U of S Labour Studies Program

In his letter posted elsewhere on this blog Dr. Kurt Wetzel makes a couple of very important points respecting the U of S Labour Studies Program - and he makes them very well:

"...it is standard practice for labour education programs to recognize the sensitivities and focus upon the needs of organized workers. Labour education programs treat labour as a legitimate denizen of pluralistic democratic societies with unique characteristics."

"In fact, the raison d’etre of such programs is to include a group in society which otherwise would not be served by a university."

I say, there is a way of accommodating those who want a similar type of class, but are not currently in a union. That is to create one for them. We have absolutely no objection to that, in fact we support the U of S doing so.

Wetzel points out: "The Institute for Labour and Industrial Relations at the University of Illinois, where I studied, had and presumably has separate labour and management extension programs-- similar material, two audiences."

The concept of a university based Labour Studies Program acknowledges that there is a significant power imbalance between bosses and workers. When a boss is in the room there is a chill on discussion from those participants who are not bosses. It is as simple as that.

For 20+ years, the U of S Labour Studies Program has existed, and it has graduated a few hundred students in that 20 year period. Hardly an onerous offering by a university with the capacity of graduating thousands of students per year across a multitude of faculties.

Students in Labour Studies take one evening class once a week for 16 weeks each semester, until they acquire enough credits to get a certificate. The students are all working people who for the most part hold down full-time jobs. Many have families, and are trying to balance the challenges of working full-time jobs and raising children. These workers do not have the ability to attend "traditional" university for a number of very valid reasons.

And just to reiterate a point raised - the only time anyone who was not a union member ever tried to get into the Labour Studies Program was when two management people from the U of S Administration sought to enroll. Coincidence? I think not.

The fact of the matter is other students are NOT clamouring to get into this "evening" class. For those interested, the College of Commerce has many other classes in Industrial Relations, Human Resource Management, etc., etc.

As Wetzel also points out, "These university-based programs and many like them have operated successfully without being attacked for contravening a conveniently contrived university accessibility “principle”".

Let's have the U of S offer an identical program and set of classes, for all of those people who want to take the class but are not union members. I think that would present a great opportunity to educate others about trade unionism. I'd be delighted to attend as a guest lecturer from time to time.

"Taxi To The Dark Side" - Trailer

Olbermann: *The House of Secrets*

Letter from tenured U of S Professor on the Labour Studies Program

On March 5, 2007 I received the letter below from a long service member of the U of S Faculty employed in the College of Commerce. It was jointly addressed to me, and to the Dean of the College of Commerce. I have removed the author's name for obvious reasons.

Grant and Larry,

I understand that discussions about the status of the Labour Studies Program are proceeding. As someone with an interest in the Program, I would like to offer my observations.

Two matters merit attention. First, it is standard practice for labour education programs to recognize the sensitivities and focus upon the needs of organized workers. Labour education programs treat labour as a legitimate denizen of pluralistic democratic societies with unique characteristics. Labour education is distinct from adult education. The industrial relations climate in Saskatchewan necessitates barring managers from labour education programs in order to avoid chilling the classroom environment. The Institute for Labour and Industrial Relations at the University of Illinois, where I studied, had and presumably has separate labour and management extension programs-- similar material, two audiences. This reflects that reality of what is necessary to make labour education programs work. Harvard’s labour education program is also exclusively for trade unionists. These university-based programs and many like them have operated successfully without being attacked for contravening a conveniently contrived university accessibility “principle”. In fact, the raison d’etre of such programs is to include a group in society which otherwise would not be served by a university. This is no different than the University of Saskatchewan’s commendable outreach programs on behalf of aboriginal people. Issues of non-aboriginal exclusion are not raised in that case.

President Hubich argues for continuation of a successful program which serves labour and 20+ year partnership with the University. Without a doubt, admitting managers into labour studies classes would scuttle the program. Labour, the program’s faculty and central administration all know this.

