Trust employees essentially break down into two sub-groups. There is a group of 'trust' employees who are paid from University 'trust funds'. This group is largely clerical, and for argument's sake are 'the same as' their operating sector counterparts. This group, perhaps, would be better served by becoming part of NASA's bargaining unit (provided they are treated 'on par' with their operating counterparts). The other group, and let's call them 'research trust employees'(RTE's), are primarily technical staff, and are paid from the research grants of individual trust holders, or from research contract monies. It is this latter group who we believe differs from the operating sector of the bargaining unit. (We realize that there is overlap of these groups - for example, clerical staff being paid by individual grant holders - but in the majority of cases, the two sub-groups are as described above).

First and foremost, research trust employees (RTE) DO differ from operating 'support staff' in that there are fundamental differences with the source of funding for operating and RTE employees. This has become even more evident with the recent ratification of the 'support staff' collective bargaining agreement, which was followed by many (possibly hundreds) trust employees NOT receiving the 'negotiated' salary increase. Although we will try not to beleaguer the funding issue, it remains the primary difference between trust and operating staff.

There are other differences. Most of us have specialized skill-sets, which are fundamental to why we were hired by our respective trust holders. We believe that union intervention may jeopardize this independent hiring process. Some will argue that this scenario (of trust holder hiring trust employee) is no different from a department hiring for an operating position (ponder for a moment and attempt to recall the last time a hiring of this nature occurred), but again, that would bring us back to arguing the differences of funding.

We also believe that NASA can NOT justify the resources that would be needed to properly evaluate and classify ALL trust employees according to the CBA, much less be able to ADEQUATELY represent OUR unique funding scenario, while simultaneously representing the thousands of operating members it presently bargains for.

OUR relationship/terms of employment with OUR employer (who we continue to ABSOLUTELY perceive, realistically at least, as the GRANT HOLDER) MUST be negotiated by the involved parties (the trust holder and the trust employee) and according to the available budget of the respective research grant, and NOT by a bureaucratically derived table of pay scales describing 'average' job class(es).

The fundamental problem with being dragged/pushed/pulled/forced into a union that we did not request is the imposition of 'union scale' (wages and benefits) to RTE positions. NASA involvement will inevitably bring 'job evaluation'. While this may benefit SOME trust employees (eg. clerical 'trust' staff being paid by University 'trust' monies, as was stated earlier), how does NASA propose to resolve the issue of a position's 'VALUE' differing from a grant holders 'ABILITY TO PAY' ? Again, we have come full circle to dealing with the fundamental problem of DIFFERENCES in funding.

In other words, how would NASA propose resolving the monetary crisis created for grant holder's, (with grant budgets already fully committed), upon a grant holder being 'instructed' that a particular 'job' requires a 25% increase in pay after 'evaluation' ? How will a grant holder provide a 'required' merit increment (or any other increase resulting from a new CBA) to their trust personnel if there is NO additional money? Who is going to make up the difference? NASA? The U of A ? If neither, then why belong to the union? Their CBA provides no benefit.Conversely, how would NASA propose resolving the absurdity of another 5% roll back (if it happens to be the outcome of any future U of A/NASA CBA) created for trust employees who are part way through a multi year grant, for which money has ALREADY BEEN BUDGETED? The money is available in those budgets, but a new CBA requires that employees must receive 5% less because of a constrained University budget. The word 'ludicrous' comes to mind when considering this scenario. These examples explicitly illustrate the fundamental budgetary DIFFERENCE between trust employees and operating employees.

Most trust positions are funded by OUTSIDE agencies, and so are NOT subject to the vagaries of provincial government policy or funding. This is the FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE between trust employees and 'operating' employees. How can NASA possibly claim to represent us to the MRC, NSERC, MDA, etc., in setting our pay scales? Many of us choose to continue in our positions because of intangible and immeasurable qualities like 'atmosphere' and 'morale'. What will happen to the existing trust holder/trust employee relationship when the attitudes of 'unionism' are forced into that niche ? Whatever happened to the law of 'supply and demand'? We are currently free to work for whomever we want, at whatever (wage) scale we can negotiate for our skill-set, and getting whatever benefits the grant holder can afford. This independent negotiation has worked well for THE MAJORITY of us over the past several decades. The intervention of union dogma will result in a loss of the freedom of choice that we currently have, and quite possibly yield a negative impact on the workplace 'atmosphere' most of us currently enjoy (that being a one-on-one relationship between the grant holder and the trust employee). We believe it WILL result in the loss of full time positions because of 'union' imposed (wage) scale and benefit demands.

No matter how one slices it, we always end up back at the argument that research trust employees differ from their operating sector counterparts because of the fundamental differences in funding. Until such time that a universal funding scheme exists for ALL University of Alberta support staff, these differences will continue to be an issue. And also until such time, NASA must recognize that (research) trust employees are different from their operating counter-parts and negotiate accordingly.