Today marks the 500th day that AUFA members have been working without a contract. Indeed, we don’t even have a full opening offer from the employer yet. AU’s bad-faith bargaining is making it impossible to negotiate a new contract. Since the employer won’t bargain, AUFA’s Job Action Committee (JAC) has begun preparing for what seems like an inevitable strike.
A few weeks ago, JAC asked members to suggest tactics designed to pressure AU to agree to an acceptable contract settlement. A credible strike threat is necessary to get a fair deal at the table, and AUFA members should have some input into the tactics AUFA employs.
This blog outlines a high level overview of some of those member-suggested tactics. It also answers some of the questions AUFA members asked JAC. Over the coming weeks, JAC will discuss these tactics in some detail, as well as strategize when and how best to use them.
Suggested Tactics
The suggested tactics fall into three broad categories:
Operational: When AUFA members withdraw their labour, AU processes that rely on AUFA members’ work will slow or stop.
Financial: A strike (or its prospect) disincentivizes students to enrol in courses, thereby reducing institutional revenue.
Reputational: Strike-related communications (before or during a strike) can do long-term damage to AU’s reputation as a good place to work or go to school.
AUFA members suggested four main operational tactics:
a work slowdown or working to rule,
refusing certain or additional work assignments,
signing a “no scabbing” pledge with AUPE and CUPE, or
fully withdrawing labour (i.e., a strike).
AUFA members suggested a number of ways to apply reputational pressure to AU. In these examples, please read “bosses” as meaning members of both AU’s executive and AU’s Board of Governors.
contacting bosses and/or politicians (in person and electronically),
bringing in a mediator to bargaining sessions (creating an observer effect),
holding a non-confidence vote in AU’s bargaining team or the Board,
conducting a media campaign highlighting AU’s bargaining position and behaviour,
organizing information pickets (e.g., pickets, car convoys, leafleting) that target bosses and MLAs’ homes, offices, and businesses, as well as meetings of the Board of Governors,
publicizing data related to bosses’ salaries and administrative bloat,
informing and/or pressurizing the new president about how AU’s bargaining is affecting staff relations, and
organizing a national campaign of censure over AU’s bargaining approach.
AUFA members suggested a number of ways to apply financial pressure to AU, including:
organizing a student boycott for the duration of any work stoppage, and
asking colleagues to refrain from recommending that students attend AU or accept transfer credits from AU until bargaining is settled.
A small number of members noted that a work stoppage would lead to students experiencing delays in completing their education. Other members identified the risk that reputational harm might persist after a new contract is settled.
Questions
Members asked a number of questions. JAC has endeavoured to answer them below.
Q: Will AU save money during a work stoppage?
A: AU’s expenses during a work stoppage will decline because it will not pay AUFA salaries or benefits. This means that, for a strike to be effective, the financial impact of a work stoppage on AU’s revenue must be sufficiently large to offset these savings.
Q: Will we lose our jobs if we strike?
A: Unlikely. Alberta’s Labour Relations Code bars employers from terminating staff for participating in a strike. Article 12 of our collective agreement does allow AU to lay off staff (with notice), but AU would only be permitted to do this if a) “the employer permanently discontinues some or all of its operations, or no longer employs employees to do certain work” or b) AU is able to show financial exigency.
It is of course possible that AU will trigger a reduction in tuition revenue by forcing AUFA to strike. But AU normally manages enrollment fluctuations by reducing CUPE members’ teaching loads, so the risk of layoffs resulting from a strike is very low.
Q: How will I afford to live during a work stoppage?
A: A few weeks ago, AUFA provided information about strike pay and benefits as well as strategies AUFA members may wish to use to prepare for the financial impact of a work stoppage.
Q: Will the reputational harm cause long-term damage to AU?
A: Maybe. AU’s approach to labour relations over the past few years (e.g., repeatedly seeking unnecessary rollbacks to our collective agreement, adopting an unnecessarily antagonistic approach to labour relations, trying to bust the union) has made AU a less attractive place to work. Forcing AUFA to strike would only reinforce this view. A strike would also make AU look like an unreliable provider of education. AU could avoid these outcomes by changing its behaviour, both at the bargaining table and in the workplace more generally.
Q: Why does AUFA use Lego graphics in its blog posts and information updates?
A: Lego is a low-cost way to create custom graphics that convey the gist of AUFA blog posts and information updates in a quick and accessible way. These graphics drive up readership of the blog in a way that clip-art posts or posts with no graphics do not. The graphics also attach costs to bad behaviour by AU’s executive (e.g., by lampooning them) which, over time, appears to reduce their willingness to continue behaving badly.
Q: What is the status of the unfair labour practice complaint AUFA filed?
A: AU has delayed the hearing of the unfair labour practice complaint (as well as AUFA’s application for an ESA exemption) by providing few dates when AU is available to attend Labour Board meetings and hearings as well as by continually asking AUFA for additional information.
Q: Why is AUFA talking about a strike while bargaining is still underway?
A: Planning a successful strike takes time, so we need to start now. Members also need time to prepare. Preparing publicly to strike gives AU time to recognize that the threat of a strike is real, to consider whether it wants to alter its behaviour to avoid one and, instead, to negotiate a new contract (which is the ultimate goal).
Q: Is it common to wait until the end of bargaining to negotiate wages?
A: Sometimes parties choose to negotiate language before tackling monetary issues (e.g., AU and AUPE Local 69 are doing this). This decision is often justified as being a way to gain momentum at the table before tackling harder issues like wages.
It is worth noting, however, that the supposed dichotomy between monetary and non-monetary issues is a false one. Almost every piece of contract language has monetary implications.
One of the consequences of settling language issues before talking money is that doing so reduces the number of bargaining chips available to AUFA (and AU, for that matter) to structure a final deal that is acceptable to both sides.
Given AU’s track record and its lawyer’s assertion that AU’s full proposal is so bad that AU expects AUFA to strike, AUFA’s bargaining team thinks it is advisable to see the entirety of AU’s opening proposal before agreeing on any changes.
Q: Why is AUFA focused on complaining about AU not providing a full offer instead of telling us about wins at the table?
A: AUFA’s bargaining team provides updates after each set of bargaining dates. There have been no wins at the table to report. This is, in part, because AU’s partial opening offer contains a large number of rollbacks for which there is no justification.
Further hampering bargaining is AU’s unwillingness to present a full opening offer (see question above). It is unfortunate that AUFA has to pressure AU into doing the bare legal minimum required to engage in good-faith bargaining. But that’s a function of how AU is approaching bargaining.
Bob Barnetson, Chair
AUFA Job Action Committee