In collective bargaining, AU has proposed significant changes to the current layoff language. Earlier this week, AUFA provided details about these proposals, which would make it cheaper (and thus easier) for AU to layoff AUFA members. Specifically, if agreed to, AU’s proposal would mean:
AUFA members would receive less compensation if they were permanently laid off. This would be particularly the case for professional staff.
Academics would have lesser recall rights. Professionals would no longer have recall rights
The cost of permanently laying off professional staff would likely be lower than the cost to AU of fighting a discipline appeal. This opens the door to AU improperly using layoff language to address discipline problems.
The introduction of temporary layoff for professionals would make their employment much more precarious and would require us to trust that AU would use this power in a reasonable manner.
AUFA polled its members. There were 158 responses (so 37.6% of members voted). The results are:
97.5% did not support AU’s proposal to reduce academic layoff notice by 6 months.
98.1% did not support AU’s proposal to reduce professional layoff notice.
98.1% did not support AU’s proposal to allow AU to temporarily layoff professional staff members for up to 3 months at a time.
Member comments about these proposals included:
This is appalling. After 15 years of service, AU wants to kick me to curb with 12 months of wages? How little does AU value its staff? Why would anyone come to work at a university that constantly seeks to grind staff wages and benefits. Disgusting proposal.
This is the worst proposal I have seen yet. We are permanent but you can lay us off at any time temporarily or permanently without recall rights.
This proposal is terrible and represents the employer's disregard for AUFA members' job security. It also attacks professionals and strives to strip us of hard-won rights and benefits, which is totally unacceptable.
I would like to know who exactly came up with the proposal? Which people?
AU is acting like an arch enemy of fair and reasonable working conditions. How can any of us, in good faith, recommend this university as a good place to work when it is clearly attacking its employees?
I just wonder when a strike will be triggered here. Management's hostility to the employees which operate this university is getting a little sickening.
I'd be more accommodating of temporary layoffs if were *actually* a lack of work- but has that EVER been true? "lack of work" is really "failure to plan" and "inability to manage more than one project at a time". This language and benefits, affording us job security, termination notice, recall, R&S, etc, are the entire reason I've made a career at AU. …[I]f they succeed in ripping those down and turning this into "just another job", then I'll go find another one.
This proposal is adding another layer of stress and anxiety to AUFA employees during the already stressful period of COVID-19. Since online education grows up globally, the decreased attraction to AU might end up with losing more skilled and expert staff to competitors. AU is in a transitioning time of ILE, so encouraging everyone to be involved in the process is more critical than ever. So, why discourage us?
It is so demoralizing to work under AU's never-ending gestures and moves that tell me that they don't value my work, my contributions, and my expertise.
These are dangerous proposals and only reinforce AU's attempt to split the AUFA union and attack its professional and academic staff.
The university Exec and Board continue to probe and prod for a weak point in AUFA's unity. We cannot show any weakness whatsoever. … The Exec and Board continue to fundamentally misunderstand why AU survives to this day and that is because of the unique relationship between faculty and professionals. … We should drag this out until a new President arrives. Highly doubt the first thing a new President would want on his/her watch is an ugly work stoppage.
This is clearly an attempt to cut and divide the union. We must hold strong as this proposal shows what their "OneAU" vision really is and it is evil!
The Middle States committee gushed on about the loyalty, enthusiasm, and work ethic of the AU staff. Guess that doesn't mean a thing to the Exec. Do they think they'll get that kind of support from the low-paid gig workers they seem to want? Is there a lingering belief with the Exec that current AU workers are resistant to change and must be pushed out at all costs, including the reputation of AU as a good place to work?
This proposal by AU is an insult and an attack on AUFA. The university should be ashamed of itself as should the HR department and the executive as a whole. The people who do the work are the ones being attacked. Shameful!
The temp layoff proposal is ridiculous. They would be treating full-time employees as casual on-call staff. Totally unacceptable.
Stronger together! We have to fight back! This a nasty OneAU!
This proposal just shows lack of respect to your workforce. The temporary lay-off is absurd, because it gives power to your direct manager to give or not work to you in order to get rid of you for whatever valid or not reason. It is just shows how detached our Management is from the rest of us... good that they say how they respect all the work we do at every meeting.
These proposals clearly are intended to allow the university to shift to more contract work (why go through the hassle of permanent employees when you can just hire out to another organization) and the choice of implementing these requests right now appears to be a way to offload the costs of the reorganization plans that are already underway. It is all very worrisome and does not foster any trust in the university as a whole (but then, if they just want to contract out all work, who cares if your employees actually value working for your organization or feel safe? Not the university, that much is apparent).
Besides the lack of security engendered by a policy that could result in professional staff being laid off due to lack of work, this policy also disincentivizes professionals to work efficiently and in a timely manner for fear of appearing to be out of work. Why would AU propose something that sabotages productivity?
For the temporary layoff with the person not receiving compensation (salary or benefits), then why in the world would that person stay available for AU? Unless this is the underlying intent?
It is very disheartening that AU/HR continues to move forward with actions that demoralize professional staff in particular. Staff should not feel that their position is constantly under threat of being eliminated.
The AU proposal shows how much (i.e., little) they value employees (academic and professional). Employees seem to be simply resources, much like machines in an assembly line. Swap them in and out with no regard to the fact they are people who have given so much to the university.
I am very sorry to hear this is what AU is proposing but also shocked with the proposal of the temporary layoff of people for 3 months at a time and not pay a salary to them? What is the person supposed to do? Find other work? for 3 months?? This encourages layoffs to cause stress and undue hardships for employees and families and communities. It encourages one to find other work and not return, thus losing their amount of payout money as well. I cannot imagine that this is in AU vision and mandate for thriving communities… .
AU's proposals are completely unacceptable. We need to fight this at all costs.
The AU Proposal makes it appear like the Powers-that-be are getting ready to clean house.
It is very disheartening that AU/HR continues to move forward with actions that demoralize professional staff in particular. Staff should not feel that their position is constantly under threat of being eliminated.
The idea that an employer can temporarily lay me off for 90 days without benefits and without cause is cruel, offensive, and absurd. We all have reoccurring obligations, such as mortgages and ongoing health issues, that we need time to deal with if our financial situation changes. It is unfair to put full-time permanent employees into such a precarious position. …[T]his ceaseless aggression towards my salary and benefits by AU is hard not to take personal. …[T]he union is not an external body, it is made up of AU staff. An attack on the union is an attack on the staff, at least that is how it feels to me. Does the employer understand how this extreme bargaining and bad faith maneuvering … affects their employees?
So, that’s probably a hard pass then. Tune in next week, when we will be examining AU’s proposed changes to the discipline language.
Bob Barnetson, Chair
Job Action Committee