Looking for information about housing in Winnipeg? Look no further – here you’ll find all kinds of facts and statistics about housing in Winnipeg and Manitoba.
References are available at the bottom of the page, in case you are looking for more details.
Core Housing Need
Definition of Core Housing Need
“Acceptable housing is defined as adequate and suitable shelter that can be obtained without spending 30 per cent or more of before-tax household income. Adequate shelter is housing that is not in need of major repair. Suitable shelter is housing that is not crowded, meaning that it has sufficient bedrooms for the size and make-up of the occupying household. The subset of households classified as living in unacceptable housing and unable to access acceptable housing is considered to be in core housing need.”(1)
Core Housing Need
In 2006: (2)
- 11.3 % of all MB households lived in core housing need (46,900 people)
- 24.0 % of MB renter households lived in core housing need (28,800 people)
- 6.2 % of MB owner households lived in core housing need (18,100 people)
- 22.3 % of those who immigrated to Canada between 2001 and 2006 lived in core housing need in Manitoba (1,600 people)
In 2006: (3)
- 37.3 % of Winnipeg tenant-occupied households spent over 30% of their income on housing.
- 11.6 % of Winnipeg owner-occupied households spend over 30% of their income on housing.
Renting in Manitoba
Current Vacancy Rates
In April, 2011, the vacancy rate was (4)
- 0.7 % in Manitoba, the lowest vacancy rate in the provinces
- 0.7 % in Winnipeg
- 0.5 % in Thompson
Winnipeg’s Rental Universe
(This data only applies to apartment buildings with three or more units)
The rental universe in Winnipeg (5)
- has declined in 15 of the past 18 years.
- Lost 835 rental units, of which at least 450 units were permanently removed from the rental universe, between October 2009 and October 2010 (leaving 52,319 units).
Since 1992, Winnipeg’s rental universe has declined from 57,279 units to 52,319 in 2010, a decline of about 9 percent (6). At the same time, the population of Winnipeg has increased from 677,000 to 753,600, an increase of about 11 percent (7).
- The result is a drop in the number of rental units per 100 people from 8.5 units to 6.9.
In April 2011, the average rent was (8)
- $718 in Manitoba (compared with 696 $ in April 2010)
- $725 in Winnipeg (compared with 703 $ in April 2010)
- $692 in Thompson (compared with 652 $ in April 2010)
In 2011, the Median Market Rent in Manitoba was: (9)
Affordability of Average Rents in Winnipeg (10)
EIA and Rent in Winnipeg (11 and 12)
Manitoba Housing “owns the Province’s housing portfolio and provides subsidies to approximately 34,900 households under various housing programs. Within the portfolio, Manitoba Housing owns 17,600 units of which 13,100 units are directly managed by Manitoba Housing and another 4,500 units are operated by non- profit/cooperative sponsor groups or property management agencies. Manitoba Housing also provides subsidy and support to approximately 17,300 households (including 4,700 personal care home beds) operated by cooperatives, Urban Native and private non-profit groups.” (13)
In 2010, 15,803 international migrants came to Manitoba, and 12,340 immigrants moved to Winnipeg. (14)
The population of Manitoba increased by 15,800 people from 2009-2010 (from 1,219,600 to 1,235,400). (15)
The population of Winnipeg increased by 9,700 people from 2009-2010 (from 674,400 to 684,100). (16)
National Social Housing Construction
In 1993, the federal government withdrew from housing. Until then, about 10 percent of the housing built each year in Canada was affordable to lower income households; since then it has been less than one percent. (17)
(1) CMHC 2011, Canadian Housing Observer.
(2) CMHC 2006, Canadian Housing Observer. Also offers data on types of family, Aboriginal status, and period of immigration.
(3) City of Winnipeg 2006. 2006 Census Data – City of Winnipeg.
(4) CMHC 2011. Rental Market Report: Manitoba Highlights.
(5) CMHC 2011. Rental Market Report: Manitoba Highlights.
(6) CMHC 2011. Personal communication from D. Himbeault.
(7) City of Winnipeg. 2011. Population of Winnipeg.
(8) CMHC 2011. Rental Market Report: Manitoba Highlights.
(9) Government of Manitoba, date unknown. Housing Income Limits and Median Market Rent
(10) CMHC 2010. Winnipeg CMA Rental Market Report
City of Winnipeg 2006. 2006 Census Data.
