work stoppage

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.

Bargaining Update: Mediator Issues Report

After three days of mediation (March 11, 17 and 22), the mediator has issued a report to the parties with recommendations for a possible settlement. The AUFA bargaining committee has decided to forward the report directly to AUFA members for their consideration. A vote on whether to accept the report will be held on Tuesday, March 29 in lieu of the planned strike vote. There is a Town Hall on Friday, March 25 at 2 pm to discuss the report and next steps. 

Significantly, AUFA’s bargaining team is not making a recommendation to members on whether to accept or reject the report. Instead the bargaining team has elected to remain neutral during the voting process. The decision to hold a vote on the report is anchored in AUFA’s broader commitment to democracy, and to AUFA members’ right to make the decisions that will shape what is, ultimately, their collective agreement. 

This blog post outlines the key recommendations in the mediator’s report. The Town Hall will provide further analysis of the recommendations. Members can find a copy of the mediator’s report here.

Wages and Allowances 

The mediator is recommending the same cost-of-living (COLA) settlement seen at other universities: 

  • July 1, 2020: 0% 

  • July 1, 2021: 0% 

  • July 1, 2022: 0%  

  • April 1, 2023: 1.25% 

  • December 1, 2023: 1.5% 

  • An additional 0.5% retroactive to December 1, 2023, payable in February or March 2024 subject to a “Gain Sharing Formula” linked to provincial GDP growth 

AUFA members will also receive enhancements to their working-from-home allowances: 

  • Members who have not received $2000 for home-office set-up will be paid the difference between what they were paid and $2000 (e.g., members who received $1000 will receive an additional $1000). This payment is taxable. 

  • Academic staff members who previously received $2000 for office set up and have been employed for at least six years shall receive a one-time taxable $800 payment for home office expenses. 

  • Going forward all members required to work from home will receive $35 biweekly for printer and internet expenses (up from $61/month for academics and $25/biweekly for professionals).  

Research and Study Leave (RSL) 

Professionals, except librarians, will no longer be eligible for RSL as of the date of ratification. Professional members who are currently on RSL or have RSL approved will have their leaves honoured.  

Going forward, professionals will be allowed to carryover their annual entitlement of 21 days of PD leave to a maximum of 84 days (i.e., the equivalent of 4 years of PD entitlement) and will be able to request leaves up to that maximum. 

Professionals will have two options for dealing with accrued Research and Study Leave entitlements: 

  • Option One: Unused RSL leave can be surrendered in exchange for a one-time payment of $10,500. Any unused Professional Development days dating back to 2020 shall be returned to the member’s PD bank. 

  • Option Two: Members convert accrued RSL leave to PD leave up to a maximum of 12 months at 100% salary (using the conversion calculation in the current collective agreement). They will be allowed to request leaves up to the amount in their PD leave account. Carryover of PD days will not begin until the member’s account drops below 84 days (i.e., members will continue to earn PD days, but cannot carry them over at the end of the year). 

Employer proposals regarding academic RSL are withdrawn and the status quo remains.  

Other Provisions 

Employer-sought concessions regarding discipline (Article 7), grievance procedure (Article 8), appeals (Article 9), position reduction for academics (Article 12), layoffs for professionals, and probation review for professionals are withdrawn. In all cases, existing language remains. Small changes are made to professional position evaluation review, but members retain the right to appeal decisions under Article 9. 

The mediator recommends establishing a joint committee to review the current academic tenure and promotion process (in Article 3) to make recommendations for the next round of bargaining.  

Some recommendations address AUFA concerns in bargaining, including: 

  • Enhancing occupational health and safety language (Article 25). 

  • Reforming the Joint Benefits Committee to make it more effective in addressing AUFA members’ benefits concerns. 

  • Extending unpaid compassionate care leave to 27 weeks and expanding eligibility to include circumstances of “grave illness”. 

  • Inserting language in Article 3 to allow Indigenous Elders and knowledge holders to be recognized as eligible external reviewers for promotion applications from Indigenous academic members. 

  • Including a new letter of understanding that involves the joint employment equity committee in an advisory capacity in the development of AU’s equity, diversity, and inclusion action plan and in an employment equity review process. 

  • Both parties agreeing to abide by the Labour Relations Board decision regarding the status of Deans in the bargaining unit.  