Second, why has this program come under attack rather than being a source of pride for the University? The SFL’s position seems to be that the problem is with the University’s central administration rather than the College of Commerce. In fact, the central administration, in transforming the University from the “people’s university” to a corporate university, has as a matter of an anti-union corporate policy targeted the Labour Studies Program. The claim of principle-based action is bogus. As noted, more distinguished universities than this one cultivate relationships with labour. The University’s stand reflects a deeply held anti-union animus and ideology, not high academic principle.

This policy is broadly reflected in the University’s poor relationships with USFA and CUPE; the curious fact that the only managers who have actually sought admission to the Labour Studies Program work in the central administration of the University of Saskatchewan; the irregularities having to do with filling an industrial relations faculty position in the Department of IROB which have seen the central administration twice withdraw the position and only approve a hiring with attached conditions which are questionable or at least irregular; the high turnover within the University’s own once highly respected and experienced professional industrial relations staff; and the University’s planning document on outreach and engagement which calls for departmentally-based outreach programs but pointedly ignores IROB’s/Commerce’s Labour Studies Program.

Nothing other than unvarnished anti-unionism explains why the central administration would attack a highly successful, low budget, low profile program which is designed to serve the educational needs of the labour community. This antipathy runs so strongly that the central administration seems willing to court political meddling in the affairs of the University and a public battle which will besmirch the reputation of the University in labour circles for a generation in order to undermine a labour-friendly program. President Hubich is correct in concluding that Dean Isaac is not empowered to reach a settlement labour could accept. The problem is not at the operating unit level but in the central administration.

I make these observations as one who helped to found and has taught in the program as well as one who has studied the province’s industrial relations for 30 years. It is with sadness that I share these thoughts. In the province which, under Tommy Douglas’ leadership, pioneered labour rights and at a publicly-funded university where President MacKinnon’s predecessors welcomed labour to campus, this is a sorry state of affairs. If this struggle continues to broaden, I feel it will be incumbent upon me go public with my views supporting organized labour’s modest request.

name withheld, PhD
Professor of Industrial Relations

University of Saskatchewan attempting to kill Labour Studies Program

For over 2o years the University of Saskatchewan College of Commerce has offered a certificate program entitled the U of S Labour Studies Program.

The program was as a result of an agreement between the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour and the University of Saskatchewan. The agreement was conceived and the program put in place by past presidents Nadine Hunt (SFL) and Dr. Leo Kristjanson (U of S). It has over 20 years of success, and has graduated hundreds of Saskatchewan citizens who make a valuable contribution to labour relations, workers rights, and society in this province.

It was an example of co-operation and genuine partnership between the People's University (U of S) and the Saskatchewan Labour Movement (SFL). The program recognized that workers and their organizations play an important role in, and are integral to, a properly functioning democracy. It recognized that a significant power imbalance exists between workers and employers and that there is a need for workers to be able to study at the university level in a safe environment - without fear of being blackballed by employers and managements.

Over the past couple of years, there has been a concerted campaign by anti-union forces at the U of S to destroy and eliminate the U of S Labour Studies Program. This has been orchestrated under the false argument that a class or program dedicated to the needs of trade union members is discriminatory and has no place in a publicly funded institution.

But the true reason that the anti-union forces have been working so hard to kill the U of S Labour Studies Program was revealed in on July 24, 2007 when the University announced that they would be changing the name of the U of S College of Commerce to The N. Murray Edwards School of Business.

You can hardly have a Trade Union Labour Studies Program attached to corporate dominated School of Business. It's rather ironic that the U of S has no problem with a whole Faculty dedicated to the needs of the business elite in a publicly funded institution - but they go to such great effort to kill a program that graduates 15 - 20 students every couple of years out of 15,000 to 20,000 or more.

The plan to destroy the U of S Labour Studies Program has been on the drawing board for a long time. The actions are vindictive, ideologically driven and an illustration of the corporatization of post-secondary education.

Check out this fancy announcement: New Name - New Cards. It's not the University of Saskatchewan anymore - it's The N. Murray Edwards School of Business. No room for Trade Union Labour Studies there.

Olbermann's Special Comment -- Chertoff's Gut

Olbermann: Go to Iraq and Fight, Mr. President

:60 To Save The Earth

PM Harper's fishing buddy behind Kyoto attack group?