(11) CMHC 2010. Winnipeg CMA Rental Market Report
(12) Government of Manitoba. Employment and Income Assistance Facts.
(13) Manitoba Housing and Community Development. 2010. Annual Report 2009-2010.
(14) Government of Manitoba. 2011. News and Resources.
(15) City of Winnipeg. 2011, May 1. Population of Winnipeg.
(16) City of Winnipeg. 2011, May 1. Population of Winnipeg.
(17) CMHC. 2011. CHS – Public Funds and National Housing Act (Social Housing).
CMHC. 2011. CHS – Residential Building Activity.
This year’s State of the Inner City report examines the impact of neoliberalism on Employment and Income Assistance, housing, and second-chance education program policies in the inner city. The report will be released on December 14 at Thunderbird House; look here for more information.
As has been the case every year for the past seven years, our community partners set a clear direction for us to follow as we moved forward with this year’s State of the Inner City Report. In past years our partners were most interested in telling the positive stories while also pointing out where policies might be improved. But things took a bit of a different turn this year.
Although initially the focus for this year’s report was on education, at a second meeting the discussion moved us in a different direction. One participant raised concerns about the unreasonable expectations placed on community organizations. She described the devastation she sees around her that has resulted from growing poverty and inequality. She described what she believed to be a failure on the part of all levels of government to do what is necessary to resolve this problem.
The discussion became lively as other participants jumped in, affirming her frustration.
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives-MB invites you to join us for the release of the:
2011 State of the Inner City Report
Neo-Liberalism: What a Difference a Theory Makes
Wednesday, December 14th
Circle of Life Thunderbird House
715 Main Street
Presentation 12 noon
RSVP By December 9:
by Errol Black
The evening of Friday November 25, 2011, the BUFA Bargaining Team at Brandon University issued a terse statement to members declaring that their 45 day strike at Brandon University was over:
A tentative agreement has been reached between BUFA and the Employer after 10.5 hours of intensive negotiations today. Details of the agreement remain confidential pending a ratification vote….With the tentative agreement, the strike ends tonight at 11.59 p.m. There will be no picketing tomorrow. Classes will resume at 6:00 p.m. on Monday.
The statement concluded with an acknowledgement of the tremendous courage, commitment and solidarity of BUFA members “You won this, guys! Thank you from the bottom of our hearts.”
BUFA went on strike October 12, when it became clear that the Employer, Brandon University Administration, and an anti-union labour lawyer hired by the administration were not prepared to engage in serious negotiations to get a new collective agreement. BUFA had no choice. A strike vote was taken. Seventy per cent voted for strike action. The University Administration and their lawyer interpreted this as a sign of weakness and invited faculty members to cross the picket line and return to work. Less than a handful took the President up on her offer to come back (and these were people who had already turned their backs on their colleagues).
In subsequent weeks, the collective bargaining process moved through conciliation and mediation without resolve. All the while, the union asserted that the University refused to bargain. The University Administration and their lawyer said they couldn’t bargain on wages because of a government mandated restriction on what they pay and called for binding arbitration.
All the while BUFA Union was not only dealing with an Employer dedicated to undermining the union and one of the most expensive anti-union lawyers in the country, who apparently believed that he could break the strike and ultimately the union, but also an increasingly hostile public and sustained hostility from The Brandon Sun.
However, BUFA was not completely isolated. They were supported by other campus unions, the Brandon and District Labour Council, the Brandon University Students Union, many alumni, and, faculty union brothers and sisters in CAUT affiliated universities across the country who showed up every week to demonstrate their recognition of the issues involved in this strike.
The Manitoba government intervened on November 21, to order a vote on the employers last offer, with an apparent intention to force compulsory arbitration if the vote failed. Votes were scheduled for next week.
However, faced with these conditions, the University Administration and BUFA resumed bargaining on November 25. The outcome of this day of bargaining confirmed what the BUFA executive and bargaining team had been saying all along, namely, that they could obtain a new collective agreement if the University would engage in serious negotiations.
The outcome also confirmed what most of the people on the BUFA picket line understood from the outset: collective action based on principles, commitment and solidarity will prevail.
There are lessons for all of us coming out of this strike. We will try and clarify what these lessons are in future PolicyFix posts and in CCPA – Manitoba publications.
