BoG

AUFA Condemns Employer Disruption and Mismanagement; Calls for Concrete Action

AUFA condemns the Board of Governors’ callous firing of Dr. Scott who lost his wife only weeks ago. The surprise announcement of the termination of former AU President Dr. Peter Scott and the appointment of Dr. Alex Clark to fill this role has left faculty and staff at Athabasca University reeling.  AUFA members have been experiencing callousness and disruption beyond the recent upheavals and actions of the BOG and are growing weary of the cycle of crises facing this institution – a cycle that is taking its toll on staff morale and student enrolment alike. Yet we also remain committed to the university’s open mission and hopeful for some stability and calm so we can focus on our work in service of this mission.  

This blog post will analyze how we got here and outline a path forward. Our core message to the university administration and the Board of Governors is that, to right this ship, faculty and staff need to lead the way.  

Problematic Process 

The sudden announcement of a change in presidents left many wondering, how did this happen? While the full story likely won’t ever be revealed, it is clear from multiple (and in some cases, conflicting) media reports that the process by which this decision was made was extremely problematic, including the callous way in which Dr. Scott was “released.” It is difficult not to see the roots of this decision in the heavy-handed approach to AU overhauling board membership and issuing institutional directives adopted by the Minister of Advanced Education Demetrios Nicolaides since last March.  

AUFA is aligned with the Confederation of Alberta Faculty Associations (CAFA) and the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) in calling for all presidential searches at post-secondary institutions to be as open and transparent as possible. Instead of being surprised by the announcement of a new leader selected through a completely closed and secretive process, faculty, staff, students, and the broader community should have meaningful exposure to potential candidates and an opportunity to provide input to the selection process.  

While we remain critical of the process that got us to this point, AUFA calls on Dr. Clark to provide very different leadership than what we’ve experienced over the last several years – one that is more responsive and prioritizes stability and employee well-being over unproductive disruption.  

“Disharmony”  

The Board Chair referenced “staff strife and disharmony” as a key factor motivating this decision. We might characterize the situation slightly differently, but it does point to the worsening of both morale and working conditions over the past several years. AUFA members have weathered blatant union-busting, aggressive bargaining, continuous and cumulative breaches of our rights under the collective agreement, and a generally callous disregard for our well-being. AUFA staff and volunteers can scarcely keep up with the onslaught of contract violations, disciplines, and other issues facing our colleagues.  

While AUFA as a union is occasionally vilified by university leaders or painted as the source of problems, the reality is that we simply would not have to fight so much if university leadership, particularly decision makers within Human Resources, demonstrated even the slightest bit more care and regard for employee well-being. Well-intentioned, good faith efforts to raise concerns about employee wellness are routinely ignored or rejected.  

AUFA is committed to doing its part to meet in good faith and attempt to resolve current, long-standing, and emergent issues directly with the employer and to reduce the number of cases that are escalated to arbitration at the labour board. We call on the university administration to come to the table with the same good faith.  

Words and Actions  

One of the most common complaints we have heard from AUFA members over several years of regular surveys and other engagement efforts is the disconnect between the rhetoric of university leadership and their concrete actions. This has been experienced most acutely in the university’s so-called commitment to Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI).  

Despite proclamations about intentions to champion EDI, including signing the Scarborough Charter, previous initiatives left much to be desired. We still are waiting for a university-wide plan and policy, supported by appropriate personnel and overseen by a body independent from HR, for fostering an equitable, diverse, and inclusive work environment and articulating institutional accountabilities. While we wait, faculty, staff, and students who are experiencing systematic forms of gender, sex, racial, anti-Indigenous, and anti-Black harassment are left with little recourse.  

AU’s actions and rhetoric on EDI need to come into closer alignment – urgently, not pushed to some distant future. AUFA calls on the university administration to prioritize the establishment of an independent Equity Office that has both an appropriate mandate and sufficient resources to be effective.  

