the hell did you deduce that to the bizarreness of the above? That I somehow deem doctors and engineers less educated? My point is exactly that: that job security is relative to the specific occupation.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Might also be worth mentioning that a large number of faculty members aren't professors anyway, they're just administrative staff without a great deal of education or training, and they're backed by the union too. |
I never once said professor in any of my posts, you don’t need to state the obvious.
edit:
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
You've used a lot of big words here (several of them incorrectly, like "benign"), but you've effectively communicated next to nothing. |
God forbid I use bigger words like gigantic--but please, do tell; I’d love to hear how--via what I can only assume is your immense knowledge of syntax in linguistics--you can point out my incorrect sentences. This all of course forgetting that we're discussing this on a board.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Do you have evidence to present intimating that any unionized workers would be unfairly treated without their unions, or just a lame post-hoc argument ("they're unionized, and they're getting good pay and benefits, so the good pay and benefits must be because of the union")? |
Don’t make assumptions. I have said many a time that on average a unionized employee will have greater percentage of benefit as oppose to a non-unionized employee. I’m not much for Googling graphs, but if you’re unaware or just playing stupid, I’m confident you can find recent statistics.
Interestingly enough, you’ve implicitly ruled out middle and lower class workers who do not and cannot receive any reasonable benefit unless they’re part of a union.
edit:
I can't believe I missed this
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Even if this "fact" had any basis in reality and wasn't just something you pulled out of your ass, what would be the relevance? It's an ad hominem argument. |
LOL
Do you even know what an Ad hominem argument is? God you are clueless.
My comments towards her was that she is a complete hypocrite or just plain stupid to ask "wtf is their problem," when the NDP is doing exactly what is expected of them. So take your pick, hypocrisy or stupidity--whichever the case, I further suggested that the social and democratic principles in place that support such rights as the right to assemble, can be attributed to the same ideology that has allowed her and many others to come here and enjoy the rights that they do.
Please do a little more reading, than what I can only imagine to be a Wiki glance at logical fallacies--and just in case you try to get clever again, no, my above argument is not a false dilemma. :haha: |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: |
York classes resume Monday
January 28, 2009
Iain Marlow
Staff Reporter
The union representing 3,400 striking York University workers has suddenly abandoned plans to challenge provincial back-to-work legislation in the courts, saying it has instead decided "to take the high road."
In a news release late this afternoon, CUPE 3903 said the court challenge - threatened as recently as this morning - is dead and its members are "shifting gears and preparing for members to return to the classroom."
Despite efforts by the provincial New Democrats to hold up back-to-work legislation, it is expected to pass tomorrow. That should allow 50,000 York students to return to class, with an extended school year, by Monday at the latest.
Tyler Shipley, the union's spokesperson, said there was no decisive moment when the union felt they had to drop their legal challenge. It was unclear, he said, how long such a case would have taken, how much money it would have cost, and how difficult it would have been.
"Someone has to take responsibility and York clearly is not prepared to do this," Shipley said. "Certainly, it's not a decision we've come to easily. And certainly it's not a decision that everyone in the union agrees with."
"We don't want to see our students wait to have to go back to class any longer."
York University spokespeople were not immediately available for comment tonight.
Chris Bacon, a second year public policy and administration student at York, noted the union obviously had a legal right to challenge the legislation, but he is glad they decided to drop it.
"Students obviously just want to get back to class," he said. "We're sick of the petty fighting. Honestly, it's ridiculous... At least they see the sense in not going to court over some issue like this."
Dance student Rachel Turbett said she hopes all students will be back at school by next week. Turbett, like other students, has received emails from York and professors with speculative schedules for if and when the back-to-work legislation passes.
"It feels like we're going to be getting back," she said. "Which is kind of scary too, since we've been off for so long."
Kevin Coon, a labour lawyer at Baker & McKenzie, said a challenge such as the union's would have had slim chance of success.
"The courts have been reluctant to interfere in back-to-work legislation like this and would very unlikely grant an injunction to prevent the workers from going back in a situation like that, regardless of any kind of court claim," he said. "It's probably more for the purposes of public relations as opposed to reality, and the union will know that."
The back-to-work legislation was introduced Monday after negotiations between the university and the workers, including the intervention of a provincial mediator, failed to find agreement on a contract. McGuinty said that with students out of class since Nov. 6, York had "sustained a bit of a black eye."
