abpse

Faculty strike at Concordia enters second week

Last Thursday, 10 AUFA members joined in solidarity with striking faculty at Concordia University Edmonton (CUE), walking the picket line in blisteringly cold January weather. The CUE strike is unprecedented. It is the first post-secondary strike in Alberta’s history. This post provides some background and analysis on the strike, as well as identifying the implications for AUFA.

Background

Concordia is a private university located in Edmonton that focuses on providing high-quality, mostly undergraduate degrees. The university’s faculty association is small (~82 members) and includes faculty members, professional librarians, laboratory instructors, and field placement coordinators. Concordia also employs a large number of temporary sessional instructors who are not members of Concordia University Edmonton Faculty Association (CUEFA).

Concordia’s financial situation is strong. Its 2020/21 expenditures were $35.3 million and it generated an operating surplus of $11.5m (~33%). The previous year, its operating surplus was $7.8m. Most of the surpluses come from tuition revenue (enrollment and tuition are increasing). Overall, tuition and fees account for 64.3% of total university revenue.

At the end of fiscal year 2020/21, Concordia had $39.8m in the bank. Rather than reinvest some of that surplus to compensate chronically underpaid teaching staff, the university instead used $1.75m to buy the historic Magrath Mansion on Ada Blvd. University administration insists that the residence will serve as a campus, but it’s presently zoned as residential so it can’t be used that way. The building is also more than a century old, is architecturally unsuited for university use, and requires significant and ongoing financial resources just to maintain it.

Bargaining to Date

CUEFA has been bargaining for a new contract since early 2021. Concordia faculty have among the lowest salaries in Canada, and labour under among the heaviest teaching loads in Canada (~8 courses per year). Not surprisingly, then, fair and reasonable salary improvements, as well as a workload reduction remain top issues at bargaining.

The nexus between salary and workload is especially salient, since Concordia’s administration is demanding ever greater faculty research output in an effort to enhance the institution’s research reputation. Concordia’s goal is fine. But it can’t do that on the backs of relatively low-waged and overworked staff. The parties are also negotiating intellectual property provisions.

During bargaining, Concordia proposed new disciplinary language which appears to mean that university administrators could terminate faculty without just cause. No other faculty association in Canada has disciplinary language that gives the employer so much latitude, in part because workers know an employer will abuse such discretion. It’s also just plain unfair, and violates basic principles of any collegial workplace.

In November, CUEFA took a strike vote. Ninety-five percent of members voted and 90% of them voted in favour of a strike. Subsequently, the employer and the union were able to make some progress on faculty workload issues (but not for other members).

Concordia offered to withdraw its disciplinary proposal if CUEFA agrees to sign over its members’ intellectual property to the employer. This proposal suggests Concordia’s disciplinary language is simply an effort by the employer to generate some bargaining leverage. After the first week of the strike, Concordia withdrew this just-cause proposal.

One social media report suggests Concordia was offering:

2021/22: 0%

2022/23: 0%

2023/24: 0.5%

2024/25: 1.0%

2025/26: 1.5%

For context, inflation in Alberta in 2021 was 4.3%. Concordia declined CUEFA offers in mediation and the faculty began their strike on January 4.

Concordia not only has the capacity to pay its faculty a fair wage, but, as a private institution, it is not subject to the provincial government’s secret bargaining mandates that limit what other PSEs can agree to. Essentially, this strike is entirely the making of Concordia’s Board and president. This means that Concordia can resolve this strike at any time by returning to the bargaining table (which they have so far refused to do).

Strike Impact

One way to think about a strike is as an effort by workers to attach costs to an employer’s behaviour. If the costs are high enough, the employer will behave differently and, presumably, a mutually acceptable collective agreement will be negotiated. The CUEFA strike has (so far) generated the following costs for Concordia:

  • Operational: All classes are cancelled, including those taught by non-CUEFA employees (see below).

  • Financial: Concordia has deferred tuition deadlines and is at risk of losing an entire semester of tuition.

  • Reputational: Concordia has received negative media stories and social media coverage that contrast its decision to buy a literal mansion with its decision to grind faculty wages. This bad press jeopardizes Concordia’s reputation as a good employer and a reliable provider of education.

It is unclear what Concordia’s strategy is beyond trying to starve out to CUEFA. University administrators may be hoping that CUEFA will call off its strike before Concordia loses the semester and a large portion of its revenue. It may also be that Concordia does not have much of a strategy; it was reportedly taken aback that faculty were prepared to strike.

Impact on Sessionals

A largely unreported aspect of the strike is that Concordia’s decision to cancel classes has left its large complement of non-unionized sessional instructors in the lurch. These instructors, highly qualified and dedicated all, are not being allowed to teach and are not being paid even though they are not on strike.

The sessionals have few options and none of them are good. They may be able to sue for wrongful dismissal, but that is expensive, slow, and likely means they will never work at Concordia again. Alternately, they can sit tight and hope for a quick resolution. Either way, they’re facing deeply unfair financial hardships.

Settlement Prospects

Bargaining resumed after the first week of the strike. Concordia reportedly dropped its demand to fire faculty for no reason at all on the first day of renewed bargaining. Issues remaining in dispute are workloads for CUEFA members other than professors, intellectual property, and salaries.

CUEFA is reporting that its wage demands could be met with approximately $350,000 in additional funding (or, if you prefer, approximately 0.18 mansions). Concordia forcing a strike and risking its reputation over 3% of its annual surplus demonstrates astoundingly bad judgment.