Mismanagement 

Over at least the past year AUFA members and our colleagues have been grappling with increasingly unsustainable workloads and worsening working conditions, making it more and more difficult to maintain the services and quality of courses that students deserve and expect.  

There are many contributing factors, but topping the list are the many ways in which IT functions have been extremely poorly managed by top leaders while also being increasingly severed from academic oversight and governance. From the poorly handled reorganization of the IT department to the incessant pushing forward with ill-fitting and costly technological changes, staff within IT have been working within an increasingly corrosive working environment, and negative impacts are being felt across nearly all university departments.  

We want a chance to be excited about change, to exercise our professional judgment, and to actually use the skills for which we were hired in the service of the university’s open mission. We want to break out of unproductive siloes and to understand how our individual work contributes to achievable, shared goals. AUFA calls on the university administration to pause the implementation of the Integrated Learning Environment and prioritize staff agency and input in an honest and transparent reassessment of technological change initiatives.  

Time to Start Listening 

Of course, there are forces at play that are larger than AU alone. The post-secondary sector across the province and beyond is strained by many of the same issues, and the current provincial government has contributed to many crises and challenges across institutions. But AU is not simply a victim of circumstances. There are many things that are fully within the university’s power to change.  

The top-down, managerial, corporate-style leadership adopted over the past several years is not working, nor is the increased reliance on external vendors. Our strength as a university comes from within – the dedication and commitment of those who do the real work in the service of students is the reason AU has survived despite abysmal failures of leadership.  

As a faculty association, we have frequently engaged our membership in order to gather meaningful feedback and input on both internal union decisions and broader university questions. Our understanding of the current situation is grounded in countless hours of respectful listening, reading, writing, and discussions with colleagues. Yet we have been consistently ignored, sidelined, or belittled by successive university leaders. We expect that our colleagues in our sibling unions have had a similar experience.  

We believe that, for the university to achieve stability and grow in its mandate as an open public institution, senior administrators and the board of governors need to hear, respect, and meaningfully respond to the concerns and suggestions raised by faculty, staff, and students. Better yet, AU needs to move beyond listening and empower faculty and staff to actively and meaningfully participate in decision making processes, including those at the highest level.  

AUFA calls on the Board of Governors and the university administration to refocus on core, mission-driven work; to prioritize stability and faculty and staff well-being; to empower employees to exercise meaningful agency; and to strengthen collegial governance by increasing transparency and participation.  

Rhiannon Rutherford, AUFA President 

Your Turn 

The AUFA executive will be identifying more specific priorities to present to the new university leadership. Use this space to share your priorities or any other thoughts about the recent announcement and how AUFA should respond.  

AUFA Solidarity Statement

Public allegations have been made that during the public session of the Athabasca University Board of Governors meeting on December 9, 2022, a member of the Athabasca University Board of Governors made racist and exclusionary comments. This board member’s comments are alleged to have been made in an open question period following a presentation made by two Athabasca University student leaders who were highlighting the extraordinary financial pressures AU students are under.  

AUFA is releasing the following statement:  

AUFA condemns all forms of overt, covert, and structural racism. Please refer to our equity statement to understand the breadth of AUFA’s commitment to anti-racism and decolonization.  

We value diversity in our students, and we care deeply about students’ learning conditions, especially their feelings of belonging at AU. We therefore denounce the alleged comments that specific students and/or programs of study are less valuable or less worthy of inclusion in our university community.  

We are in solidarity with our colleagues who have been harmed by racism, and we support their right to work in an environment free of racism. We acknowledge that when alleged comments like this come to light at our workplace, people with lived experiences of racism are harmed. Racism in the workplace causes significant physiological and psychological harm, making the workplace a distressing space and increasing the efforts needed in order to conduct one’s work. AUFA is working to be a place where these experiences can be brought forward and members can trust they will be believed, taken seriously, and their concerns acted upon.  

We are in solidarity with the critical work that the Athabasca University Students’ Union (AUSU) is doing to advocate for our students, including their call for a tuition freeze and increased financial support for students. It matters if students are increasing their use of food banks. If students are having to drop out or take fewer courses because the cost of tuition is prohibitive, this is a serious concern for all of us.  