Vote Results and Next Steps 

The results of the March 29 ratification vote will determine the next steps of the process.  

If members vote to accept the mediator’s report, then it will be considered a ratification of a new collective agreement, bargaining will come to an end, and the provisions in the report take effect as part of the collective agreement.  

If members vote to reject the report, then the parties will return to the bargaining table. The parties are free to bargain directly or continue to use the services of the mediator. Each party will revert to their previous positions before mediation. The mediator’s recommendations may or may not be considered in future bargaining.  

On behalf of the bargaining committee, 

Jason Foster 

Analysis of University of Lethbridge Settlement 

The University of Lethbridge Faculty Association (ULFA) recently ratified a new settlement following a lengthy strike. This blog post provides an overview of the ULFA settlement. Overall, this settlement extends the public-sector and PSE wage pattern but with some additional monetary and language improvements.  

Term and Money 

This four-year deal has a term of July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2024. The cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for all salaries and grids is as follows: 

July 1, 2020: 0%
July 1, 2021: 0%
July 1, 2022: 0%
April 1, 2023: 1.25%
December 1, 2023: 1.5%
Additional increase December 1, 2023: 0.5% (not guaranteed)

The additional increase scheduled for December of 2023 is contingent upon the province achieving a real GDP for the 2023 calendar year that is at or above 2.7% as of February 2024. If this condition is met in February of 2024, U of L will retroactively apply an additional 0.5% COLA to December 1, 2023. If this condition is not met, then no additional increase will be forthcoming.  

This means the ULFA settlement could see an (uncompounded) COLA increase of between 2.75% and 3.25% over its four-year term. Even with the addition of gain-sharing payments, this settlement will not maintain the purchasing power of ULFA salaries over time. For example, year-over-year inflation as of January 2022 was 5.1%.  

The ULFA settlement matches the COLA agreed to by AUPE for its government services bargaining unit, the Mount Royal Faculty Association (MRFA) settlement from late February, and the Association of Academic Staff: University of Alberta (AASUA) from early March. This appears to be the current “secret’ financial mandate issued the government. 

Extra Compensation 

In addition to the COLA settlement, ULFA was able to negotiate some additional changes. Key changes that have clear monetary implications include: 

  • Grid floors rise: Effective July 1, 2022, sessionals will see an 8% increase to the minimum stipends. Assistant and associate professors and some librarian grids will see a 10% increase to their grid floor. Assistant professor and one category of librarians will also see a 2% increase in salaries.  

  • Benefits: The employee and family assistance plan will be extended to cover sessional and term staff. A flexible benefit spending plan of $250 per year for all members except sessional or term staff was created. 

The value of this additional compensation is unclear. Additional compensation in non-salary form is also a feature of the AASUA, MRFA and United Nurses of Alberta deals.  

Language 

There were a significant number of language changes which vary across categories of employees. Of relevance to AUFA members include improvements in equity language that include: 

  • An expansion of the definition of service to better recognize work often done by members of equity-seeking groups, 

  • A larger equity committee with clearer terms of reference and purpose, 

  • A requirement to perform regular EDI studies, including pay equity studies, with redress of inequities normally within 12 months, 

  • Clearer language on what medical information is required for an accommodation, and 

  • New Indigenous evaluation language. 

You can read the full ratification package online.  

ULFA and the U of L also negotiated a returned-to-work protocol (a common thing after a strike). This protocol includes Board agreeing to allow ULFA members to purchase their pensionable service during the period of the strike as well as the Board agreeing to pay travel, professional, and research/grant expenses incurred during the strike. The U of L also agreed to destroy all surveillance data collected during the strike, and that ULFA members will face no strike-related disciplinary measures, reprisals, or legal action. 

Analysis 

The ULFA agreement provides a cost-of-living increase of between 2.75% and 3.25%. This mirrors the provincial and PSE wage pattern (and the government mandate). This is the same deal that AU offered AUFA on February 28 after filed for mediation. Additional compensation, in the form of benefits, grid, and salary improvements, adds to the overall improvement of compensation. 

ULFA also appears to have achieved some language improvements, particularly around equity issues. Notably, the ULFA deal does not appear to contain any of the massive language rollbacks that AU is trying to push on AUFA members.  

To get this deal, ULFA was required to strike for approximately 40 calendar days. The U of L was not available to bargain for the first 23 calendar days. One way to read this delay by the U of L is as a form of punishment for ULFA striking.  