Even though they missed 12 weeks of classes, students can't expect a tuition refund. Rather, Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities John Milloy said the government is examining ways to extend student loans to those who now face a longer school year.
"Right now we are working out the details with the university of how we can extend OSAP (Ontario Student Assistance Program)," Milloy told reporters.
Some York students are demanding compensation for the fractured school year and say the province isn't helping them by effectively helping them go deeper into debt.
Premier Dalton McGuinty told the Legislature today he understands York students are going to have additional costs for food, transportation and rent because of an extended school year due to the prolonged strike.
OSAP offers loans, grants, bursaries and scholarships to pay for post-secondary education for those who qualify.
"I think our responsibility is to ensure that OSAP is sufficiently flexible to meet those additional needs. I've made that commitment and we will find a way to make that happen," McGuinty said.
-With files from Tanya Talaga and The Canadian Press
|
source:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/578576
|
|
|
| evil_cookie |
Well...
That's the end of that--goodnight folks.
Until the next York strike. |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
so this is as much a public relations war as it is a labour war.. kudos to the union for not pursuing further legal action on the ruling, but i suspect the slim chance it had being ruled in their favour likely made the decision easy to drop it and instead win some PR points in the process (which in my opinion they'd been losing)..
eager to see now how the pending arbitration settles the dispute
|
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by dEsidEL
so this is as much a public relations war as it is a labour war.. kudos to the union for not pursuing further legal action on the ruling, but i suspect the slim chance it had being ruled in their favour likely made the decision easy to drop it and instead win some PR points in the process (which in my opinion they'd been losing)..
eager to see now how the pending arbitration settles the dispute
|
as am I actually. This probably should have been done sooner and classes could have resumed much earlier, but there are TWO sides in this dispute. Blaming it all on the union just an easy way for people who don't understand what it's like to work in that environment, or haven't had a real job yet. Why was the university so against arbitration? Maybe because arbitrators generally come down on the side of LABOUR when the numbers are crunched.
I have a feeling that the university will have to make some concessions, but that's what BARGAINING is about, after all.:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Please. The majority of those people just stayed in school forever because they didn't want to go out into the workforce. It's not as if they worked their asses off to become TAs and professors; most of them just want to spend the rest of their lives doing research and getting government grants to pay their bills, and they lecture and grade because it's a mandatory part of the job.
FONT] |
really eh? Academics don't work their asses off? Are you completely blind or just stupid? Do you know ANYTHING about being an academic? Did you write ever write 40-50 page research essays, or publish a 150 page thesis based on original research and defend it for 3 hours in front of people who are also experts? Were you ever required to read about 250 books across 8 months to complete ONE field for a PhD program? Have you even undertaken a dissertation that is required to be at least 300 pages and, on average, takes at least 3-4 years to complete? How about 2 hour oral examinations, or 4-6 hour examinations for comprehensives? There are also second language requirements too. And all that commonly done while you're teaching 1 or 2 classes by yourself and marking hundreds of papers and exams. If that's not working hard, what the is?
Dude, why don't you just shut up. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by evil_cookie
I replied that Skipper’s oversimplified and actually blatantly wrong view of ‘everybody deserves the same job security’ is wrong. |
It's you who oversimplified it. It was obvious to me what her meaning was: if your job is in demand and you are not easily replaceable, you will have job security. If either of those two criteria are not met, then you have no special "right" to job security.
The fact of the matter is, the amount of money and time one has spent on education has nothing whatsoever to do with the job security one will end up with or indeed will "deserve". If, for example, you choose to spend 10 years of your life researching a field that is not in high demand, knowing full well that it is not in high demand, then it stands to reason that your knowledge and skills upon graduation are not going to be in high demand. You haven't earned job security. You haven't earned . You spent a lot of time and money doing something that you wanted to do without regard to long-term earning potential. The world doesn't owe you something just because you studied hard in your program, any more than it would owe me something if I memorized every definition on urbandictionary.com. The only thing that matters is how useful your skills are to the rest of the world and how many other people have those same skills.
| quote: | | I have said many a time that on average a unionized employee will have greater percentage of benefit as oppose to a non-unionized employee. |
Well ain't that something. No , Sherlock, we all know that unionized employees have higher pay and better benefits than non-unionized employees. I can't believe you actually went through the trouble of "proving" that. However, that does not substantiate the claim that the unionized employees require the unions and would be treated unfairly without them. Either your straw-man arguments are intentional or you need to read your introductory logic textbook again (assuming you actually took that course).