One impediment to a settlement may be government pressure on Concordia to not settle for more than the government’s PSE mandate (which presently appears to mirror the AUPE government settlement). Ego may also be an issue: such a settlement would be a big step-down by Concordia bosses, including its president (and mansion enthusiast) Tim Loreman.

Implications for AUFA

The CUEFA strike has a couple of lessons for AUFA:

  • Pressure works, but incrementally. CUEFA made workload gains only after it took a strike vote. CUEFA forced Concordia to drop its discipline language only after striking. Essentially, each time CUEFA has upped the pressure, the employer has moved.

  • You can’t bluff. You have to be prepared to carry out your threats. If you won’t strike, you are stuck accepting whatever rollbacks the employer wants to impose. And the employer won’t take you seriously next time if you get caught bluffing.

  • Effective strikes are possible, even in a pandemic. CUEFA has fully disrupted Concordia’s operations and choked off Concordia’s main source of revenue.

  • Solidarity helps. Flying and digital pickets help boost strikers’ morale and amplify their message. This intensifies the pressure on the employer to bargain. CUEFA has seen strong support from other unions, faculty associations, and students.

  • Pressure takes time to work. It took a week of financial and reputational pressure for Concordia to drop its disciplinary demands. Having access to the CAUT strike fund allows CUEFA members the time to let the pressure work.

  • Employers often seek outcomes that they don’t objectively need. Concordia is flush with cash and doesn’t need wage freezes. So why did it trigger a strike? Common reasons include the employer wanting to knock workers down a peg, undermine growing worker power, appease someone powerful, and to protect bosses’ egos. Employers can also blunder into strikes by under-estimating worker resolve.

  • Employers don’t care about students (or other workers). Concordia’s decision to force a strike is harming students and sessionals. These predictable spillover effects are an unfortunate reality of work stoppages. It isn’t up to workers to prevent these harms—only the employer can do that.

  • Nonetheless, students and workers are supportive of strikes. Most have more in common with the strikers than they do with the bosses. They understand the need for fair wages and working conditions. And they understand that striking is how workers achieve those goals.

AUFA will again be joining CUEFA on the picket line on Thursday afternoon, from 1-3. If you’d like to come out, please contact me at barnetso@athabascau.ca .

You can also send CUE president and mansion enthusiast Tim Loreman and email using this CAUT mailer. So far, Loreman has received nearly 1200 emails.

Bob Barnetson, Chair

Job Action Committee

AU facing substantial cuts, potential layoffs

On March 31, President Neil Fassina’s Connect with the President session raised several concerning issues. At this point, we know the following.

First, the government has given AU an “expenditure reduction target” of approximately $34 millions over three years. In year one, this reduction is approximately $28 million (roughly 18-22% of the budget). This expenditure reduction (which has apparently been applied to all institutions) compounds the base grant reductions set out in the budget.

The Board appears to be complying with this very unreasonable government demand, rather than resisting it. While the president mentioned that AU would be looking at ways to reduce expenses other than layoffs, it is likely there will be layoffs. AUFA has prepared an FAQ about the layoff provisions in the AUFA agreement.

Accommodating a $34 million reduction through layoffs would require the termination of approximately 300 staff members (the number would vary depending on who was laid off). If there are roughly 750 full-timers, this would mean laying off approximately 40% of staff (this calculation excluded part-time tutors and academic experts) so, cutting expenditures via layoffs, would, ironically, substantially increase costs in the short-term.

Such a level of layoff would likely compromise the ability of the institution to deliver its current programming (which would reduce revenue). It would also further undermine morale and damage the institution’s reputation. Three hundred layoffs would also create severance costs of somewhere between $30 and $40 million (again, depending on who was laid off). AU does not presently have this amount of money in reserves

Second, all three unions (AUFA, AUPE and CUPE) are beginning bargaining shortly, as are most other faculty associations. This expenditure reduction target will likely result in the employer tabling wage and language rollbacks. The employer is likely to indicate that, if AUFA does not accept rollbacks, there will be layoffs. It is unclear whether or not the employer will be offering anything worthwhile in exchange.

Third, during the Connect with the President session this morning, Neil said: 

One final question that[ …]that relates to individuals asking "What if I can't work at home," whether or not it be because of child care, elder care, internet connections [… ]and this is another one of those stark unfortunate realties that while we seek to keep our team members as whole as we humanly can for as long as we humanly can, there will be a date in the not so distant future where the university has to make a decision. It has to be able to say that unless you're able to work for us full time - I get it there are needs to work around in the home environment - but unless there is an opportunity to work fulltime we can't legitimately continue to employ people on a less than fulltime basis and still be able to keep our organization running. It's going to be hard, and frankly it's not possible to keep people entirely whole indefinitely as we start to face some of the true working from home challenges.

AUFA is very concerned that AU is preparing to force AU employees to choose between their jobs and their caretaking responsibilities. These employees are more likely (but not exclusively) to be women.

This announcement was very disheartening and may be be discriminatory. As a means of assisting AUFA members who may be negatively affected, the Membership Engagement Committee will be surveying staff who have been moved to home offices due to the COVID-19 pandemic to identify their needs and required accommodations. Please expect the MEC committee to be in touch with members shortly.

If you are concerned about being personally targeted due to caretaker responsibilities, please contact the AUFA Office at aufahq@aufa.ca


Jolene Armstrong, President