Social media comments by ULFA members also suggest that the government was very much involved in the structure of the eventual agreement. This includes reports that the U of L negotiator had to call to get permission from the government to agree to certain outcomes. Whether this was actually the case or whether this was some sort of elaborate “talking to the manager in the back” ruse is unclear. 

ULFA’s language improvements likely reflect that, in order to get ULFA to accept the government’s lousy wage-mandate, the U of L had to agree to some of ULFA’s other proposals. Time will tell if AU prefers this option to a work stoppage. 

 

Jason Foster, Chair 

AUFA Bargaining Committee 

 

Bob Barnetson, Chair 

Job Action Committee 

Analysis of University of Alberta Settlement

The Association of Academic Staff: University of Alberta (AASUA) recently ratified a new settlement. This blog post provides an overview of the AASUA settlement. Overall, this settlement extends the public-sector and PSE wage pattern but with some additional monetary and language improvements.

Term and Money

This four-year deal has a term of July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2024. The cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for all salaries and grids is as follows:

Jul 1, 2020: 0%

July 1, 2021: 0%

July 1, 2022: 0%

April 1, 2023: 1.25%

December 1, 2023: 1.5%

Additional increase December 1, 2023: 0.5% (not guaranteed)

The additional increase scheduled for December of 2023 is contingent upon the province achieving a real GDP for the 2023 calendar year that is at or above 2.7% as of February 2024. If this condition is met in February of 2024, U of A will retroactively apply an additional 0.5% COLA to December 1, 2023. If this condition is not met, then no additional increase will be forthcoming.

This means the AASUA settlement could see an (uncompounded) COLA increase of between 2.75% and 3.25% over its four-year term. Even with the addition of gain-sharing payments, this settlement will not maintain the purchasing power of AASUA salaries over time. For example, year-over-year inflation as of January 2022 was 5.1%.

The AASUA settlement matches the COLA agreed to by AUPE for its government services bargaining unit and the Mount Royal Faculty Association (MRFA) settlement from late February. This appears to be the current “secret” financial mandate issued the government.

One interesting aspect of the AASUA settlement is the introduction of a two-tier salary grid for teaching only staff on two- to six-year contracts. New hires at the Full Lecturer rank would be subject to the lower grid (a 13% reduction in maximum compensation).

Old Grid

Introducing a two-tier wage system is usually easy to do, because the people affected aren’t yet hired so can’t vote against it. However, two-tier grids can erode solidarity in the long term. This is an example of the employer using wedge tactics (i.e., targeting a small group for workers rollbacks while bribing the rest of the workers with gains) to divide union members against each other over time.

We see AU using wedge tactics in its attack on professional rights at the bargaining table. In the fall, AUFA members overwhelming rejected these sorts of wedge tactics. When members hold firm, employers usually give up on them. For example, AU’s latest without-prejudice offer did not include (1) its proposed rollbacks to professional freedom or (2) its desire for new temporary layoff language for professionals.

Extra Compensation

In addition to the COLA settlement, AASUA was able to negotiate some additional changes. Key changes that have clear monetary implications include:

  • Benefits: Per capita funding of benefits increases based upon the consumer price index. The current year guide for dental fees takes effect upon ratification (lowering member out of pocket costs). Members who do not receive benefits see their pay in lieu rise from 3% of compensation to 4%.

  • Sabbaticals: Sabbatical pay rates for members rise to 90% of salary (previously they were at 90% for a first sabbatical and 82.5% for subsequent sabbaticals). Leave pay rates for professional staff rise to 100% of salary except where the leave primarily benefits the worker (which rises to 75% of salary).

AASUA suggests that these gains amount to about an additional 1% of compensation on top of COLA. Additional compensation in non-salary form is also a feature of the MRFA and United Nurses of Alberta deals.

Language

There were a significant number of language changes which vary across categories of employees. Most of these have little relevance to AUFA members.

There is new language regarding employment equity (Article 23). The employer retains significant discretion in this language in how it will achieve equity goals, but this article includes a requirement to periodically disclose demographic data to the faculty association.

The AASUA agreement also requires the employer to conduct a review of non-gender based salary inequities and remedy statistically significant inequities. A previous settlement contained language that partially addressed gender-based pay inequities.

