wechooseaufa

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.  

Open letter to Dr. Peter Scott and AU’s Executive Team

Dear Dr. Peter Scott and members of AU’s Executive Team,

As you are likely aware, collective bargaining between AU and AUFA has not been going well.

We fully respect that you are maintaining distance from the process to allow AU’s bargaining team to represent the employer’s interests at the table. However, the current context does suggest that some direction from the Executive Team may be necessary to bring this extended conflict to a mutually satisfactory conclusion.

Specifically, there are significant contextual factors that are important to highlight.

AUFA members want a fair deal

AUFA members recently rejected a mediator’s proposed settlement by 77%, with 91% of members voting. This sends a strong and clear message that the concessions AU has been seeking in this round of bargaining are simply not acceptable.

No one is looking forward to a strike or lockout that could entail significant disruptions for learners. But AUFA members have also demonstrated that they are not willing to accept significant concessions that would erode working conditions, collegiality, and student experiences over time. Despite previous framing of AUFA as the aggressive party in this dispute, AUFA members are fully aware that our true position is that of defending valued protections and benefits from an unnecessarily aggressive employer.

Not all our members agree on every issue—that is the nature of a democratic organization—but our ongoing engagement efforts have revealed some clear themes that provide important context for determining what a fair deal might look like in this context.

We want to be excited about the future of AU

Our members have told us they believe deeply in the mission of this university. The strongest consensus that has emerged from our consultations is that we care about students and about learning. We want to be excited about our work. We want to be innovative, creative, and rigorous. But we feel blocked by a combination of factors and forces.

The most common concern is that our members feel overwhelmed by work and stripped of agency. Professional members affected by reorganization and major change initiatives feel they are denied the chance to do their best work. Academic members worry about the erosion of collegial governance while pressure increases a sense of precarity, especially for those newer to AU. Our members tell us key decisions are made in ways that shut out our expertise, experience, and enthusiasm.

We don’t oppose change and transformation, but it matters how that change happens. We don’t want to feel bullied, belittled, or ignored. We want you to listen to our feedback—really listen—and meaningfully include us in decision-making processes.

AUFA members are realizing that the process of collective bargaining offers a rare chance to assert our own agency. We don’t have to passively accept negative changes to our working conditions. Instead, we can demand the respect we deserve. We have heard from many members who suggest that they don’t want to strike but they will if necessary.

It’s about more than the language on the table

We all know this round of bargaining doesn’t exist in isolation. Our collective agreement has a long history and context and is intertwined with other aspects of our work environment.

There are a wide range of management decisions that influence how we feel about what’s going on at the bargaining table. There are many examples of this, so we’ll only name a few.

  • The IT Optimization project was a really negative experience for most of our affected members, many of whom continue to feel devalued and stripped of agency.

  • Top-down decisions affecting members in the Faculty of Health Disciplines, in particular, have combined with the pressures of educating front-line workers throughout the pandemic to create significant stress and erode morale.

  • Many members have experienced the Near-Virtual initiative as stressful and contradictory.

  • Many members have expressed concern about the lack of consultation and transparency during the implementation of the Integrated Learning Environment.

  • We routinely field calls from members looking for clarification and support with navigating AU’s own processes, including significant concerns about a lack of support from HR with basic employment needs and an unnecessarily adversarial approach to labour relations.

  • Members continue to feel anxious about AU’s threat to de-designate them from the union.

These experiences illustrate why we see a clear signal in our surveys that our members have extremely low levels of trust in AU’s leadership. Trust was already low when we started the surveys during Dr. Neil Fassina’s tenure, and it has only dropped since. In November 2021, only 15% of members surveyed said they agreed with the statement, “I trust the executive team of the university,” while 58% said they did not. AUFA members are not alone in this. Many AUPE and CUPE members have shared similar frustrations.

This low level of trust affects how we interpret communications from AU. Many members describe feeling insulted or outraged when reading AU’s communications, even on topics unrelated to bargaining, and have described it as incomplete, misleading, or disingenuous.

To be clear, this is not a reflection of the way our members who facilitate AU communications do their work. Rather, this reflects frustration and even exasperation with the lack of meaningful, transparent, and timely communication shared by AU’s top leaders.

