First of all, arbitration does not necessary mean that the union must implement the arbitrator's decision.  Only under binding arbitration would both the union and the univeristy have to agree. With respect to the issue of actually choosing an arbitrator, the union can pick an arbitrator of their choice, the univeristy pick their own arbitrator, then the two respective arbitrators can pick a third abritrator.  All three arbitrators can then review the arguments of both sides and vote on a decision.  This would be a way were independent third party professionals can objectively access the situations and come to a reasonable solution that addresses the concerns of both sides.  
The fact that the TAs rejected this notion clearly indicates their disregard for the welfare of the paying customers(students) who fork over a substantial amount of money, without which, the TAs wouldn't have employment in the first place.  This bone-headed move to reject arbitration outright, clearly indicates that the TAs have unreasonable demands.  The effect of a strike on students matters! To say otherwise, is a utterly ridiculous, calous and shows complete lack of empathy.  

As you know, financial markets have been taking a beating.  The university's endowment fund, a fund that it uses to cope with some of its expenditures has dropped in value significantly.  Couple this, with the fact that both federal and provincial governments have drastically cut back on funding of universities, clearly indicates that the university is not in a position to fully meet the TAs financial demands.  Times are hard homie, many people have no job, others struggle on minimum wage.  The TAs should count their blessings and tighten their belts like others.  If they really think that their demands would be met, then my friend, the live on another planet!

If the demands of the TAs are reasonable, and if they are deserving of such demands, I'm all for it.  But I simply cannot understand why they would reject an independent third party assessment of the issues at stake!  Eventually, the Minister of Labour will force manditory arbitration.  In that case, all the TAs would have done is negatively impact students.

Now is the time that Ontario highschool students are making their choices for post secondary education.  Now, I ask you, what rational parent and student would attend a school where there is a strong precedence for strikes.  The TAs are demanding that there should be a contract for 2 years only!  So there would be the possibility of another strike in 2 years time, so again, why would any parent send their kid to York.  Less enrollement means less money for the university, couple this with the lack of proper governement funding and a hurting endowment fund as I mentioned already, simply means that there will be even less money for TAs in the future.

The TAs are making the demand for a 2 year contract because they want to strike with other Ontario university TAs at the same time in order to collectively push for more demands.  This would then mean that there is the serious possibly of TA strikes across the whole province.  If that happens, there will be public outcry and the Ontario government could quite plausibly mandate a no strike legislation.  So my Steel what would the TA have accomplish for themselves if out of their irrational behaviour they shoot themselves in the foot!

DietCoke:

I've worked minimum wage jobs to jobs where I earned up to $20+. I know how it feels to be broke, I'm BROKE RIGHT NOW. I'm just looking at the situation as a whole.

hey ghost i'm pretty sure that what you consider broke is a lot different than what dietcoke considers broke.

My bad I did not phrase that properly. What I meant is I worked minimum paid jobs and jobs where I got paid 20+. You got to do what you got to do!

idk why you would roll your eyes.  broke means entirely different things depending on the context.  if your parents pay for your food/housing/tuition but nothing else and you have no money to do anything beyond that i would consider it being broke.  as in, yes i am broke, all i can do is sit around and go to class; i have no money to spare!  they could get a job buuuuut i think when most people say broke they mean with the exception of food/shelter money

i am broke. i pay for my bills because i get money from social security. i typically pay for meals with change

do.. i qualify?

do you really pay for meals with change?

Unfortunently people are less rational during recessions.

Also, my parents only paid for my education, beyond that I had to fend for myself.

I think we've all heard enough stories about my experiences putting myself through school.

have you ever had to live on a family friend's boat and cook/take showers at friends' houses to stay in school???

yeah i know you had it rough for a while or whatever, i am just saying i do not always roll my eyes at people who have it better than me but take their shit for granted sometimes.  everyone takes their shit for granted!  i have not had to do a lot of what you have had to but i am still going to say i am broke when i don't have any money that's not EARMARKED for shit.  there are varying degrees but idk it's just a term for having no money to spend.  it would be dif if they said "life......life couldnt get any worse than this *relies on parents*"

if i eat out (usually at my college cafeteria or like mcdonalds) lately it's been payed for with like 30 quarters

where would you even get 30 quarters.  ryan get a job!!!