Analysis

The AAUSA agreement provides a cost-of-living increase of between 2.75% and 3.25%. This mirrors the developing provincial and PSE wage pattern (and the government mandate). This is the same deal that AU offered AUFA on February 28 after filed for mediation.

Additional compensation, in the form of benefits and sabbatical improvements, adds about an additional 1.0% of value. This additional compensation brings the AASUA agreement into the range of the United Nurses of Alberta and MRFA settlements. Did not offer any comparable increases in its February 28 offer.

AASUA also appears to have achieved some language improvements. Notably, the AASUA deal does not appear to contain any of the massive language rollbacks that AU is trying to push on AUFA members.

AASUA’s language improvements likely reflect that, in order to get AASUA to accept the government’s lousy wage-mandate, the U of A had to agree to some of AASUA other proposals. Time will tell if AU prefers this option to a work stoppage.

Jason Foster, Chair

AUFA Bargaining Committee

Bob Barnetson, Chair

Job Action Committee

Analysis of Mount Royal University Settlement

The Mount Royal Faculty Association recently ratified a new contract with MRU’s Board of Governors. This blog post provides an overview of the MRU settlement. Overall, this settlement follows the autumn AUPE government services pattern but with some additional monetary and language improvements.

Term and Money

This four-year deal has a term of July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2024. The cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for all salaries and grids is as follows:

Jul 1, 2020: 0%

July 1, 2021: 0%

July 1, 2022: 0%

April 1, 2023: 1.25%

December 1, 2023: 1.5%

Additional increase December 1, 2023: 0.5% (not guaranteed)

The additional increase scheduled for December of 2023 is contingent upon the province achieving a real GDP for the 2023 calendar year that is “at or above 2.7% as of February 2024.” If this condition is met in February of 2024, MRU will retroactively apply an additional 0.5% COLA to December 1, 2023. If this condition is not met, then no additional increase will be forthcoming.

This means the MRFA settlement could see an (uncompounded) COLA increase of between 2.75% and 3.25% over its four-year term. Even with the addition of gain-sharing payments, this settlement will not maintain the purchasing power of MRFA salaries over time. For example, year-over-year inflation as of January 2022 was 5.1%. The MRFA settlement matches the COLA agreed to by AUPE for its government services bargaining unit. This appears to be the current secret financial mandate issued the government.

Extra Compensation

In addition to the COLA settlement, MRFA was able to negotiate some additional changes that have clear monetary implications.

  • Contract (i.e., short-term sessional) faculty saw changes to the structure of their grid effective May 2022. This change eliminates two categories (based on credentials). Contract faculty whose category was eliminated will “bump up” to a higher category and receive a 3.7% increase per instructional hour. All other contract faculty see a 0.7% increase. These increases are on top of the general COLA settlement.

  • MRFA made some gains at the table on benefits. Costs of the dental plan, which had been shared on a 50/50 (employer/worker) basis, and costs of the extended health plan, which had been shared on a 75/25 basis, now both move to 80/20 employer-worker split.

    This affects 93% of full-time faculty and 45% of contract faculty. The employer has also opened a window for more faculty to opt-in to the benefits plan.

It is difficult to ascertain the exact value of the changes in terms of overall faculty compensation due to (1) the variable number of contract faculty and (2) possible changes to benefit plan participation rates. MRFA suggests that overall impact is somewhere between 0.8% and 1.1%. That is top say, these gains amount to about an additional 1% of compensation on top of COLA.

Language

There were a significant number of language changes (about 57). Most of these have little relevance to AUFA members. You can read the full ratification package online here if you like.

Some changes that are of note include:

  • There are amendments to Articles 13.1.4 and 13.3.2 recognizing Indigenous knowledge in determining placements of new hires on the salary grid.

  • There is an entirely new Article (29) addressing Reconciliation goals.

  • Changes to Article 17 increase the number of full-year and part-year sabbatical leaves available to faculty. Unused sabbaticals roll-over to future years.

  • A joint workload committee has been struck to consider workload for faculty as well as promotion and tenure for less secure faculty. The outcome of this committee is not binding on either party, and as such, can be characterized as the mediator kicking these concerns down the road to a future round of bargaining in order to get a deal.

Analysis

The MRFA agreement provides a cost-of-living increase of between 2.75% and 3.25%. This mirrors the AUPE government deal (and the government mandate). This is the same deal that AU offered AUFA on Monday.