It’s important for you to understand that our members have learned over the years to be suspicious or skeptical of the information and spin offered by AU’s leadership. What this means is that platitudes and vague promises won’t win our trust back. We need concrete and tangible actions.

You have the power to change course

The AUFA executive and volunteers will keep listening to AUFA members. In the past few weeks, we have heard that many members feel distracted and demoralized, and that most would very much appreciate an end to this lengthy battle. But our members are also focused on safeguarding and advancing valued protections and benefits.

It is clear that the university is the body with the power to change course. You have the opportunity to set a new tone that foregrounds respect for the workers of this university. You have the chance to open a new chapter of improved labour relations and increased collegiality. Give us all—our members, our colleagues, and our students—the chance to look to the future of AU with renewed optimism and energy.

We ask that you send a strong signal that you are ready to acknowledge, respect, and value the work we do. It’s time for you to demonstrate that you’re prepared to empower us to do our best work in service of our shared mission to remove barriers and increase equality of educational opportunity for adult learners worldwide.


Respectfully,

AUFA Executive and Members

This letter, with 130 AUFA members' signatures included, was delivered to Dr. Scott and the AU Executive on April 5, 2022. We are hopeful this will help to encourage the employer to take a different approach to bargaining than we've seen over the past several months.

AUFA applies for strike vote 

After consulting with the bargaining team, AUFA’s executive has applied to the Alberta Labour Relations Board to hold a strike vote. The online vote is scheduled to take place between 9 am and 9 pm on Tuesday, March 29. 

This announcement to the membership was slightly delayed because AUFA’s bargaining team agreed to suspend strike communication on March 18 in order to gain the employer’s agreement for further mediation today.  

The Executive will be holding membership townhall meeting to provide a bargaining update and discuss the strike vote. 

How we got here 

In February, AUFA applied for formal mediation after 11 months of unproductive bargaining. Formal mediation began and ended on March 8. This started a 14-day cooling-off period before a strike vote could be held. 

The bargaining team has continued bargaining (with a different mediator) on March 11, 18, and 22. The parties agreed to not disclose the substance of their discussions during mediation. No agreement has yet been reached. AUFA’s team remains ready to bargain to achieve a fair deal. 

The employer’s past behaviour suggests that AU makes significant moves only when AUFA applies significant pressure. For example, AU only presented a full offer in January (after 10 months of bargaining) when AU was faced with a Labour Board hearing over a complaint that AU was bargaining in bad faith. AU only moved to propose a pattern cost-of-living offer after AUFA filed for formal mediation on in February. 

AUFA members’ 85% rejection of AU’s March 8 offer has not yielded a subsequent offer from AU that AUFA’s bargaining team thinks is worth presenting to the membership. The AUFA Executive is of the opinion that a successful strike vote may provide the pressure needed to get a fair deal from AU. 

How a strike vote works 

A strike vote is an online vote (just like any other AUFA vote) that is supervised by the Labour Board. It asks members whether they would authorize a strike (yes or no). Once the vote has been completed and certified by the Labour Board (and assuming a majority of voters authorize a strike), AUFA’s executive is then able, any time in the next 120 days, to give AU 72 hours of notice of a strike beginning.  

A successful strike vote does not necessarily mean strike notice is immediately served (although it can be). Typically, a successful strike vote results in further bargaining as the employer confronts the possibility of an actual strike. 

To maximize the employer’s incentive to bargain a deal, unions seek the strongest possible ‘yes’ vote. This shows the employer there will be real consequences if they employer refuses to negotiate a fair deal. 

What you can do to show support the bargaining team   

The biggest thing you can do is to vote ‘yes’ to authorize a strike. This sends a clear message to the employer that their refusal to sign a fair deal will have consequences. This gives the bargaining team leverage to negotiate a deal before a strike. 

Things you can do today include changing your Office 365 profile image to the We Are AU + We Are AUFA image below. This visually demonstrates your support for the bargaining team. Right click on the image below and save it to your computer. Then follow these instructions to substitute the image in place of your regular profile picture.

Instructions for changing your image in Microsoft Teams can be found here.

You can also save the MS Teams backgrounds below to your hard drive and follow these instructions to make them available as a virtual background option in Teams. Your new MS Teams background will appear backwards (i.e., mirror image) when you activate it. Don’t worry, other people will not see this ‘mirror’ view. 

