Over the last week, a team of 27 Membership Engagement Committee (MEC) volunteers engaged in a telephone survey of 105 randomly-selected members. The purpose of the survey was to have individual conversations with AUFA members, gather information about working from home, and to understand the general state and morale of the members in advance of bargaining.
The survey was divided into three sections. The first was a set of environmental questions, which attempted to capture members’ overall morale and their feelings toward their jobs, the university, and the union. The second was a set of questions about AU’s proposal to de-designate 67% of AUFA members. The third section explored member experiences of working from home.
This blog reports the results of questions about general climate, de-designation, and one of the working from home questions. Next week, we’ll be providing the results of the remaining working from home questions (MEC just needs a bit more time for analysis).
Survey Method
The survey was delivered by telephone to a random sample of 105 AUFA members, which is 25% of the current membership. This slightly exceeded our goal of 100 responses. The survey was delivered over a short timeline of 10 days to mitigate against the risk of major news developments skewing responses.
Responding members were also compared to AUFA demographics by department, location, and if they were academic or professional. The demographic breakdown of the sample ended up closely matching our actual member population.
The data was analyzed in aggregate as well as by location, years of service, department, and whether the respondents were academic or professional. Noteworthy differences are identified below.
General Climate Questions
Three statements were read to the respondents, who ranked their answers on a five-point scale: strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree. Open-ended comments were solicited at the end of this section.
The chart below illustrates how these numbers break down into three simplified categories.
The AUFA members we surveyed are generally happy to come to work and happy with their union.
Distrust of the university executive was notable, with
29.1% indicating they trusted the executive,
23.3% indicating they neither trusted not distrusted the executive, and
47.6% indicating they distrusted the executive.
Demographic breakdowns by department and area indicated the following:
Academic and professionals did not have notable differences in their responses to climate questions.
Distrust of Executive Team increased along with years of service, with members within their first two years showing the strongest trust in Executive Team
Staff who normally report the Athabasca location (n=28) showed only 14% trust in Executive Team while Peace Hills Trust (n=11) showed 55% trust.
Notable responses by department were:
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, which showed 83% distrust in executive team and 100% support of AUFA (n=26).
University Relations, which showed 83% neutrality on AUFA and 100% trust in Executive Team (n=6).
Faculty of Health Disciplines had 29% disagree that they enjoyed starting work in the morning (n=7).
Faculty of Science and Technology, which had 31% neutral on trusting executive team, and 38% neutral on feeling AUFA represented their interests (n=13).
Other departments had too few respondents to draw conclusions or had responses that did not vary greatly from the aggregate.
The overwhelming theme recorded in the open-ended comments was a lack of trust in the university executive’s statements and behaviours. Of particular concern was the executive’s proposal to de-designate 67% of AUFA members. Members described the executive’s behaviour around this issue using words such as sneaky, dishonest, insulting, incompetent, disingenuous, destabilizing, demoralizing, and duplicitous.
Concerns around the broader operation of the university and the gap between the executive’s espoused i-Care values and their behaviour were also identified as problematic. The threat of layoffs was of concern to some members. Potential layoffs were cited as a cause of declining morale and commitment.
Generally, comments about AUFA were positive, particularly around AUFA’s efforts to communicate about and navigate the designation issue. A small number of respondents identified areas where they would like to see changes in AUFA’s behaviour. These concerns will be passed on to the AUFA executive.
It is important to acknowledge that the level of conflict at AU is high. Some AUFA members are uncomfortable with this situation or AUFA’s approach to managing this conflict. The majority of members surveyed indicate satisfaction with AUFA’s resistance to AU attacks on member interests.
It is interesting to flag that some members see AUFA as too focused on the interests of professionals while others are concerned there is too much attention on the interests of academics.
Designation Questions
Members were asked two questions about AU’s proposal to de-designate 67% of AUFA members from the bargaining unit. The responses to these questions are particularly important because AU informed AUFA on Wednesday that it wished to continue consultations after a two-month break. There is no indication that AU has amended its proposed policy.
Approximately 87% of respondents opposed AU’s proposal while only 2% supported it. The remaining 11% were unsure of their support or opposition.
Members were also asked how concerning this proposal was to them. Eighty-two percent rated this proposal as concerning (14%) or extremely concerning (69%).
Demographic notes on this question are:
All demographic groups showed a significant majority of members were concerned or extremely concerned with the policy
72% of professionals (n=55) were extremely concerned as compared to 64% of academics (n=48)
FHSS, FHD, and IT showed the most extreme concern while University Relations and FST showed the least
Comments on the de-designation question mirrored those reported in the climate section, with some AUFA members suggesting this was an effort to undermine the union’s bargaining power right before a difficult round of bargaining. Some members identified that AU’s proposal lacks a credible rationale while others suggested the executive were demonstrating a lack of understanding of how the university operated. A small number of members indicated they would accept a limited de-designation of deans, whom they perceive as performing management functions.
Balancing Work and Caregiving Demands
At the March 31 conversation with the president, President Fassina indicated that AU would not be able to “continue to employ people” who were unable to work full-time due to caregiving responsibilities.
Respondents were asked if it would be fair to fire AU staff members who were forced to balance working from home with child- or elder-care responsibilities. Ninety-two percent of respondents indicated that this would be unfair.
Many participants commented on how unjust it would be if AU chooses to terminate employees who, due solely to the pandemic, are juggling multiple roles. This statement was viewed as lacking in compassion, out of step with the rest of the world, and ignoring how hard staff are working in very difficult conditions.
Conclusion
As with the November 2019 survey results, a clear narrative emerged from the data and comments. Although a sizable minority of surveyed AUFA members are generally happy with the current state of affairs at AU, the majority vary from conflicted to extremely unhappy at AU. Dissatisfaction with the behaviour of AU’s executive team is a significant factor in high levels of distrust.
There is clear opposition from AUFA members to AU’s de-designation proposal as well as President Fassina’s suggestion that AU would need to terminate staff who are forced to balance working from home with caregiving responsibilities.
Additional analysis of the working from home data will be provided next week. MEC would like to thank the volunteers for their hard work in recording these results, and the participants for their willingness to engage.
With AUFA going into bargaining in the next few months, the active participation of the membership will be essential for defending our rights and improving our working conditions. Members interested in volunteering for various tasks as they arise are encouraged to reach out to the Membership Engagement Committee at engagement@aufa.ca.
Rhiannon Rutherford, Chair
AUFA Membership Engagement Committee