OPEN LETTER TO AMPL

Dear members of the AMPL, 

The LSA Executive Council has consistently supported your efforts to negotiate your first collective agreement with the University. As far as April 25, 2024, in our first statement about the strike, we wrote: “The [LSA] stands in solidarity with the AMPL and supports their striking efforts” (LSA Statement of April 25).

Depuis le début de la grève, nous avons tenu l’Université McGill responsable de ce conflit indûment prolongé. Nous avons également exhorté sans relâche l’Université à négocier de bonne foi et milité pour une résolution rapide du conflit (voir les communiqués de l’AÉD du 26 avril et du 11 mai, et celui de l’AÉD et de l’AÉUM du 13 septembre).

Our support remains with professors’ right to unionize and to collectively bargain. Our primary duty, however, is to our students. As per our mandate (see LSA Constitution, “Purpose”), we have pledged to our student community to “continue to prioritize student interests as the situation develops” (LSA Statement of April 25) and  “center student voices throughout this conflict” (LSA Statement of May 11).

Par la présente, nous tenons à vous partager nos préoccupations quant aux moyens que vous êtes prêt.e.s à prendre afin d’obtenir ce que vous revendiquez. Sans remettre  en question la légitimité de vos fins, nous croyons que le coût de la grève pour les étudiant.e.s devient excessif en contraste aux gains potentiels de sa prolongation. 

We have a few questions for you. Essentially, we would appreciate it if you could clarify to the student community why the strike is still ongoing, and why they should continue to bear its burden?

Students are being used as bargaining chips by both parties. Is this justifiable?

En cette quatrième semaine de grève, nous arrivons à un moment critique où le soutien étudiant est mis à l’épreuve. Nous nous sentons plus que jamais utilisés comme monnaie d’échange dans ce bras de fer où nous, étudiant.e.s, n’avons rien à gagner.

That said, we are your students and you serve as role models for many of us. We are eager to return to the classroom alongside you. While the swift lifting of the strike may not align with your interests, as you could lose bargaining powers, it undoubtedly aligns with ours. As such, students have every right to critique your approach, even as we continue to support your cause. As demonstrated by this strike, you hold significant influence over our academic and professional lives. It is also important to note that criticism of AMPL is often expressed anonymously, as students fear potential retaliation from you or fellow students once we return to class. We ask you, as we have asked the administration and students, to respect diverse opinions and foster an environment where open dialogue is encouraged. Ultimately, we are all part of the same community.

Could you clarify why the arbitration process is moving slowly, and whether this benefits or harms students?

Now that McGill’s request for arbitration has been accepted, the arbitrator will soon step in and has requested individual meetings with both parties before moving to the mediation phase. You have described that the University is trying to use arbitration as a way to avoid the collective bargaining process and claimed that the arbitrator is trying to prevent the University from using arbitration as a trump card. 

Given that the arbitration process is likely to be slower than the University expects, an expedient end to the strike would require that the University return to the negotiation table. We encourage that both parties continue discussions outside of arbitration to reach a swift agreement to end the strike.

However, we would like to highlight an inconsistency in your narrative described above. The administration has informed us that your lawyers are unavailable for an individual meeting until October 9, while McGill met with the arbitrator as early as September 19. Is the delay in arbitration truly the work of the arbitrator, or have you attempted to slow down the process, as this appears to be to your advantage? What does this mean for students?

This discrepancy undermines our confidence in you, as the thought that you might be trying to delay the resolution of the conflict is concerning. We are disheartened by any signs that you may be employing tactics similar to McGill's (see LSA Statement of May 11). 

Si vous saviez que McGill ne considérerait pas l'offre faite autour du 26 août, pourquoi avez-vous attendu trois semaines avant de soumettre formellement une nouvelle offre ?

Vous souhaitez parvenir à un accord sur les enjeux non monétaires avant de passer à l’arbitrage, et vous exigez que McGill abandonne sa tentative de décertification par révision judiciaire. Ces demandes, faites vers la fin août, ont été rejetées par McGill. La grève a alors repris le 26 août, et une nouvelle offre, similaire à la première, n’a été soumise que le 12 septembre. 

