Strong Fusion of Social Unionism and Normative Contract Negotiations: A Square Peg in a Round Hole?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers a recent strike at York University in Toronto, Canada by three units of Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Local 3903, representing teaching assistants, contract or adjunct faculty and graduate assistants. The consideration of the strike has a two-fold purpose: The first is to situate it within the concept of social unionism, illustrating how this concept assists in understanding the strike beyond its strictly local and sector context. The second purpose is to consider how the strike reflects back on social unionism. In this regard, the paper considers challenges that can arise from the fusion of normative terms-and-conditions contract negotiations and the advancement of social justice issues. To lay the ground work for situating the negotiations within social unionism, the table issues advanced by the Union and the Union’s approach to the negotiation process, including practices developed to support the approach, are discussed. The picture that emerges is a practice of social unionism that can be characterized as a strong fusion of normative contract negotiations and the advancement of common good or social justice issues. The paper concludes by considering implications of the type of “strong fusion” social unionism practiced by CUPE Local 3903, including the implications of this practice as a bargaining model and broader implications for unions with a strong social union agenda and for university administrators on a campus with such a union.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".