Errol Black is a CCPA Manitoba board member
By Errol Black
Deveryn Ross’ column on the Brandon University strike in the November 24 Winnipeg Free Press (“Administration, province will wear this one“), represents a significant advance on his first column on this issue October 13, 2011(“BU strike needs adult supervision“).
That first article was published the day after the strike started on October 12. In this article, Ross cites some of the factors contributing to the strike and the likelihood that it could last for a very long time. Unfortunately, Ross wasn’t able to cobble the pieces together in a way that produced a coherent analysis. On the contrary, he ended up trivializing the issues and blaming equally the University Administration and BUFA for the strike: “While they battle over picayune issues such as whether faculty members will get free gym memberships, they are apparently oblivious to the harm they are doing to a university that already has more than enough problems.”
He concluded that “[I]n the interests of both the university and the students, the situation requires an adult to step in and take charge.” Specifically, he proposed that Labour Minister Jennifer Howard emulate Federal Labour Minister Lisa Raitt and “impose a solution,” a recommendation that seemed to reflect disdain for the democratic rights of workers and their right to protect those rights through fair, collective bargaining.
Over the past six or so weeks, however, Ross has been doing research on the strike and he’s changed his tune. He is now digging closer to where the bone is buried. He now understands that the BU administration went into collective bargaining with a well-defined strategy which was contracted out to Grant Mitchell for execution. The plan was a simple one. Stall, delay, refuse to bargain, confuse the issues, and force BUFA into taking a strike vote.
As so often happens in these situations, the grand plan hatched by the University very quickly unraveled. The strike vote was taken. Support for strike action was around 70%. The University apparently interpreted this result to mean that BUFA would retreat and seek to negotiate a settlement. But BUFA didn’t retreat and a strike was called. Then the University thought they could exploit the divisions in the Union by simply inviting faculty members back to work, thinking presumably that the people who voted against strike action would be eager to cross the picket line. However, solidarity prevailed and the strike continued.
The University has stuck to its original strategy since the strike started. Stall, delay, refuse to bargain and confuse the issues. The University stuck to this strategy through conciliation and mediation, pushing the line that the Manitoba government had put limits on how much they could raise wages and pleading for the government to impose binding arbitration. As well, they fed a lot of nonsense to the media (especially the print media) that was intended to, as Ross clarifies, discredit BUFA members and put the blame for the strike on them.
It is unfortunate that Ross’ October 13 column was not nearly as clear-sighted as today’s; a lot of the misguided attitudes we heard during the early days of the strike were likely inspired by his earlier piece. Nonetheless, Ross clears up a lot of misconceptions today: he concludes that the blame for the strike and the failure to get a negotiated agreement rests squarely on the University. It is important to have this on the record. It is also important to have on the record the fact that the only people who were concerned about the situation of the students (apart from the students themselves) were the members of BUFA.
Ross also blames the government for what has transpired. “The Selinger government doesn’t escape culpability in this debacle. It dictated BU’s initial salary stance and refused to take reasonable steps to pre-empt the strike.” This claim about the government dictating BU’s initial salary stance is what the University and their lawyer told everyone. It is my understanding that this claim was bogus. We should endeavour to find out where the truth is.
The other question that we need to address is: how did it come to pass that all three universities employed the same lawyer, Grant Mitchell, to negotiate with their faculty unions to achieve a uniform outcome on wages?
Hopefully Mr. Ross hasn’t quit digging around.
Errol Black is a CCPA Board Member.
by Errol Black
On Saturday, November 19, 2011, a Brandon Sun headline read:
Well apparently they were wrong.
Labour and Immigration Minister Jennifer Howard’s decision to force striking faculty members to vote on the university’s “last offer” came as a surprise to everyone this morning. Only a few days ago her colleague Erin Selby, the Minister of Advanced Education, was quoted by the Brandon Sun as saying “this is a difficult time for students and their families…We understand their frustration. They want to be back in the classroom. We want to see students back in the classroom as well. The best way for this to come to a resolution would be for both sides to continue negotiation. That’s the best resolution that we can see…”
Drew Caldwell, MLA Brandon East, took the same position, stating his support for his government’s stance in favour of collective bargaining… “The principle of free collective bargaining is very important in a civil society and we as a government have been providing conciliation, mediation and urging the parties to come to an agreement…”
On Tuesday November 22, 2011, Brandon woke up to a very different headline:
In a letter to Brandon University President Deborah Poff and BUFA president Joe Dolecki, Minister Howard wrote “I have reviewed the circumstances of the dispute and the negative effect of the work stoppage on the students of Brandon University and the city of Brandon… I am of the opinion that a vote of the employees in (BUFA) to accept or reject the last offer of the employer, respecting all matters remaining in dispute between the parties, is in the public interest.”