Here's a link to an interesting blog entry that I came across while browsing some sites this morning and discovered DeSmogBlog.com.

Coincidentally the original post was put up on DeSmogBlog exactly one year ago today - (July 21, 2006). It's a bit dated, but nonetheless very interesting and revealing.

Presentation to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking Trade and Commerce

On June 6, 2007 I made a presentation to the Standing Senate Committe on Banking Trade and Commerce.

The purpose of the presentation was to provide evidence to the Senate Committee on issues related to the purported benefits of the B.C./Alberta Trade Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA).

I was appearing at the same time as National Union of Public and General Employees Secretary-Treasurer Larry Brown. Larry Brown attended in person, and I was linked in via video conference.

In all, the presentations and question and answers took just over an hour. You can read the verbatim transcript of the entire event by clicking here.

It will come as no surprise that our arguments and presentations were opposed to TILMA.

Call to action against the SPP!

Reproduced from the Council of Canadians Website:

Council of Canadians to mobilize in Ottawa, Montebello and across the country from August 19-20, 2007

From August 20-21, Prime Minister Stephen Harper will be meeting in Montebello, Quebec with U.S. President George Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderón. The Council of Canadians will be there to tell them what Canadians really think about the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

Ottawa-based activists are already planning a giant weekend demonstration and possibly a bike caravan from Ottawa to Montebello.

Visit stopspp.ca for more information about the Outaouais-Ottawa Stop the SPP Committee activities.

Stop the Big Media Takeover!

Check out the Website of Canadians for a Democratic Media at:

http://www.democraticmedia.ca/

Here's a little animated video on media concentration by The Tyee and Birocreative:

Michael Moore on Countdown with Keith Olbermann

RCMP, U.S. Army block public forum on the Security and Prosperity Partnership

This is outrageous! RCMP, U.S. Army block public forum on the Security and Prosperity Partnership

The Council of Canadians has been advised that they can not rent a community hall 6 kilometres from the site (Montebello, Quebec) of the upcoming meeting between George Bush, Stephen Harper, and Filipe Caldaron (Mexican President). The Council had rented the hall to hold a public forum and have been advised that they are being refused on instruction of the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec (SQ), and the U.S. Army.

Bush, Harper, and Calderon are apparently discussing something so secret that they need a 25 kilometre buffer from the peasants who would attend such a public forum in a community hall.

Why isn't the mainstream media all over this? Has our democracy been so usurped by the multi-national corporate agenda and their political puppets that such secrecy and elitism is normal and acceptable behaviour?

What are these men deciding on our behalf that requires this kind of expense of taxpayers money? Security perimeters - security from whom? What are they afraid of? Are they afraid of writers, academics, students, working people, average citizens?

Some democracy - when the people who get elected as Prime Ministers and Presidents are only accessible to the rich, the powerful, and the captains of industry.

Now we know why they call it the "Security and Prosperity Partnership". Security and Prosperity for them. The rest of the citizens can just step back, and shut up!

CNN Gets Blitzed by Michael Moore

After you view the video below check out the controversy regarding Michael Moore's new movie SiCKO at:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/

Three New TILMA Postings over on "Owls and Roosters"

Check out these three new TILMA (B.C./Alberta Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement) related postings over on Joe Kuchta's Blog: "Owls and Roosters".

1. The first one is all about the Sask Party's Flip-Flop on TILMA entitled:
TILMA: Pre-election flip-flop destroys Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall’s credibility

2. The second one exposes Gordon Campbell and Ed Stelmach's shameless attempt to peddle the TILMA scheme with the other Premiers and provinces entitled:
TILMA: Premiers Gordon Campbell and Ed Stelmach take their peddling act to Iqaluit, next stop Moncton

3. And finally, the third one analyses a new report on TILMA issued by the City of Calgary entitled:
TILMA: City of Calgary report identifies potential areas of negative impact; negotiations with province ongoing

Keith Olbermann calls on Bush and Cheney to Resign

Olbermann: Countdown - Get Out of Jail Free Card for Libby

Outrageous!