Additional compensation, in the form of benefit improvements and changes to the grids of precarious faculty, adds about an additional 1.0% of value. This additional compensation brings the MRFA agreement into the range of the United Nurses of Alberta settlement. It also broadly matches the Concordia University of Edmonton Faculty Association (CUEFA) settlement negotiated following its January strike.

MRFA also appears to have achieved some language improvements (as did CUEFA). Notably, the MRFA deal does not appear to contain any of the massive language rollbacks that AU is trying to push on AUFA members. These language improvements likely reflect that, in order to get MRFA to accept the government’s lousy wage-mandate, MRU had to agree to some of MRFA’s other proposals.

Jason Foster, Chair

AUFA Bargaining Team

Bob Barnetson, Chair

AUFA Job Action Committee

Strike preparation update

As bargaining has moved to mediation, AUFA continues to prepare against the possibility of a strike. A credible strike threat is important because it shows AU that failing to negotiate an agreement will entail financial and reputational costs.

This short update addresses picketing preparations in Edmonton and Calgary, banking info for strike pay, and how to talk to students about the possibility of a strike.

Edmonton and Calgary picketing committees

The committees that are organizing flying (i.e., in-person) picketing events in Edmonton and Calgary have had preliminary meetings to discuss potential actions and logistical questions. A committee in Athabasca has been established and will meet shortly.

Banking info for strike pay

Last week, all AUFA members should have received an email requesting banking information so that AUFA can set up direct deposits for strike pay. We are collecting this information now because of the work required to set this up. If you have questions, please contact Gail Leicht, Treasurer, at treasurer@aufa.ca .

Talking to students about a possible strike

The Job Action Committee (JAC) has developed some talking points for AUFA members about how to talk to students about the possibility of a strike. You can find these talking points on AUFA’s website under the strike information tab.

Bob Barnetson, Chair

Job Action Committee

Possible employer responses to a strike

AUFA’s decision to seek formal mediation has moved AUFA and AU closer to a potential work stoppage. This blog examines how AU is likely to respond, including its communication strategies, work stoppage preparations, and efforts to promote scabbing.

Employer communication strategies

Employers typically seek to undercut union support in the run-up to a work stoppage through aggressive anti-union and anti-strike messaging. This messaging can occur during one-on-one and small-group conversations as well as through all-staff communications. Here are some things your boss might say and how you might respond.

Nobody wants a strike

Untrue. Strikes and lockouts occur when employers and workers can't come to a mutually acceptable deal. AU’s unwillingness to table a full offer for nine months and then its unwillingness to negotiate a fair and reasonable deal strongly suggests AU is consciously and deliberately trying to force a strike. AU through its actions and inactions is saying quite clearly that it wants a strike more than it wants to give AUFA members a fair deal.

A strike will hurt students

True. If AU forces AUFA to strike, students will experience disruptions both to their studies and to the administrative functions AU provides and upon which they rely. However, any responsibility for disruptions to students’ post-secondary experience must fall wholly on AU’s behaviour. To be clear, a strike is entirely avoidable if AU agrees to a fair deal. A strike is entirely a function of AU’s choices at the bargaining table.

Everybody loses during a strike

Partially true. A strike entails costs to both AUFA members (foregone salary) and AU (work disruption, negative publicity, reputational harm). Not standing up for our workplace rights, however, also entails costs, such as the consequences of accepting continued wage freezes in the face of steadily rising costs of living as well as major language rollbacks eroding our working conditions. The costs of not striking are borne solely by AUFA members.

But we’re like a family

Untrue. Your employer is not your family. AU hires you because they need work completed. AU is happy to watch your wages stagnate and to crank up your workload. Less than two years ago, AU tried to force two-thirds of AUFA members out of the union. And AU laid AUFA members off when poor, short-sighted Board decisions bankrupted AU in 2013. Does that sound like a family?

We can’t afford to pay you more

Untrue. AU has had operating surpluses every year in recent memory. AU is encouraging last-minute spending this year to hide the fact that AU again has a surplus. AU can certainly afford to pay higher salaries. AU’s bargaining position isn’t about what AU can afford to pay. It is about AU wanting to freeze your pay and give you nothing in return. Further, AU’s proposal to eliminate important AUFA member rights (e.g., professional freedom, professional appeals, equity obligations) has no connection whatsoever to AU’s financial situation.

