In collective bargaining, AU has proposed significant changes to the current discipline language. Earlier this week, AUFA provided details about these proposals, which would make it cheaper (and thus easier) for AU to discipline AUFA members. Specifically, if agreed to, AU’s proposal would mean:
An AUFA member who is suspended without pay or terminated would immediately be without income.
The delays inherent with the grievance process would mean this income loss could persist for years.
All AUFA members would bear higher costs to defend AUFA members because of AU’s proposed reallocation of costs.
AUFA polled its members. There were 157 responses (so 37.4% of members voted). The results are:
98.1% did not support AU’s proposal to make discipline effective immediately.
97.5% did not support AU’s proposal to require AUFA to grieve discipline (rather than use the existing appeal process).
Member comments about these proposals included:
HR and AU have demonstrated that they are completely untrustworthy. There is no way I would give them additional power in the discipline system. I would happily strike over this issue.
These proposals are punitive and unnecessarily harsh. It is an obvious continuation of AUs refusal to deal with AUFA in an open, constructive way.
This really goes to show us how much AU values their employees.
I don’t trust that Chairs, Deans and HR will follow due process or be fair. It’s like asking AUFA to make bullying by AU official and acceptable.
This shows a clear pattern of distain and disrespect for AU's professional and academic staff. When taken along with AU's attempts to weaken layoff protections and split the professional and academic staff, it's clear the institution has little respect or value for its professional and academic staff. They are more focused on creating a weakened, subservient, fearful staff that could be disciplined or laid off at any time with minimal to no notice. This tactic is abhorrent and destroys the so-called 'OneAU' rhetoric AU is so proud of repeating.
Mean-spirited and cynical proposal. It's unclear to me why AU seems to want so badly to undermine completely its relationship with AU workers.
Given the errors AU is prone to making in the discipline process, it would be frankly dangerous to allow them to make discipline effective immediately.
The current process seems effective and fair for everyone. I do not see any positive reason to change the process to the AU recommended process.
Again, this is another example of the employer wanting to enlarge their actions and limit AUFA's including the cost of appeals. It is another example of actions that do not build trust between the 2 groups and again AU executive are at a loss to explain low morale. Do not give into these changes.
Where, in any of these proposals, is there any rational goodwill? Why does AU have to be so negatively combative? I really hate this--it's such a stress to see how badly my employer is behaving and how little they value the service of their staff.
Given what I see happening I see no reason to make it easier for AU to get rid of us. I have to wonder why AU seems so intent on forcing staff to leave. Is AU being turned into a non-union contract for services shop?
Keep up the good work AUFA, dealing with sort of insanity has to be very draining.
This proposal further illustrates how the Exec of AU treats employees as if they were not a part of the same organization, striving for the same goals. It seems that the Exec is intent on establishing a hegemony over anyone and everyone that is not in the ever-growing group of senior managers in the university.
This is another example of the employer’s wish to create a Fordist-like factory environment where employees must do as they are told, or they will be punished or released. I suggest this is an artifact of little or no understanding of what it takes to lead and manage… .
Time to hire competent people in HR.
This is deeply concerning. Given that Supervisors/Managers/HR are just people with their own sets of biases, the disciplinary system in and of itself needs to be fair, transparent and have strict criteria. I would be concerned at any changes to policy that would create grey areas, or impact an AUFA member's income on what might end up being a spurious disciplinary claim. This would basically allow for constructive dismissal- by drawing out the grievance process past what an AUFA member's finances could bear, so that they are forced to seek employment elsewhere.
I am trying to figure out why the employer is being so antagonistic towards employees. None of this makes sense to me.
The current discipline process is biased toward the complainant who can literally fabricate a complaint against a fellow worker. … If discipline becomes effectively immediately, there is a possibility that AUFA members could lose their employment with one fabricated complaint together with a possible biased investigation process.
[W]hatever the process, there must be an accounting of systemic barriers experienced by marginalized or underrepresented individuals in having their complaints (against other AUFA members) taken seriously. In many institutional settings, far too many complaints alleging sexual harassment or racially-motivated aggressions are dismissed on formalities or delayed, making the work environment for the complainant intolerable. The process cannot only protect the rights of an accused member, where another AUFA member is affected by non-action.
Sounds like the usual ham-handed approach from the Labor Relations person.
This proposal as with other similar actions further demoralize staff as a whole. What is the "end goal" with all of this? If an AUFA staff member's performance is poor isn't a better approach to work with the person to improve their productivity instead of belittling them with a threat of discipline or termination?
Considering the above-mentioned disciplinary actions that were eventually withdrawn, I cannot support a proposal without the employer providing an explanation as to how the proposed changes can make AU a better workplace.
I do believe there are some circumstances where it may be appropriate for discipline to be effective immediately but, given the history you outline, I have voted no.
Power is already unequal. The proposed changes increases this disparity, putting employees at risk from the actions of AU including financial consequences.
It is such a ridiculous proposal by AU it doesn't deserve a response except to say, "No we won't accept this proposal."
My experiences of HR have been largely punitive (and I didn't do anything wrong other than to advocate for my position). The appeals process is long, and during that time HR does all sorts of stuff to make your work life miserable. I don't support these changes because they put members at risk from a leadership system that has historically been hostile to labour in the first place.
The proposed changes are unfair, even predatory, and should be opposed. This should not be a point of negotiation.
Totally crazy that they even think this is a good idea.
Another power grab. Sigh.
Don't we live in a system where you are innocent until proven guilty? These changes presume guilt and applies penalties before being able to defend yourself. Unbelievable.
Here we go again. I do not support AU's discipline proposal as it is unnecessarily punitive. I think Middle States didn't get the memo about AU leadership.
It seems to be a way to force a member out, as income loss will likely force the member to back down and look for another job elsewhere.
Forcing the grievance process is a sign that the employer has no intention of having positive working relations with employees.
It is difficult to Imagine that AUFA’s bargaining team could get an agreement that contained these proposals ratified by the membership. It is also difficult to understand how this aggressive approach to bargaining can be reconciled with AU’s sloganeering about OneAU.
Bob Barnetson, Chair
Job Action Committee