So what happened between November 19 to November 21 to cause the government to so drastically change their position?
With the benefit of hindsight it appears that the decision was not as drastic as it would appear. The government seems to have been working on a strategy to force an end to the strike for the past few weeks.
In previous blogs we reported that Brandon University’s Board and Administration and their lawyer, Grant Mitchell, have been seeking to undermine BUFA by stalling the collective bargaining process and forcing the outstanding issues to binding arbitration.
On October 12, the University asked for the appointment of a conciliator. A conciliator was appointed, but because of the University’s reluctance to negotiate, the effort was abandoned on October 21 (an outcome confirmed by the Minister of Labour in response to a question raised during Question Period on November 1).
BUFA then requested the appointment of a mediator. The Minister appointed Michael Werier, who on November 9th reported to the Minister that attempts at mediation had failed. In his report, Werier indicated that he had accepted the University’s argument and recommended that outstanding issues go to binding arbitration. The Minister recommended to the parties that they accept Werier’s recommendation. The University accepted, not surprising since this was the outcome they wanted from the onset. BUFA declined, stating that they would seek to secure an agreement through collective bargaining.
Members of Cabinet also liked the idea of having the matter go to arbitration. On November 9, Premier Selinger told a Winnipeg radio talk show host that the government would like the association [BUFA] to consider binding arbitration to help resolve the situation. And in the November,19 story in which Erin Selby said the province would stay out of the dispute, she let slip that she thought “[t]he best thing would be for both parties to agree to go to arbitration.”
The employer’s final offer will now go to a Manitoba Labour Board supervised vote of the BUFA membership – which could be as early as Thursday.
If it turns out that the BUFA membership rejects the employer’s offer, the Minister has signaled that she will clear the way for quick approval of a request for binding arbitration that will be made by Grant Mitchell on December 12.
This is a sad and unnecessary ending to a sad situation. It could have been avoided if the government had respected the institution of free collective bargaining and forced the employer to accept the fact that there would be no intervention to force a settlement through binding arbitration. Progress was being made. The difference on wages was reduced to $220,000 over a four-year agreement. Although the University backed down on an earlier agreement to follow the back to work protocol used in the 2008 strike, progress was being made on this outstanding issue as well.
As stated by BUFA president Joe Dolecki ““It is a sad day for free collective bargaining in this province”.
Errol Black is a CCPA Board member.
by Christina Maes
After years of complaining that Canada is the only G-8 country without a National Housing Strategy, housing advocates are finally getting their way. The federal government is passing Bill C-10, the Omnibus Crime Bill, that will effectively house people, and especially people with a mental illness who engage in crimes of survival.
But on November 22, National Housing Day, housing advocates will still be complaining! They are holding a march, in connection with many more advocacy and front-line service agencies across Canada. These groups would have preferred Bill C-304, an Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, but it died at the committee stage before the last election.
Bill C-10 will accomplish similar objectives as Bill C-304 would have, had it passed, albeit in very different ways. By creating mandatory minimum sentences and requiring longer sentences, Bill C-10 will house more people in jail for longer periods of time.
In a recent study of people experiencing homelessness in Winnipeg, it was shown that 24.4% of the people who were homeless had been in jail in the past year. Many people spoke about living a cycle caught between jail and street. People who were just released from jail ended up homeless because they could not find jobs, and lacked skills and resources to afford housing. Living in destitution with few options, some of these people were easily recruited by gangs to make a little money so they could afford food and shelter. Some people even said they engaged in petty crime just so they could have a warm, safe place to spend the night – a jail cell.
One man who was interviewed for the Winnipeg Street Health Report (released last June) had been kicked off welfare because he was getting his high school equivalency instead of working. He felt forced to deal drugs to make money and stayed at emergency shelters regularly. With this one ill planned and expensive government intervention, this young man will not have to worry about where his next meal will come from and where he will stay each night. Instead of a welfare rate of $555 per month to support the man in obtaining an education and becoming self-sufficient, the province can pay $4,854 per month, the cost of housing someone in provincial prison.