I hope to see you all at the townhall later this week. Please keep your eyes peeled for more information about AUFA strike plans over the next few days. 

In solidarity, 

 

Dave Powell 

AUFA President 

 

 

Holiday memes campaign

Our next bargaining date is December 8 (the November 30 date was cancelled by the employer due to illness). Over the next two weeks, AUFA will be posting daily memes on its Twitter (@AUFacultyAssoc) and Facebook accounts. The first meme is also posted above.

The Job Action Committee (JAC) has developed this campaign to attach costs to the employer’s unwillingness to provide a full offer, which is required for meaningful collective bargaining to take place. This is also an opportunity for JAC to experiment with shareable images that it expects will a part of AUFA’s digital picketing repertoire in the event of a work stoppage.

JAC is hoping that members will check AUFA’s Twitter and/or Facebook accounts each day and share meme they find there. JAC will be slightly tweeking this approach in the second week to further experiment with how they deliver this info to AUFA members.

In solidarity,

Dave Powell, President

Why emphasize "we choose AUFA"?

feb 20.jpg

Some AUFA members have asked why the membership engagement committee (MEC) is advancing the slogan “We choose AUFA.” Other AUFA members have queried if AUFA should be making arguments about the nature of academic work rooted in the higher education literature.

These are useful questions to ask because they speak to the nature of the designation dispute and the strategy MEC and the AUFA executive is advancing. This blog post discusses MEC’s thinking behind the “We choose AUFA” slogan.

What Kind of Argument?

Academic arguments are intended to discern the truth of an issue by applying logic and evidence. They assume that both parties are earnestly searching for the truth and will accept it when it is found.

AU’s proposal to de-designate 67% of the bargaining unit is not an academic argument over what the definition of an academic ought to be. Rather, de-designation is an effort by AU to increase its power at the bargaining table by busting the union.

For this reason, MEC has been reluctant to enter into arguments about who is an academic based upon the higher education literature (or other criteria). The employer is not seeking truth—they are simply using their de-designation power to pursue their collective bargaining interests.

The employer’s quest for more power cannot be thwarted by making a really good academic argument. Further, the nuanced discussion typical of academic arguments provides the employer with an opportunity to cherry-pick things AUFA members say in good faith and then use them out of context against us.

We Choose AUFA

MEC selected “We choose AUFA” because it aligns with the legal tests we will need to meet at the Alberta Labour Relations Board, should AU proceed to de-designate any AUFA members.

Section 58.6(2) of the Labour Relations Code outlines five criteria that the Labour Board must consider in any appeal of a de-designation:

  1. History of designation: An institution’s past practice provides important context. It can speak to whether the current arrangement is functional and whether there is a shared community of interest among affected employees.

  2. Results of consultation: The consultation can tell the Labour Board about the desires of the affected workers as well as the arguments advanced by the employer (so far, none are evident) for any change.

  3. Potential for managerial conflict of interest: Some employees may be best excluded from the bargaining unit because their managerial responsibilities create a conflict of interest. AU’s present policy addresses this by excluding the senior executive, directors, and staff who perform labour relations functions.

  4. Arrangements for the transition of affected employees: The impact of de-designation can be significant. (Rather alarmingly, AU claims it hasn’t worked out what these implications are yet). AU’s mitigation (or lack of mitigation) of the negative effects of de-designation may suggest that de-designation is inappropriate.

  5. Interests of other bargaining agents: The boundaries of a bargaining unit need to make labour relations sense. Units can’t be too small or too numerous and the unit needs to have a shared community of interest.

“We choose AUFA” starts from the premise that the workers should decide to which union they wish to belong. We have a right to associate to improve our lives and working conditions. And we should choose the union that represents us.

The employer should not be able to usurp our decision to associate or our longstanding associational arrangements by arbitrarily de-designating workers against our will. This is particularly true when the employer would benefit from such a de-designation by increasing its bargaining power.

That AUFA’s current membership has been successfully bargaining together for the past 37 years demonstrates that we have a shared community of interest in the union we have chosen. It also tells the Labour Board that our bargaining unit is viable, and we have worked out ways to manage frictions that exist with the union. Our history also suggests that any managerial conflicts have also been successfully addressed.

Finally, the support AUFA has received from CUPE and AUPE regarding maintaining the current bargaining unit boundaries tells the Labour Board that the current bargaining unit boundaries make labour relations sense.

