AUFA Member Survey: Salaries, Benefits, and Workload Top of Mind
The results of the November/December AUFA member survey suggest some clear priorities for AUFA members as we head into bargaining in mid-2024.
The full results have been shared with the appropriate AUFA committees for further analysis and to inform their priorities and plans. Additional future surveys will seek to further support the development of an opening proposal that is reflective of members’ priorities. This blog post offers a high-level overview of the most common themes that emerged from members’ responses.
Salaries
In open-ended questions about priorities for bargaining, nearly 100% of survey respondents named monetary increases as one of their three top priorities. After years of stagnant wage growth and more recent inflationary pressures, it is not surprising that salary increases and cost of living adjustments are top of mind for nearly all members.
This will be complicated to navigate, as the provincial government is likely to set monetary mandates for all public-sector bargaining. Strategizing how best to advance AUFA members’ interests within this context will be a key priority for the bargaining team.
Several respondents also flagged AU’s practices around market supplements for some academic staff (such as nurses). We are anticipating that AU will consult with AUFA on these practices in 2024; more information and opportunities to contribute to these consultations will be shared as we receive details from AU.
Benefits
Improvements in our benefits package was the second most commonly identified priority. This too is complicated as most of the details of our benefits aren’t determined directly via bargaining, though the bargaining committee will certainly consider and pursue what might be possible. Members also have diverse view about which benefits should be improved.
As well, these responses from members will help to reinvigorate attempts to pursue positive changes via the joint committee that is responsible for managing changes to our package.
Workload
Workload concerns were the third most commonly identified bargaining priority. In anticipation of this issue being a key concern, the survey also sought to understand members’ current workloads and the impacts on their wellbeing.
The results were more extreme than anticipated: 83% of respondents indicated their current workload is either high, intense, excessive, or crushing. The “excessive” and “crushing” survey options alone suggest that 38% of respondents are experiencing impacts to their wellbeing as a result of high workloads.
The comments point to some key themes that explain why workloads are so high:
Insufficient staffing, including not filling vacant positions and not hiring where the need is greatest (noted by at least 37 respondents)
Several comments referred to being asked to “do more with less”
A few comments noted the impact of the voluntary retirements offered in 2019, for example: “The university gave early retirement packages to a slew of senior faculty and staff without making time for them to pass on their institutional knowledge and skills.”
Example: “New expectations [are] put upon staff to be even more 'innovative' and 'agile', and while staff vacancies remain unfilled, staff become ill or need medical leave (stress, illness), or coverage is needed because staff are not sufficiently resourced.”
Example comment: “There is no way to take a sick day as students require my attention and there is no one who can cover for me.”
Increased administrative burdens (especially for academic members; noted by at least 17 respondents)
Example comment: “The administrative and bureaucratic burden of non-academic functions has become crushing. Filling out forms has become an end in itself, that leaves too little time for student contact, innovation, research and collegiality.”
Example comment: “Driven by our passion, we could endure, exceed our limits, and still handle this workload if it weren't for the increasing burden of redundant or excessively convoluted administrative procedures we encounter on a daily basis. The time we invest in navigating these administrative tasks, which should be dedicated to course development and research, has become disproportionately excessive.”
Several comments flagged HR (mainly delays and lack of capacity) and the Provost’s office (especially urgent demands) as the source of some of these issues.
Increased teaching load for academic members, either at the expense of or on top of increased research or administrative commitments, and exacerbated by increasingly complex student needs (noted by at least 13 respondents)
Example comment: “The student needs are more complex and the expectation to complete research while still managing full teaching loads is challenging.”
Example comment: “The retirements are exacerbating the workload problem. The people leaving are pre-CARU with a heavy teaching/small research program. They are being replaced with post-CARU faculty who often inherit their heavy teaching load AND are expected to develop/maintain a CARU-worthy, robust research program that attracts grants and can support students. This is not sustainable.”
Poor change management, especially the impact of the Brightspace migration and other Integrated Learning Environment projects (noted by at least 13 respondents)
Example comments: “Being asked to build a 'new plane', in the dark”; “Constantly changing systems and processes”; “too much money spent on pie-in-the-sky future stuff”
Example comment: “Continued growth without systems and staff in place is stressful especially with the perception of stacked leadership for the greater university, when we are very lean on the ground to maintain quality on the front lines.”
Top-heavy organizational structure, including increases of high-level positions at the expense of resources for front line teams
Example comment: “The proliferation of administrative positions at our institution raises the question: why does AU hire so many administrative staff when, as a consequence, professors find themselves predominantly engaged in administrative duties?”
Example comment: “Too many do nothing bosses being hired with fancy titles who do nothing but meet and talk and not enough workers doing the actual work.”
Example comment: “Inadequate automation, systems, and out-dated policies. If we can't have additional staff, AU needs to focus on systems which automate the work rather than creating more work just so that senior staff have a way to quantify our work.”
Only one respondent indicated that their workload was “low,” and in this case the member pointed to issues with mismanagement and how work is allocated. While 23 respondents (16%) indicated they had a “medium” (i.e., very manageable) workload, only a handful (~5) offered this as an unqualified response. Many more offered some context that further exemplifies the overall issue of workload across AU. For example, some noted that their particular team is well staffed, in some cases recognizing how uncommon that is in AU.
In an especially worrying trend, some respondents suggested that they only had a manageable workload because they carefully set and maintain their own priorities and boundaries, which in some cases contributed to negative impacts on their work quality, other colleagues, or other commitments (such as research). For example, one member stated that “constant additions to workload lead to burn out and diminished capacity. I am presently managing this by doing the minimum work possible and at the lowest possible level of quality. This is not good for AU (and it isn't good for me--I've come to hate my job). But it is better than making myself sick.”
There are clear individual impacts to excessive workloads, and members who are experiencing negative impacts on their wellbeing are encouraged to reach out to the AUFA office (aufahq@aufa.ca) for support and to understand your rights, responsibilities, and options.
But this survey suggests that high workloads present an institutional problem, as these are far from isolated issues. One member summed up the big picture impacts: “We're going to lose good people, either through new opportunities elsewhere or through mental health/sickness.”
Rhiannon Rutherford and Shandip Saha
AUFA Engagement Co-Leads