Friday, November 14, 2008

Let me see if I'm following this.

See here.

So, before today, the University's line was that they hadn't received a response from the Union to their last proposal (a strike apparently not counting), and binding arbitration was the way to go.

The Union's line was that they were happy to talk to the University, as soon as they, y'know, actually started talking again.

Now, after speaking through a mediator for the first time in a week, the University's line is that the Union hasn't completely caved on crucial issues, and binding arbitration is the way to go.

The Union's line is that they are still happy to talk to the University, as soon as they, y'know, actually start negotiating instead of demanding.

Is that about the size of it? Have I missed something?

How long does the York University administration believe it can continue to deliver ultimata to the Union rather than bargaining in good faith? I'm really quite incredulous as to how incompetent the University negotiating team really is. They aren't moving their offers until the last possible moment, and they won't talk to the Union unless everything the University disagrees with is swept off the table. And yet they insist they have the best interest of the student body at heart. It's absurd: the strike could break tomorrow if the Union could take seriously the idea that the University was actually willing to give some ground.

Oh, and, they still haven't explained why binding arbitration was a bad idea 11 years ago and is a fantastic idea now. One wonders what's changed. (No, "it's 11 years later" doesn't count; if it was a bad idea 11 years ago, then something structural has to have changed to make it a good idea now.)

Honestly, this is farcical. The University's previous offer was clearly not acceptable, and they've known this for a good week. Change something! It's not that hard! Change anything and it's a basis for discussion, at least!

Christ. And these people are apparently worth six-figure salaries.