What did you wish to achieve through the strike suspension on September 13?

La dernière offre a été accompagnée d’une levée de grève. Cela a été fait en nous prévenant moins de 24 heures à l’avance et sans accord de retour au travail (voir courriel de la Présidente de l’AÉD du 12 septembre). Comme la réponse de McGill n’était pas satisfaisante d’après vous, la grève a repris le 16 septembre.

Nous peinons à comprendre pourquoi l’offre a été accompagnée d’une suspension aussi courte. Certains professeur.e.s ont pu bénéficier de l’occasion pour demander des subventions pour leurs recherches et assister à une conférence. We understand that professors were also able to submit outstanding grades and advance the evaluation of graduate student theses. However, students continue to experience the strike’s negative impacts. On balance, it seems that AMPL was willing to suspend the strike when it was advantageous for its members, even as students continue to feel the brunt of the ongoing strike. 

Is striking to force McGill to drop its judicial review set in December 2024 necessary? 

In May, we echoed your call for McGill to return to the negotiating table in good faith. Since then, your demands appear to have evolved significantly. While you are now willing to submit to arbitration for monetary issues, your focus has shifted heavily toward governance concerns and your insistence on compelling McGill to abandon its judicial review. With respect, we are here reminded that the strike mandate you rely on— the bargaining of your first collective agreeement— is only tangentially related to the judicial review McGill has initiated. There is discomfort in knowing that, had a collective agreement been bargained, your right to strike as a means of pressuring the admnistration to drop their judicial review is tenuous. 

What is more, given that you maintain that McGill’s claim has a low probability of success, concerns can be raised about whether the strike is being unnecessarily prolonged and whether students are being used as leverage to avoid arbitration. Dans une décision dans laquelle votre contestation de la décision du ministre du Travail de déférer à l’arbitrage a échoué, le ministre a souligné qu’une partie, patronale ou syndicale, mécontente avec le positionnement de l’autre dans les négociations [ne peut pas] [...] court-circuiter [l’arbitrage]” (2024 QCCS 3029 at 55). 

It is noteworthy that the judicial review application was filed in December 2022, but has, since August of 2024, only now become central to your reasons for striking. You recently stated: “While McGill maintains its judicial review of AMPL’s certification, and AMPL has resumed its strike [on September 16], there is cause for optimism”. Is this the only remaining issue preventing the end of the strike, or will additional demands emerge?

You have criticized McGill’s call for arbitration and the judicial review as union-busting tactics (AMPL, “McGill’s union-busting tactics back in court”, August 14). Could these issues not be addressed directly in court, rather than extending the strike and continuing to use students as leverage? It has become increasingly challenging for us to cope with the ongoing disruption of our academic lives. 

Une dose d’optimisme, l’Université bouge enfin! 

Néanmoins, nous comprenons que chacune de vos actions et chacun de vos messages font partie de votre stratégie, et que beaucoup de considération est mise derrière chaque annonce. Bien que nous critiquions certains de vos moyens, nous reconnaissons que tout cela n’a pas été en vain. En effet, nous sommes heureux de constater que des discussions ont lieu entre le Provost Manfredi et le Professeur Fox-Decent:  la distance entre les parties semble se réduire. Nous espérons sincèrement que les négociations porteront fruits.

Make no mistake: the McGill administration and their tactics, alone, are to blame for the strike extending into the Fall semester. However, just as we have criticized the University for its inflexibility, we now ask you to demonstrate greater flexibility in your tactics. We want to remain clear: this is in no way an endorsement of the University’s approach. We are simply ensuring that the voices of concerned students are not lost throughout this conflict.

We are greatly worried to see both parties engaged in what appears to be a high-stakes game of "who will yield first," which only exacerbates divisions. We would greatly appreciate a shift towards more collaboration and are prepared to offer our support in other ways.

In solidarity, 

The LSA Executive Council