Analysis

AU keeps trying to draw AUFA and its members into a detailed discussion of who should be an academic. The truth is, the current policy has worked fine for the past 37 years. The employer has provided no evidence that the current arrangement poses any sort of real institutional problem. The employer has provided no rationale for its proposal to radically alter the definition of academic.

The most likely explanation is that AU is simply trying to undercut AUFA’s bargaining power and render our strike threat moot. This will allow AU to drive rollbacks into our contract (just like they tried to last round).

While “We choose AUFA” is just a slogan, it is a slogan that represents the actual conflict that is happening. AU is trying to increase its bargaining power and that is not in the interests of any AUFA member. Our interest is in collectively defending the union we have chosen and making our choice as widely known as possible.

Bob Barnetson, Member

AUFA Membership Engagement Committee

We choose AUFA: January 31 Member Actions

lego header.jpg

This week, the membership engagement committee has an update on consultation and is rolling out three new actions to oppose AU’s proposed designation policy. This proposed change would carve 67% of the members out of AUFA’s bargaining unit.

Update on Consultation

On January 14, AUFA’s executive sent the following email to HR Director Charlene Polege to commence discussion about AU’s proposed policy change.

AU did not acknowledge AUFA’s email or provided any further information for two weeks. Late Wednesday, AU proposed 90-minute consultation meetings with each union between February 7 and 27. The date of AUFA’s consultation has not yet been finalized. AU responded to AUFA’s above email on the day of posting this blog, indicating their desire for rapid consultation over February.

AU’s email contained this passage that is worth unpacking:

We developed the criteria in the draft policy based on what our academic leadership felt described an academic, and not with an eye for changing the designation of any employees or groups of employees. The purpose of the policy is to identify the objective criteria that define an academic at AU today. 

The key take-aways appear to be:

  1. AU’s academic leadership (likely the president and the many VPs academic) developed the criteria that would exclude 67% of the members of the unit.

  2. The academic leadership does not believe the work of professionals, academic coordinators, deans, and associate deans is academic in nature.

  3. The criteria were allegedly not developed with “an eye for changing the designation of any employee or group of employees.”

This last statement is hard to reconcile with the obvious effect of the proposed criteria: de-designating two-thirds of AUFA members. If the academic leadership simply goofed in creating the criteria, then the good-faith response would be to admit that, withdraw the proposed policy, and start again.

Instead, AU is moving ahead with a seemingly abbreviated consultation process based on a fundamentally flawed definition of who is an academic. A reasonable conclusion to draw from AU’s behaviour is that (contrary to what AU says), the proposed policy is, in fact, intended to de-designate 67% of the bargaining unit in the run up to collective bargaining.

New Member Actions

Given AU’s apparent commitment to moving forward with the de-designation of 67% of the bargaining unit, we’re asking members to join us in two actions this week to help resist AU’s union-busting:

Temporary Profile Picture:

An AUFA member has designed a temporary “We choose AUFA” profile picture that you can use in your Office 365 profile. This picture will then appear in your email.

 To replace your profile picture on PC:

  1.  Save the image wechooseAUFA.png to your desktop by clicking the below button, right clicking on the image, and then ‘Save Image As’.

  2. In your browser, log into the web interface of Office 365:  https://portal.office.com/account/

  3. Click on “Personal Info”

  4. Click on “Change Photo”

  5. Click on browse and select the png and click “save”.

Buttons

Starting Friday at noon, “We choose AUFA” buttons will be available to AUFA members. We encourage you to wear these buttons while at work to demonstrate your commitment to maintaining AUFA’s existing membership.

The following AUFA members will have buttons available at their desks:

  • AU Athabasca: Bill Geng (Library), Carole Ganske (IT), Gail Leicht (Research Services)

  • AU Edmonton: Degan Richards (12th floor)

  • AU Trail: Miran Nevesinjac and Amanda Bachelot (IT)

We are looking for an AUFA member in Calgary to distribute buttons.

Teleworking members can pick up buttons from any AU location. We’ve decided not to mail buttons to each teleworking member due to cost. Instead, we ask teleworkers change their profile picture.

If you are attending a physical gathering of AUFA teleworkers and would like to receive a package of buttons to distribute at that meeting, please contact engagement@aufa.ca to make arrangements.