In lieu of an AU equity office to which to take this issue, AUFA has sent a formal request for information clarifying the alleged comments to AU President, Peter Scott, and Sara Kunto, Chief Governance Officer. These allegations are very serious, and they have already had harmful effects among students, staff, and faculty. We look to our leaders for an investigation and an appropriate remedy. 

Spring survey results: Continued distrust in AU executive and strong strike threat

In June, volunteers with AUFA’s Membership Engagement Committee (MEC) completed the sixth membership engagement survey. This survey included the usual climate questions as well as explored issues related to the recently concluded round of bargaining, the jobs in Athabasca issue (which has since become a significant issue), and AU’s implementation of Netskope surveillance software on members’ computers. 

This iteration of the survey was delayed from the targeted April/May timing, which likely impacted response rates. Eighty-two randomly selected members (just under 20% of the membership) completed the call-based survey, with representation across departments and employee types. 

Climate Questions 

Survey callers asked four recurring questions on the general climate at AU. Overall, members report continued distrust in the AU executive, while AUFA’s work is broadly supported. There is an interesting discrepancy between the 39% of members who reported high morale compared to 77% who reported enjoying starting work in the morning. This likely reflects members’ appreciation for the work they do while also reflecting their frustration with their working conditions. 

Looking further at the question of trust in AU’s executive team, there was a slight increase since the last survey (in fall 2021), from 15% to 20% expressing trust, which is still far below the highest rate of 30% who agreed with this question in the very first survey (in fall 2019). There were no clear trends in terms of which member groups are more or less likely to agree or disagree. For example, when analyzing responses based on length of service, new hires reported around the same level of distrust in executive and trust in AUFA as longer-serving staff. 

In the comments provided by members regarding AU’s executive, most expressed strongly negative feelings, with the following emerging as themes: 

  • feelings of being mistreated, belittled, or disrespected by the employer  

  • dissatisfaction with the communication and information provided to faculty and staff 

  • perceptions of mismanagement, ineptitude, or hidden agendas 

  • perceptions of a lack of understanding of the university’s culture and values 

  • desire for following through with a vote of non-confidence in the current executive 

In terms of factors contributing to these feelings, the employer’s opening position in bargaining featured prominently. Members also spoke about how the various reorganizations at AU—including the IT reorganization and the near-virtual transition—have been and continue to be handled poorly, which is negatively affecting morale.  

Contract Negotiations 

Having narrowly avoided a strike this spring, MEC queried members’ willingness to have withdrawn their labour. The vast majority of members (88%) indicated were likely to have withdrawn their labour during a strike or lockout, with just 6% saying they were unlikely. This reponse suggests AUFA’s strike threat was a credible one. A credible strike threat enhances the bargaining power of the union. 

Members had mixed views about the final contract that was ratified. The largest chunk of repondents (44%) indicated they were “somewhat satisfied”; neutral and “somewhat dissatisfied” responses each received 22%. Very few members indicated they were either very satisfied (5%) or very dissatisfied (about 7%). This distribution of responses suggests that members are feeling rather ambivalent about the settlement.  

Survey respondents provided a wide variety of comments on the contract language, but the issue most members identified as concerning was (unsurprisingly) the loss of Research and Study Leave for professional members. Comments were broadly aligned with the discussion among members during bargaining, which includes broad, but certainly not unanimous, support for this benefit.  

In addition to the RSL issue, cost of living, inflation, and wages were frequently mentioned. Members broadly felt the cost-of-living adjustment was inadequate. Cost of home office was identified as needing to be addressed. 

Jobs in Athabasca 

As previously reported, a majority of respondents (73%) supported AUFA’s current position that, while no current AUFA member should be forced to re-locate, AU should make an effort to hire a portion of new staff to the Athabasca area. MEC also asked if AUFA should take a position on this issue at all, and a majority (67%) agreed that it should. 