Housing in Canada has become a serious social, political and personal issue. About 3.3 million Canadians are living in substandard housing. It is estimated that at least 2,000 Winnipeggers are experiencing homelessness at any given time. In 2010, 510 children spent at least one night at Salvation Army’s family shelter or at Ndinawemaaganag Endaawaad Inc. youth safe house.
Emergency shelters and jails have very similar populations. Both have become homes for large numbers of people living in poverty. The authors of the Winnipeg Street Health Report found that about 45% of the people needing emergency shelters in Winnipeg were diagnosed with some form of mental illness. The population in correctional facilities in Canada have rates of mental illness three times higher than the general population. Providing overcrowded jail cells, rather than supportive housing, is not a good solution for people facing poverty and mental illness.
Housing is a basic human right. It is critical in determining how all aspects of our lives are fulfilled. The lack of affordable housing in Canada is costly for all Canadians – both socially and economically. When a society fails to meet the social needs of all of its citizens, there is more pressure put on our healthcare and criminal justice systems. It is simple math: provincial prison costs four times more than supportive housing. When people are denied access to decent jobs and incomes, they are excluded from the economic life of our community.
There was a time, not so long ago, that Canada was admired internationally for its strong affordable housing policies. We need to reclaim our status and create a National Housing Strategy that will begin the process of coordinating efforts, maintaining political will and building the national economy. There is so much that a housing strategy could do for Canadians, and all for a much smaller price tag than Bill C-10.
But until then, expect to hear more from housing advocates here in Winnipeg, and across Canada.
For a PDF of this Fast Facts, click here.
For more information about the march on November 22, please visit the Right to Housing’s Facebook page.
By Errol Black
On November 16, The Brandon Sun responded to my comments of November 14 in which I argued that that their coverage and commentary relating to the strike at Brandon University was delaying a resolution of the conflict (“You can’t avoid the BU reality”).
The Sun’s concluding paragraph to the editorial implies that the editors didn’t understand my arguments. This paragraph reads as follows:
Up until now, the BUFA executive has ignored the advice of its own hand-picked mediator and refused to agree to binding arbitration. The executive seems to believe it can reach a deal with the university through the collective bargaining process, which has not been successful. As of today, there is only one holdout in this strike, and as we have no voice at the negotiating table, it’s rather obvious that we are not the ones prolonging the strike.
Instead of trying to understand the underlying causes for the failure to “reach a deal with the university through the collective bargaining process,” the editorial argues in effect that what’s gone before is irrelevant: “BUFA has rejected binding arbitration. Therefore, BUFA is responsible for a continuation of the strike. That’s all there is too it.”
I would suggest that if the Sun editorial writers and columnists had looked carefully at the factors leading to strike action and subsequent developments, they would have reached a different conclusion.
In brief, the chronology of key events in this sad state of affairs is as follows:
- May 17, start of collective bargaining.
- October 12, start of strike.
- October 12, in response to request by Brandon University, government names conciliator to help the parties negotiate a collective agreement.
- October 21, given the University’s refusal to get serious about reaching a collective agreement, the conciliator decides there’s no future in prolonging the process. BUFA agrees and requests the Minister of Labour appoint Michael Werier as a mediator.
- October 21, Michael Werier appointed mediator.
- November 7, Michael Werier submitted report to Minister proposing “binding arbitration to resolve the dispute on wage increases, and either arbitrate or negotiate the remaining issues.”
Given that Mr. Werier revealed in his report that he was predisposed to accept the position of the University on wages, BUFA rejected binding arbitration. The University, which had indicated previously a desire to arbitrate rather than negotiate, enthusiastically approved Werier’s recommendation.
Other people, including the editors of the Sun, should have been able to puzzle out that the problem was that the University refused to bargain in good faith and it should have insisted that the University get back to the table and negotiate a collective agreement.
Instead, without much thought, they simply jumped on the arbitration band wagon and called on BUFA to give up on its efforts to bargain a solution. I would submit that the latter response, namely, the endorsement of the university’s wish for arbitration, has prolonged the strike.
Errol Black is a retired member of BUFA and a CCPA Mb. board member.
Editor’s Note: For more information, please also see What You Need To Know About The Brandon University Strike
By Errol Black
The Brandon University strike of 240 faculty members is now into its 34th day.
