On March 31, President Neil Fassina’s Connect with the President session raised several concerning issues. At this point, we know the following.
First, the government has given AU an “expenditure reduction target” of approximately $34 millions over three years. In year one, this reduction is approximately $28 million (roughly 18-22% of the budget). This expenditure reduction (which has apparently been applied to all institutions) compounds the base grant reductions set out in the budget.
The Board appears to be complying with this very unreasonable government demand, rather than resisting it. While the president mentioned that AU would be looking at ways to reduce expenses other than layoffs, it is likely there will be layoffs. AUFA has prepared an FAQ about the layoff provisions in the AUFA agreement.
Accommodating a $34 million reduction through layoffs would require the termination of approximately 300 staff members (the number would vary depending on who was laid off). If there are roughly 750 full-timers, this would mean laying off approximately 40% of staff (this calculation excluded part-time tutors and academic experts) so, cutting expenditures via layoffs, would, ironically, substantially increase costs in the short-term.
Such a level of layoff would likely compromise the ability of the institution to deliver its current programming (which would reduce revenue). It would also further undermine morale and damage the institution’s reputation. Three hundred layoffs would also create severance costs of somewhere between $30 and $40 million (again, depending on who was laid off). AU does not presently have this amount of money in reserves
Second, all three unions (AUFA, AUPE and CUPE) are beginning bargaining shortly, as are most other faculty associations. This expenditure reduction target will likely result in the employer tabling wage and language rollbacks. The employer is likely to indicate that, if AUFA does not accept rollbacks, there will be layoffs. It is unclear whether or not the employer will be offering anything worthwhile in exchange.
Third, during the Connect with the President session this morning, Neil said:
One final question that[ …]that relates to individuals asking "What if I can't work at home," whether or not it be because of child care, elder care, internet connections [… ]and this is another one of those stark unfortunate realties that while we seek to keep our team members as whole as we humanly can for as long as we humanly can, there will be a date in the not so distant future where the university has to make a decision. It has to be able to say that unless you're able to work for us full time - I get it there are needs to work around in the home environment - but unless there is an opportunity to work fulltime we can't legitimately continue to employ people on a less than fulltime basis and still be able to keep our organization running. It's going to be hard, and frankly it's not possible to keep people entirely whole indefinitely as we start to face some of the true working from home challenges.
AUFA is very concerned that AU is preparing to force AU employees to choose between their jobs and their caretaking responsibilities. These employees are more likely (but not exclusively) to be women.
This announcement was very disheartening and may be be discriminatory. As a means of assisting AUFA members who may be negatively affected, the Membership Engagement Committee will be surveying staff who have been moved to home offices due to the COVID-19 pandemic to identify their needs and required accommodations. Please expect the MEC committee to be in touch with members shortly.
If you are concerned about being personally targeted due to caretaker responsibilities, please contact the AUFA Office at aufahq@aufa.ca
Jolene Armstrong, President