Understanding that, as a union, we are often dealing with multiple priorities, MEC also asked about the relative importance of this issue. There was more disagreement on this question, with only 51% of respondents suggesting it was important that AUFA take a position. That is, there seems to be a portion of members (about 15–25%) who think AUFA should take a position and who agree with AUFA’s current position, but who don’t see this issue as a top concern. There were some identifiable differences when analyzing this question in more detail, so it’s worth taking a look at where some of this discrepancy comes from.  

There were some notable differences here when comparing new employees with those who have been at AU for longer. This issue is important to just 31% of employees who have been at AU fewer than 10 years, while 81% of those who have been at AU more than 20 years said this issue was important to them. 

It is also worth noting that support for AUFA’s position on this issue varies widely between faculties and departments, with the strongest support in FB, FHSS, and the IT department, and weakest support in FHD, FST, and other departments. 

Member comments were diverse. Some members noted that requiring candidates live in Athabasca may narrow the applicant pool unacceptably. Other suggested that candidates could be enticed to live in Athabasca through meaningful incentives.  

Some members felt AU’s primary role is to educate students, not contribute to the economy of Athabasca. Other members note that AU’s location was chosen for economic development purposes and there is no necessary conflict between providing online education while having a portion of jobs located in the Athabasca area. 

Other members were concerned that successive Boards and executives had mishandled this issue (primarily by ignoring it) and that the government was intervening due to political pressure. Some members suggested that the university executive should be expected to model a commitment to Athabasca by living in the Athabasca area, at least part of the time. Others suggested rethinking this issue in order to take advantage of the possibilities a rural campus offers.  

While a lot has happened since this survey was conducted in June, the AUFA executive’s open letter points to several ways in which this issue might be resolved in a constructive and mutually beneficial way.  

Netskope and Privacy 

Members were strongly in favour of AUFA taking steps to protect their privacy after AU installed surveillance software called Netskope on member computers without forewarning or data governance

Members’ comments provide many insights about their concerns with this program being used on their work computers, with some common themes: 

  • It constitutes a breach of privacy. Members feel concerned about this being a breach to their right to privacy, confidentiality, and security in the workplace. 

  • It creates a culture of mistrust between workers and the employer, as they feel not trusted and feel spied and surveilled by the employer. 

  • Lack of transparency. Members manifested being concerned about not being properly informed on the reasons why this program is being used, about the data that is being collected, and about the implications that this may have for their privacy in the workplace. 

  • It jeopardizes research participants’ right to security, anonymity, and confidentiality. Members who manage and storage research data collected among vulnerable populations (including Indigenous, racialized, and those with precarious legal status) think that the tracking of this information jeopardizes the security of research participants and their right to confidentiality and privacy, making researchers to incur in violations of research protocols. 

  • Lack of informed consent. Members feel concerned about the fact that the decision to install a program to collects information was made on a top-down manner, without previous consultation, proper notice, or consent. 

  • Insecurity in the workplace. Members fear that the information that is being collected can be used to punish those engaged in disputes with the employer. 

  • Threat to safety. Members feel unsafe in the workplace, as they have no clear understanding of what type of information is being tracked and collected, and as they have no clear understanding if this information includes family/personal information. 

  • It affects productivity and morale, as the feelings of being spied “all the time” discourages engagement with the job. It also discourages the search of information that can be seen as “suspicious” from the point of view of the employer. 

  • There are no clear policies and rules governing the use of this software in the workplace. 

The AUFA executive is following up with the employer about the use of this software and the timelines for a privacy impact assessment, but have so far received no new information.  

The survey also asked members about their use of the AUFA website. This feedback has been shared with the communications committee and will help inform future work to improve the website for members.  

MEC extends its thanks to its volunteer callers as well as the members who took the time to answer the survey. The next MEC survey is planned for this fall. If you would like to be volunteer to help with survey calls, please email engagement@aufa.ca

 

Rhiannon Rutherford 

AUFA President

Open letter: Grounding AU in Athabasca

After receiving many excellent and thoughtful contributions to our last blog post and through a townhall meeting last week, we have developed an open letter that presents an alternative path forward for the current stalemate. This open letter was sent to both the Minister of Advanced Education and the Board of Governors of Athabasca University on August 24.