AUFA will force you to strike

Untrue. AUFA is you and your coworkers. AUFA is also a democracy. A strike can only occur if a majority of AUFA members vote in favour of a strike. A strike is also a last resort—something to be considered only after months of negotiations and mediation have proved fruitless. In this way, a strike is something AU is forcing on AUFA members.

The union can’t win a strike

Untrue. Faculty Associations win new contracts by striking all of the time. Recent examples include the University of Manitoba, Concordia University of Edmonton, and the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. Most recently, Mount Royal University faculty negotiated a last-minute deal only by threatening a strike.

Unions win new collective agreements when the employer realizes that the cost of a work stoppage is greater than the cost of a new contract. AU is highly dependent on tuition revenue (~50%). Even the threat of a strike is likely to cause enrollments to plummet. An actual strike will severely damage AU’s revenues and reputation.

It would be a shame if AUFA was forced to strike to get a fair deal. But sometimes employers need to learn things the hard way.

Employer preparations

A strike by over 400 AUFA members would entail significant operational disruptions for AU. These disruptions would affect instruction as well as most administrative functions. Indeed, the purpose of a strike is to disrupt operations so significantly that the employer is forced to move off of its last bargaining position and negotiate an acceptable agreement.

Understandably, employers try to minimize the impact of any strike. Employer-side preparations typically entail identifying key processes affected by a work stoppage and ways to maintain those processes. This behaviour can include:

  • re-tasking excluded (i.e., non-union) staff,

  • asking workers in other unions to take on struck work,

  • hiring non-union workers (i.e., scabs) to perform work,

  • identifying AUFA members who may be induced to stay on the job (i.e., scab), and

  • crafting messaging to shift the blame for a work stoppage from itself to the workers.

The Job Action Committee (JAC) has assessed AU’s prospects for successfully maintaining operations as low. AU is a complicated organization with ongoing work processes that are difficult to suspend or delay. Perhaps more importantly, AUFA members play critical roles in these processes. In terms of typical employer strategies available to AU:

  • there are relatively few excluded staff members compared to the amount of work that AUFA members do,

  • AUFA, AUPE and CUPE signed a solidarity pledge encouraging their members to refuse to perform struck work pursuant to s.149(1)(f) of the Labour Relations Code,

  • there are no easily available sources of scabs to perform AUFA members’ work because the work performed by AUFA members is often too complex to be easily performed by scabs, and

  • there are relatively few AUFA members who might scab.

Several AUFA members have asked questions about scabbing. Here are answers to the questions AUFA has received so far.

What is scabbing?

Scabbing is when AUFA members continue to work during a strike. We also sometimes use the term to refer to replacement workers hired by the employer during a strike.

Whether they strike or not, all union members will be affected by whatever collective agreement results from a strike, including any gains AUFA makes. Workers who scab still receive the benefit of that agreement. But, by scabbing, they avoid sharing the costs associated with achieving the agreement. In this way, scabs are free riders.

How would scabbing impact a strike?

Employers encourage scabbing to undermine the disruption caused by a strike. If a strike isn’t disruptive, employers can hold out long enough that workers will accept rollbacks in wages and working conditions.

In short, scabbing is assisting the employer to worsen your wages and working conditions. Some scabbing occurs in almost any strike, but minimizing scabbing typically shortens a strike’s duration and improves the outcomes for workers.

Scabbing by members won’t be an option if the employer locks us out, because all members will be barred from working. However, the employer could conceivably attempt a 24-hour lockout and, if AUFA strikes, invite scabbing after this.

Why do people scab?

There are many reasons. Some workers may think rollbacks are warranted and want to assist the employer to reduce their wages and working conditions. Others may seek to curry favour with the boss in the hope of future reward.

More often, however, workers choose to scab out of fear or concern.

One common fear is of reprisals from the employer. It is important to note that our right to strike is protected and the employer cannot lawfully retaliate against workers for participating in a legal strike. That is to say, you cannot be fired or otherwise punished for legally striking.

Concern for the impacts of a strike on students is another reason some workers may choose to scab. While understandable, this fails to recognize the longer-term impacts that deteriorating working conditions would have on students. Other faculty associations have received strong support from students during strikes.