Posters

Attached is a new poster for you to print and post in your office. We would be interested in photos of your poster in the office.

Update on Last Week’s Actions

Last week, we asked members to take three actions to help us resist AU’s union-busting:

  1. Academic letter: Assistant, associate and full professors are asked to add their names to an open letter to the Provost requesting that AU abandon its proposed changes. We presently have signatures from half of AU professors.

  2. Testimonials: Professionals, academic coordinators, deans, associate deans, and managers are asked to write and submit testimonials about the impact of AU’s proposal.

  3. Discuss with supervisors: All staff are asked to continue to raise their concerns with AU’s proposed de-designations with their supervisors and during meetings. This includes asking your supervisors to query the rationale for AU’s proposal of executive members.

If you haven’t had a chance to sign the letter, write a testimonial, or discuss this issue with your supervisor, please do so this week.

Volunteering

Members interested in volunteering to assist with resisting AU’s de-designation proposal can contact the Membership Engagement Committee at engagement@aufa.ca or sign up on the website.

Bob Barnetson, Member

AUFA Membership Engagement Committee

We Choose AUFA

jan 22 blog.jpg

Last week, the Membership Engagement Committee hosted two well-attended member townhalls to discuss AU’s proposal to de-designate 67% of AUFA members. If the university moves ahead with this policy, there will be profound negative impacts on all AUFA members.

Members are understandably upset about this draft policy, and there was a lot of enthusiasm for participating in efforts to apply pressure on AU to walk away from their proposal. Members offered many suggestions to the committee about how members could resist AU’s proposal—from wearing buttons and posting signs in the workplace to disrupting the 50th anniversary celebrations. We are presently evaluating, prioritizing and operationalizing these suggestions.

AUFA’s Strategy

As set out in the townhalls, we presently have a threefold strategy to block AU’s efforts to bust the union.

  1. Consultation: The AUFA executive will be engaging AU in the consultation process required prior to any de-designations. AU has not yet identified the process or timelines of this consultation.

  2. Legal: AUFA is preparing to challenge any de-designations before the Labour Board.

  3. Member actions: Our belief is that a campaign of direct member actions is our best shot at stopping AU’s proposed de-designations.

Member Actions

This week, we’re asking members to join us in four actions to help resist AU’s union-busting:

  1. Academic letter: Assistant, associate and full professors (i.e., those who will remain in the AUFA unit under AU’s proposal) are asked to add their names to an open letter to the Provost requesting that AU abandon its proposed changes.  

  2. Testimonials: Those members who are at risk of being excluded from the unit (professionals, coordinators, deans, associate deans, and managers) are asked to write and submit testimonials about the impact of AU’s proposal.

  3. Discuss with supervisors: All staff are asked to raise their concerns with AU’s proposed de-designations with their supervisors. This includes asking your supervisors to query the rationale for AU’s proposal of executive members.

  4. Poster: We will be circulating images for AUFA members to use. Please print and post this member-made poster in your office window (a copy was also attached to the email you received announcing this post). Additional materials will be forthcoming.

Click poster to download

Additional actions will follow in the next few weeks.

Volunteering

Members interested in volunteering to assist with resisting AU’s de-designation proposal can contact the Membership Engagement Committee at engagement@aufa.ca or sign up on the website.

AU’s First Response: Gaslighting

Late last week, AU made a posting on its “Ask the Executive” page about its proposed de-designation. It includes the assertion that “Any discussion of excluding members from the bargaining unit is premature.”

Given the magnitude of the changes proposed by AU, this is clearly gaslighting (i.e., sowing seeds of doubt to cause the recipient to question their own perception). Receiving a proposal to carve two-thirds of the members out of the union is, obviously, exactly the time to begin discussing the exclusion of members.

This gaslighting is likely not surprising for most AUFA members. Our recent membership engagement survey revealed that only 30% of members agreed that they had trust in the senior leadership of the university , and that many members feel put off by AU’s rhetoric.

The most frequently cited complaint was about the substance and tone of communications from AU’s senior leadership. More charitable comments described the communications as superficial and devoid of content, while many more described the communications as disingenuous, putting forth a pleasant façade while major changes were planned in complete secrecy.

Disingenuous communication by AU’s executive has, sadly, become the norm.

Bob Barnetson, Member

AUFA Membership Engagement Committee