Along with a set of constructive ideas that could actually help to resolve this long-standing issue, we have emphasized the need to take forced relocations off the table, the need to back up rhetoric with real action, and the need to involve faculty and staff more meaningfully in decision making.

Access the full letter through the link below:

https://aufacultyassociation.squarespace.com/s/Open_letter_Athabasca.pdf

Thanks!!

Rhiannon

More Details on Digital Picketing

Back in December, AUFA’s Job Action Committee (JAC) provided an overview of flying (i.e., in-person) and digital picketing. As a potential strike and/or lockout looms, this post provides additional details about digital picketing during the first few weeks of any work stoppage. An earlier post this week provided some additional details on flying pickets. 

Overview of Digital Pickets 

If a strike or lockout occurs, AUFA will be organizing four kinds of digital picketing to start with: 

  • recruiting individuals to sign AUFA’s online petition,  

  • sharing materials on social media,  

  • contacting selected individuals (administrators, university donors, MLAs) by phone and email, and  

  • contacting non-striking staff to check in on them and ask them to honour our picket line. 

Each day AUFA members will receive updated instructions about digital picketing activities.  

Some forms of digital picketing will entail the use of email or social media accounts. Members interested in creating anonymous email and social media accounts can follow these instructions. 

Instructions for email: Disposable email account - How to.pdf

Instructions for social media:  Disposable Twitter account - How to.pdf

Recruiting Individuals to Sign AUFA’s Online Petition 

AUFA will be launching an online petition that emails each petition signature to key actors at AU. Petition signatories will be pledging not to enroll in an AU course and not to recommend AU to others until a fair deal is concluded. The purposes of the petition are to: 

  • easily allow allies and the public to support us, and 

  • apply reputational and financial pressure to settle by demonstrating large numbers of interested students are refraining from registering in AU courses until the strike ends.  

Individual AUFA members will be asked to use their networks of family, friends, colleagues, and acquaintances to solicit five (or more!) signatures per day. This work will supplement our in-person leafletting work with current PSE students on campuses that send AU significant numbers of visiting students. 

What to do: 

  • Each day, contact five people you know individually by phone, video chat, email, text, or by seeing them in person. If you are nervous about this, start close to home with family and friends. 

  • Explain you are on strike, and that you need two minutes of their time to help us get a fair deal. 

  • Ask them to sign the online petition (link and QR code provided). 

What not to do: 

  • Do not mass email your contact list; that approach is ineffective. Personalized communications matter. 

Sharing Materials on Social Media 

AUFA will be providing a daily shareable (e.g., photos, memes, infographics) for members to share on social media. The purposes of these shareables are to: 

  • generate public awareness of the strike by flooding social media spaces,  

  • apply reputational pressure on the employer to settle, and  

  • drive traffic to our online petition. 

What to do: 

  • Share the memes on your social media accounts (e.g., Facebook, twitter, Instagram, Reddit, TikTok, and so on). 

  • Where a social media platform uses tags, ensure you use: #AUFAStrike #AthabascaU 

  • Express how the employer’s behaviour is affecting you, such as “I’m tired to being treated poorly”, “I miss my students”, or “I’d rather be working”. 

  • If you would like to add your own comments to a post, consider making a clear demand, such as “negotiate a fair deal” or “fair wages now”. 

  • Direct interested people to our online petition. 

What not to do: 

  • Do not engage with online trolls; they are not making good-faith arguments, are a waste of time, and are best ignored and/or blocked.  

Contacting Selected Individuals by Phone or Email 

AUFA will be providing a rotating list of the names, emails, and/or phone numbers of selected individuals for members to contact. These individuals are people who may be able to help us get a fair deal. This list will include members of Athabasca University’s Board of Governors and Executive Group, as well as donors, and MLAs. The purposes of these contacts are to: 

  • generate awareness of the strike among key audiences, and 

  • apply pressure (social, reputational, and financial) on the Board to settle. 