The actions and role of the media in small-town labour disputes play an important role in shaping community perspectives on the nature, dynamics and implications of the conflict for both the direct participants and the community at large. The media’s role is, therefore, profoundly important in all labour disputes; it is especially important in situations where deliberate bias in the coverage provided by the media results in a serious misrepresentation of a dispute that potentially involves segments of the community. The Brandon University strike is one such dispute.
The Brandon Sun
Of all the media in Brandon, the Sun is the one media enterprise with the most capacity to provide the news and analytical coverage from the balanced perspective that people need to understand the Brandon University strike. Before the Sun was taken over by The Winnipeg Free Press in 2001 it was a fairly robust enterprise and newspaper that provided information and insight on world, national and local issues. Now, it simply characterizes itself as the voice of conservatism in the region – a paper, in other words, with a narrow right-wing slant. This perspective is evident in the Sun’s coverage of the Brandon University Strike.
Brandon Sun Bias
From the outset, the Sun has aligned itself with Brandon University President, Administration and hired guns, notably, employer lawyer Grant Mitchell, and against the members of the Brandon University Faculty Association (BUFA). This is reflected in all aspects of the paper’s analysis and coverage including: the stories that are emphasized and the ones that are ignored or downplayed, the letters that get printed as opposed to the ones that don’t; the editorial perspectives, to name a few.
This bias reached its peak this past week, culminating in back-to-back editorials published on November 9 and 10, 2011.
The first of the editorials, titled “BU students deserve more from Caldwell,” What do they deserve from Caldwell? According to the editors, “,,,it’s rather dispiriting to say the least, when the only elected NDP representative around these parts seems unwilling to step into the fray on behalf of increasingly frustrated university students.” And why exactly, do the editors think Caldwell should step in, and what exactly do they think he should do? The editors say he should intervene, because, while “it is one thing to believe that the provincial government should not interfere with the collective bargaining process [and Caldwell has the right to his opinion], when it become obvious that both sides are incapable of reaching a fair and equitable settlement on their own…a higher power needs to step in – the provincial government.. And you, Mr. Caldwell …need to take a stand that benefits this city, before affected constituents decide to give up the ghost.”
This attack on Caldwell clearly demonstrates the editor’s ignorance of both the broader role the labour movement plays in democratic society and the importance of the collective bargaining process in providing a voice for workers.
In the November 10 editorial (“BUFA, province share the blame”) the editors claim that as of November 9, “the executive of BUFA is now the only entity standing in the way of some 3,100 students being allowed to return to class.” The editors don’t explain how BUFA is responsible for this situation. Are we left to infer that it’s because BUFA rejects binding arbitration and insists that the two parties negotiate a collective agreement? If that’s what the editors believe, then isn’t more plausible to suggest that it is the University and their high-paid legal brains that are responsible for the continuation of the strike? Surely, we might expect that when people are being paid $400 to $600 an hour, they can think of something more creative to say than “we want it to go to binding arbitration.”
In the concluding sections of the editorial the editors state: “At the outset, of this strike, the Sun’s management and editorial board made a decision to stay neutral in the Our View [ by which they mean editorial] column..”
They then say, “. . . but we never expected the strike to extend for so long and for all the wrong reasons.” There is a simple explanation for their failure to get things right; namely, that they never tried to understand the causes of the strike and the reasons for the impasse in collective bargaining. Nor did they bother to try and figure out what the issues were and why Brandon University steadfastly refused to try and negotiate an agreement with BUFA.
The editors wind up their editorial asserting that “we now see clearly who the villains are in this performance – the faculty’s union and the provincial government [and] calling on the government to legislate the strikers back to work.”
I would suggest that there are indeed villains in this situation but not the ones cited by the Sun. On the contrary, the villains are Brandon University and the Brandon Sun, which has failed through its own ineptitude and ideological blinders to provide citizens with the background they need to understand the causes and consequences of the strike.
Errol Black is a CCPA MB. board member and a retired member of the BUFA.
by Errol Black, Julie Guard, and Chris Rigaux
Professors, instructors, librarians and administrative staff on strike at Brandon University have been accused in the press of being selfish and irresponsible. Although it’s not uncommon in a strike for one side to represent the other’s position as unreasonable, in this case, the faculty have been vilified on the basis of some pretty serious distortions. Examination of the facts reveals a very different picture.
