In late November, AUFA’s membership engagement committee (MEC) posted aggregated results from the autumn membership survey. This blog post explores some of the comments offered by respondents, specifically in relation to the direct action tactics used to resist the de-designation of up to two-thirds of AUFA members. Though the designation issue appears to have reached a stalemate, at least for the time being, these questions are relevant for other issues, including what we might expect for the upcoming round of collective bargaining.
“Whatever it takes”
As we noted in our initial report, the majority of respondents indicated they support the tactics used so far and many suggested that they would support further, more intense actions should the employer proceed with de-designating AUFA members. Comments in this vein included suggestions that we “go harder,” “resist relentlessly,” be “loud and assertive,” “respond vociferously and ferociously,” “stay aggressive,” do “whatever it takes,” employ “any means necessary,” and “stand strong, and support one another.” Many respondents indicated they would be supportive of a strike should the conditions arise for this to happen.
While these attitudes are by no means universal, it is clear than many AUFA members were mobilized by the spectre of de-designation and willing to support and participate in actions that may otherwise be outside their comfort zones. This level of engagement and solidarity will certainly help as we head into what may be a particularly difficult round of collective bargaining.
Public tactics
A few respondents shared concerns or questions about some of the more public tactics, such as pickets and the visiting student boycott threat. Part of the concern seems to be focused on the logic of causing reputational damage—going after the university’s bottom line can seem a bit like biting the hand that feeds. This is certainly an understandable concern, as it points to a tension inherent in all union struggles.
One response to this concern is to acknowledge that yes, we do need to be careful about overusing very public tactics, lest we become the union that cries wolf so much that others stop paying much attention. We need to save these tactics for “big ticket” items, and the overwhelming feedback we’ve received from members is that de-designation is (hopefully was!) an issue that required a strong response—especially after months of less-public member actions (e.g., open letters, a member delegation to a consultation session, raising the issue in Connect with the President sessions, email campaigns, petitions) failed to inspire a change of heart from the employer.
Another way to respond to this concern about public tactics is to underline the fundamental power relations in our workplace. The employer has the power to unilaterally make big decisions that affect us deeply. While they are often required to consult with our union representatives, they do not require our consent. This does not, however, make us powerless. When we act together in solidarity, we have a remarkable ability to protect and advance our livelihoods and working conditions. Sometimes there are risks involved, both individual and collective, so the constant calculation is weighing the relative risk of taking a stand against the risk of simply accepting negative impacts. On the de-designation issue, the feedback we have received so far indicates most members find themselves leaning pretty far toward accepting at least some risks of resisting.
Another related concern that came up in the survey was about potential negative impacts of public tactics on some AUFA members. While the responses above are relevant for this concern as well, we are very interested in understanding this issue better. We hope that the smaller departmental meetings that will continue for the foreseeable future will serve as an opportunity for individuals and groups to share more details about these concerns as well as ideas for ways to mitigate potential impacts in the future.
Deciding on tactics
One respondent had concerns about how the tactics are decided on, suggesting that the membership should have the opportunity to vote on each action before proceeding. This is a valid question, as there are some kinds of actions—such as a formal strike—that do require a clear mandate from a vote of the whole membership. However, the kinds of tactics that helped pressure the employer to back down on the de-designation issue are different from a formal strike in a number of respects.
Typically, these types of tactics are most effective if they are a) organized quickly, in response to a specific issue or an opportunity that emerges, and b) a surprise to the employer. This prevents the employer from taking steps to render the action ineffective (e.g., changing times and locations, locking doors, bringing in other workers to do work). Membership-wide votes would therefore decrease or eliminate the effectiveness of many tactics.
As well, these kinds of direct-action tactics are typically more effective when more members participate. A petition or open letter with only a handful of signatures, for example, could hardly be expected to generate much of a response. One hard question in a Connect with the President session is easy to ignore; a barrage of many hard questions on the same topic is a different story. When organizing an action, we approach members with an invitation and rationale, but we have no ability nor desire to compel anyone to participate against their will. Participating in an action demonstrates a higher level of endorsement than voting in a poll; members are in effect voting with their feet.
The AUFA exec have given the Membership Engagement Committee significant discretion around organizing direct actions. Typically, MEC meets to discuss the goals, risks and rewards for any potential action. If there is significant risk (or the tactic is brand new), the MEC chair may seek input from the AUFA President, the table officers, or the whole executive. This arrangement creates a degree of accountability around direct actions without unduly impeding our ability to carry these actions out in a timely fashion.
Ultimately, an effective union is one that has an active culture of members acting together to stand up for themselves and others. This is something that can be nurtured, but not stage-managed.
Looking ahead
We have every reason to expect that the upcoming round of collective bargaining may be especially difficult. However, with the de-designation issue on the backburner for the time being, we are fortunate to have the opportunity to pause, reflect, and learn.
Despite the extraordinary upheaval of this past year, 2020 saw AUFA members engage and mobilize to protect members’ benefits and protections as well as to prevent the dismantling of our union. The solidarity demonstrated by members was not only remarkable, it was effective.
One survey respondent offered the comment that AUFA should prioritize efforts to encourage and support more members in taking more active roles within the union, to promote renewal and prevent burnout. This is very good advice that we intend to follow by identifying more ways that members can get involved and supporting them in doing so. In the meantime, anyone interested in what getting more involved might look like is encouraged to reach out to engagement@aufa.ca.
Rhiannon Rutherford
Chair, Membership Engagement Committee