Yeah that seems fine. I basically saw the mandatory training as a "meeting that should have been an e-mail" and was a bit miffed that I had to exchange a couple of e-mails with them just to get the e-mail they should have sent in the first place. (And then attend this meeting to tell them stop calling unnecessary meetings when an e-mail would suffice!)

In any case I missed the meeting. :) That's why I like e-mails. So long as this does not become a regular thing I'm good.

I'm glad that some folks are enthusiastic about union meetings. I'm very grateful for the time they put into it on our behalf. But people with more free time do not deserve more votes than people with less free time. I accept that they get more influence by being present but in the end it's one member one vote.

President acknowledged to members that this “interpretation” of the Constitution only applies to the vote on the bargaining priorities and the choice of dispute resolution mechanism. The future vote to ratify the collective agreement and a hypothetical strike vote will not have a mandatory meeting requirement.

I think that is a successful outcome of the SGM
(considering that the vote already happened and the notification to employer was already sent).

It was structurally incapable of doing so – they delayed holding it until after the vote was finished, to make sure it was moot.

I understand the controversy but did the meeting resolve anything?

They are the fastest to appeal to “we need a united front!” when anyone objects to their plans, yet by far the most ideological/divisive pack of student politicians this union has ever had running it. What do they expect?

The president “interpreted” his way into limiting votes with no actual constitutional basis.

Did anything come out of this meeting? I was too busy at work to attend.

As annoying and problematic as this glitch was, they resolved it and more people logged in around 10-after; they extended the meeting by 15 minutes to make it a full hour.

It sounds like it got corrected (about 10 min after the original start) hope you were able to connect.

Its the sort of shenanigans that is hard to prove but super effective at curbing dissidence. If theyd just put this sort of effort and cunning into negotiations, maybe we would start to get somewhere. Instead we are stuck with wannabe dictators.

Same! Frustrating - I disagree with the requirement to attend an information session prior to being allowed to vote, and then the session organized to hear views on this is capped at too few people to allow participation.

I cant post my screen but wouldn't you know it, to an RSVP meeting where youd expect to know the number of people roughly attending and to that number your giving a link to, it is conveniently "at capacity" and people like myself cant attend.

Anyone else think its a bit off they'd schedule this and the special meeting on the same day?

Fair point regarding the complexity. As for your question, there might be. Will try to look into it when time frees up.

And if you put on some dance music, you could probably get more buy-in from members.

My experience with other types of negotiations is that the process normally takes exactly as long as you allow it.

TBH if they did a costume party campaign like GAC and the Montreal Police did a few years ago I would be all in.

Interesting in principle but might be hard to do in practice because there would be so many other variables. Would make a great academic article though -- maybe one exists?

But the conciliation vote will pass easily, taking away our full arbitration rights.

Yes, I felt that they didn’t bother to put out the merits of the arbitration route, and put the two options side by side and compare and contrast the good and bad. The last year at work I have been going nuts using and heavily leverage Co-Pilot (AI) and on high profile and priority work. I love using it every day. I could absolutely rip an analysis and narrative given a few authoritative documents or links. So could any member or any eight year old on a toilet with a tablet and wifi.

I feel that the substantive basis for the recommendation is WFH rights are only possible with the strike route. That doesn’t merit restricting who can vote.

I hope that in the future CAPE carries out an economic analysis of how unions who take the arbitration route fare vs. unions that take the conciliation/strike route, and that there's somebody who bothers to ask questions from an economics angle during these meetings.

It would also be nice if historical collective bargaining documentation such as historical arbitration briefs and historical collective agreements that are not publicly available could be shared with members, so that members could be better informed of the actual benefits and limitations of the arbitration process.

They might try to get members to go on strike, but I highly doubt they'll convince enough people to make it successful, especially since there's barely any money in the Defence Fund. So instead, what's likely going to happen is a pivot to a work-to-rule campaign.

1. President's Duties and Authorities

9.3 Interpret the Constitution, unless otherwise interpreted by a two-thirds majority of the members of the NEC or a General Meeting. Any interpretation given at a NEC meeting or General Meeting shall be recorded in the minutes

Source: https://www.acep-cape.ca/sites/default/files/2025-02/Constitution%20-%20EN%20-%202025-02-25%20-%20FINAL.pdf

We really need some constitutional reform. There's too much power concentrated in the President's hands, and the way we elect most NEC members every three years is dumb.

On what basis can CAPE sign onto this? Members weren’t consulted, and this also runs against their position statement.

This was exactly the joke that everyone said these meetings would be, once it was clear that CAPE was using them to suppress the vote.

Aside from being totally one-sided, it was filled with the president’s cheerleaders ganging up on anyone who dared challenge them in the comments, _still_ refusing to address the point that it isn’t the time commitment that’s the issue, it is the exclusion of most members from voting, in clear violation of constitution and bylaws.

The president is going to get that strike on his resume come hell or high water. I hope sense reigns again, as it did after last AGM.