What to do: 

  • Each day, contact the identified individuals by phone or email. 

  • Explain you are on strike, and you need their help to get a fair deal. 

  • Ask Board and executive members to negotiate a fair deal. 

  • Ask donors to stop donating to AU for the duration of the strike and to tell AU that they plan to halt any donation until AUFA gets a fair contract. 

  • Ask MLAs to direct AU’s Board to negotiate a fair deal. 

What not to do: 

  • Do not mass email individuals; as noted above, that approach is ineffective. 

Contacting Non-Striking Staff to Check-in and Ask for Support 

AUPE and CUPE staff will continue to work during a strike. This will be a stressful time for our colleagues. We will be asking AUFA members to call a small number of our non-striking colleagues each day to check in on them.  

During this call, you might also tell them how the strike is going for you and thank them for declining to perform AUFA work during the strike. The purposes of these calls are to: 

  • ensure non-striking staff are okay, 

  • convey general information about the strike to non-striking staff, and 

  • ensure they are aware they can refuse to perform struck work. 

What to do: 

  • Each day, contact a few non-striking staff that you know. 

  • Have a short, polite chat about how they are doing and also how the strike is going. 

  • Thank them for their hard work and for respecting the AUFA strike.  

What not to do: 

  • Do not keep people on the phone for longer than 10 minutes. 

  • Do not call anyone who has asked you not to call them. 

JAC hopes this additional information is helpful in explaining what digital picketing will look like initially. As the strike and/or lockout goes on, we may change tactics.  

If you have questions about digital picketing, please direct them to me at barnetso@athabascau.ca

 

Bob Barnetson, Chair 

Job Action Committee 

Board Report, December 10, 2021

Several AUFA members attend the December 10 Board of Governors (BoG) meeting. These are the observations they shared with AUFA.

  • Riot Act: The Board chair started the meeting by telling observers not to disrupt or record the meeting. Observers are only able listen in a phone. This warning was apparently unprecedented. It may suggest the Board is beginning to feel some pressure over their poor behaviour at the bargaining table and were worried about disruption of BoG meetings.

  • Opaque governance: The reports that comprise the agenda are not available to the public and are mostly dealt with as part of the consent agenda (i.e., there is no discussion). This means that most of the business of the Board is transacted in secret. The meeting ran only about 90 minutes of the 4.5 hours allotted.

  • Executive dominated: The university executive did approximately 90% of the talking at the Board meeting. Only one public Board member asked a substantive question, albeit a minor one. It is unclear how engaged the Board members actually are in governance.

  • President’s report: The acting president’s verbal report touched on four issues: performance funding metrics, progress on the near virtual initiative, downward enrollment trends, and progress on EDI initiatives. The acting president said nothing substantive, and no questions were asked of the acting president by Board members.

  • Enrollments: Some additional analysis of enrollments was presented. The 2020/21 COVID bump in enrollments appears to have been driven by existing student taking more courses, rather than an influx of new students. Some institutions are charging students fees (e.g., the U of L charges $100 for students to take a course elsewhere), which may be affecting visiting enrollments (which are off precipitously). According to the VP University Relations, AU is not doing much recruitment in response to an 11% year-over-year drop in enrollment because it is awaiting the development of an enrollment management strategy.

  • Lease extension: A two-year extension of leases at the Trail Location (for approximately 7000 sq feet of space) was approved. This was explicitly discussed as transitional space for meetings, hoteling, and collaborations. The leases were to provide for an early termination option.

  • Chair’s report: The totality of the chair’s report was a gift presentation to the departing acting President and an announcement of seasonal gifts for Board members. There was no discussion of AU’s growing labour unrest.

Thanks to the members who attended this meeting and reported back. The next BoG meeting is March 5, 2022, from 8:30 am to 1 pm