The stated purpose of unions is to protect workers' rights. This dates back to the days when factory workers were being forced to work 18 hours a day for pennies. Anti-competitive negotiations for higher pay and more benefits is not protecting rights, it is not defending against exploitation. It is effectively blackmail. The fact that unionized labour is more expensive than non-unionized labour only seems to serve as further evidence that these workers are being paid well above their actual market value.
So I ask again - do you have evidence that unions today accomplish anything practical other than creating monopolies in the labour market - the same monopolies that you and your ilk cry bloody murder over when they're seen in the goods and services market?
| quote: | | Interestingly enough, you’ve implicitly ruled out middle and lower class workers who do not and cannot receive any reasonable benefit unless they’re part of a union. |
Evidence?
| quote: | | Do you even know what an Ad hominem argument is? |
Yes. An ad hominem argument takes the form of "your argument must be wrong because you are [something unrelated to the actual argument]." Another form of ad hominem is "your argument must be wrong because you believe in [something unrelated to the actual argument]."
Do you have a point to make here, or do you just believe that being abusive somehow makes you sound more authoritative?
| quote: | | ...the NDP is doing exactly what is expected of them. |
That, I can agree with, but I don't think that Skipper or anyone else would be a hypocrite for pointing it out.
| quote: | | Please do a little more reading |
Ah yes, the good old "I'm too lazy to actually substantiate my arguments, so I'm just going to tell you to do your own research, implying that you'd know I'm right if you weren't so ignorant" argument. Good effort for a college boy, but you're not fooling anyone here.
| quote: | | ...what I can only imagine to be a Wiki glance at logical fallacies... |
Why do I get the feeling that the only reason you're making this comment is because you had to look up the term "ad hominem" yourself before you (sort of) understood what I was saying? |
|
|
| evil_cookie |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
However, that does not substantiate the claim that the unionized employees require the unions and would be treated unfairly without them. Either your straw-man arguments are intentional or you need to read your introductory logic textbook again (assuming you actually took that course). |
You’re certainly imaginative I’ll give you that. When did I say that the employees risked being treated unfairly? What I said was, very simply, unionization allows the employee to be insured in places where he or she would otherwise not be, if it weren’t for his/her union.
Once again, you really need to actually know what you’re talking about before you throw out random fallacies--what is this intro textbook you’re talking about? In any event, it looks like you need it. Better yet, feel free to drop by my office hours--the course I’m TA’ing is a little too complex for you, but hey, I can dumb it down for ya’--PHL345 Intermediate Logic. Do drop by.
If nothing else I can probably recommend some better books on logic than your wiki source.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Yes. An ad hominem argument takes the form of "your argument must be wrong because you are [something unrelated to the actual argument]." Another form of ad hominem is "your argument must be wrong because you believe in [something unrelated to the actual argument]."
Do you have a point to make here, or do you just believe that being abusive somehow makes you sound more authoritative?[/COLOR][/FONT]
|
On the contrary, again I insist you stop...you know what, okay, show me--explicitly list the argument and its premises and show me that it’s an Ad hominem.
Please go ahead, I am dying to see this.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Ah yes, the good old "I'm too lazy to actually substantiate my arguments, so I'm just going to tell you to do your own research, implying that you'd know I'm right if you weren't so ignorant" argument. Good effort for a college boy, but you're not fooling anyone here.[/COLOR][/FONT] |
You really need to stop allowing your imagination run wild like this. I have no doubt that you are a more learned individual than myself, thus I ask, again, please oh wise engineer, list the argument in its formal form, and show me that I was committing a fallacy. I know you can do it! |
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by evil_cookie
Better yet, feel free to drop by my office hours--the course I’m TA’ing is a little too complex for you, but hey, I can dumb it down for ya’--PHL345 Intermediate Logic. Do drop by.
|
oooooh, TA HAS A TA IN THE HOUSE! |
|
|
| exstasie |
I wonder what the astmosphere will be like in school once between students and the Teaching Staff once classes do resume...
I can imagine that there will be quite a few conflicts.
Especially with the type of people that go to York...
|
|
|
|
|