Some workers may seek to avoid conflict so continue to work in the hope that things will blow over. However, those who choose to scab often find themselves isolated from their coworkers who participated in the strike.

Finally, some members may be worried about the loss of income during a strike. AUFA will provide strike pay and benefits coverage to lessen these impacts, and members are encouraged to take steps to prepare for a period of reduced income.

What do I do if the employer approaches me about scabbing?

The simplest answer is to politely say no. You have a right to strike once AUFA members have voted to do so and served notice. The employer is prohibited by law from retaliating against you for striking.

If you would like to discuss a request by the employer that you participate in scabbing during a strike or if you are feeling pressured to scab, please contact Richard Roach, AUFA’s executive director at roachr@aufa.ca for assistance.

One of my coworkers is talking about scabbing. What should I do?

An honest conversation with your co-worker is the best approach. Ask them why they are considering scabbing. Consider explaining how scabbing will negatively affect everyone’s wages and working conditions and potentially damage relationships.

If you’d like some advice about or assistance with such a conversation, please contact Rhiannon Rutherford, Chair of AUFA’s Membership Engagement Committee at rhiannon.rutherford@athabascau.ca.

How would AUFA handle scabbing by AUFA members?

If there is a strike and a member is discovered to be scabbing, JAC’s plan is to approach the members and have a discussion. Hopefully, they can be talked around to honoring the strike.

If not, the Executive has a number of options available to it, including suspension of membership and publicizing the names and photos of anyone who scabs. AUFA can also proceed civilly to recover the strike pay against members who scabbed but also took unearned strike pay.

After the strike is over, AUFA’s dues report will allow AUFA to identify anyone who continued to work during a strike. The Executive will determine how to proceed.

Most commonly, what happens after a strike is that scabs are socially ostracized by their co-workers. Members who endured a strike in order to protect and improve everyone’s terms and conditions of work rarely forget who scabbed.

After a strike, it is not uncommon for scabs to find themselves without friends in the workplace and even subject to subtle retaliation by understandably angry co-workers (e.g., by withholding information, favours, and effort). Often, scabs find the workplace so uncomfortable after a strike that they decide to move on.

Workers who scab in the hope of being rewarded by the boss often find the boss has a short memory and doesn’t keep its promises. Poor treatment of scabs by the boss is not surprising. Employers typically force a strike to grind wages and working conditions. Scabs are simply a tool to achieve that end. Once their usefulness comes to an end, scabs often find themselves discarded by the boss.

Bob Barnetson, Chair

AUFA Job Action Committee

Your turn

The Job Action Committee is interested in your views of AU’s strike preparations. As always, this form does not record your identity (i.e., is entirely anonymous).

AUFA begins collecting banking info for strike pay

If there is a work stoppage, AUFA members will be eligible to receive strike pay. Strike pay is set at $88 per calendar day commencing on the fourth day of the work stoppage. You will also continue to receive your existing health, dental, vision, and life insurance benefits.

In January, AUFA members ratified (92.2%) three criteria that members must meet to receive strike pay:

  • Members must provide contact and banking information (a practical requirement),

  • Members must withdraw their labour as asked, and

  • Perform 10 hours per week of strike activities.

Due to the lack of progress in bargaining, the strike finance committee has decided to begin collecting members’ banking information to facilitate direct deposit. Later this week, you will receive an email with a secure link to provide this information.

The information we will be asking for includes:

  • Your name,

  • A non-AU email address,

  • Banking information.

The banking information we require is a series of numbers that include your Bank/Institution Number, a Transit Number, and your Account Number. These appear on a cheque as follows:

You can provide this banking information by entering your banking numbers, uploading an image of a voided cheque, or uploading a direct deposit form you can get from your bank (or online banking site).

The strike finance committee recognizes that some AUFA members will be uncomfortable sharing this information. This information only allows AUFA to deposit strike pay. AUFA will have no other access to your account. Banking information will be:

  • Collected using a secure form.

  • Stored on a password-protected spreadsheet.

  • Available only to the AUFA Treasurer (who will personally process payments).

  • Destroyed once a new collective agreement has been ratified.

There is no practical alternative to direct deposit given resource limitations and security concerns. AUFA will not be issuing hard cheques or providing strike pay through e-transfer.

Please watch for an email containing a link to the secure form. We are hopeful that all information can be collected by March 15.

Gail Leicht, Treasurer