BU staff have been accused of making unreasonable demands – as much as a 37 per cent pay hike over three years. In reality, Brandon University Faculty Association (BUFA) never proposed wage increases anywhere near that figure. Both sides have proposed wage increases of under 5 percent over three years. In fact, they’re within 0.2 percentage points of each other. The real obstacle to an agreement on wages is that the University insists that the profs wait two years for their pay to increase, offering only .5 percent in year one and 1 percent in year two, both of which are less than the increase in the cost of living, which is currently 3.2 percent. And although the faculty have made significant concessions over the six months of bargaining, the University has held firmly to its initial position.
The University’s chief negotiator – a $400-plus-an-hour external labour-relations lawyer who also happens to be an advisor to the Canadian Labour Watch Association, a Vancouver-based anti-union organization – insists that Brandon University can’t afford to pay its teachers what similar instructors earn elsewhere in Canada, and that it’s already facing budget cuts. Brandon University President Deborah Poff claims that their hands are tied by a wage ceiling imposed by the Manitoba government. Neither assertion is consistent with the evidence, which shows that the University has the resources to provide a negotiated settlement. Premier Greg Selinger recently denied that the Province imposed wage restrictions, pointing out, “we’ve just given the universities 5, 5 and 5% [annual] increases in operating grants, so why would we direct them to hold salary increases?”
The modest pay increase proposed by the union doesn’t mean BU profs are well-paid. On the contrary, BU faculty, who teach more courses than those in many other universities, earn $16,345 less than the Canadian average for university teachers.
While University negotiators refuse to increase profs’ wages to keep pace with the cost of living, they have found a way to pay the BU President about $266,000 (before benefits) and, it is rumoured, to increase her pay by 14 percent. But unlike the profs’, university presidents’ salaries and benefit packages aren’t usually reported in the media.
From the start, the University has wanted an arbitrated settlement, and maintains that arbitration is the only way to resolve the impasse. They have adopted an all-or-nothing position and, in the sixth month of negotiations, introduced fifty pages of new, even harsher, proposals. By comparison, the faculty want to negotiate a fair agreement and see no reason this can’t be achieved. They have tried hard to reach such an agreement, making significant concessions and engaging in conciliation and mediation, to no avail. As for arbitration, it will result – at best – in a settlement that puts off the difficult issues for another day – hardly a sustainable way to maintain staff morale and a positive teaching environment.
Rather than assuring students that the University will work with the faculty to develop a plan to make up class work delayed during the strike, Poff has urged them to cross picket lines and hinted that they will lose their term if the faculty don’t agree to settle the strike soon through binding arbitration. But the faculty are not crossing picket lines and virtually no classes are being taught. BU students who pay high tuition fees are concerned about their academic term being lost, but contrary to Poff ’s suggestions about what might happen at BU, no Canadian university has ever lost a term due to a strike, including some much longer than the current one at BU. BU faculty are already working on plans to compress the term to enable students to make up the lost time.
Moreover, the Brandon University Students’ Union, the organization representing students, has taken a democratic decision to support the faculty from day one and continues to do so. BUSU’s membership, for the most part, understands that taking a position of ‘neutrality’ allows the University administration to play the students off the faculty to no one’s benefit. Students will not gain from a working environment poisoned by frustrated faculty and major unresolved issues. BUFU also has the support of professors across the country as demonstrated by two very successful “flying pickets” that included professors from across the country who came to Brandon to walk the picket line.
Poff has also consistently refused to meet with parents and students, although the faculty have done so. In a packed public meeting at Park Community Centre in early November, they gave straight answers to tough questions, such as why they went on strike. One prof told parents and teachers, “I am in this business because I love what I do every day” and another said, “it breaks my heart that we had to go on strike.” But profs also explained that they work more than professors at other universities yet get paid less. The 120 students and their parents who rallied on 7 November to demand an end to strike are correct: they deserve a well-run University that values its faculty and will let them get back to work. The instructors have tried hard to achieve those goals; the University’s refusal to bargain a fair and reasonable agreement is now the only obstacle.
Errol Black is Chair of CCPA-MB, Julie Guard is Coordinator of the Labour Studies Program U of M and a CCPA-MB board member and Chris Rigaux is research and policy analyst for the U of M Student Union.
For a PDF of this article, click here.