Let’s break the five-year stalemate on designation
This blog post explores ways in which AUFA is seeking to finally resolve the lingering designation issue.
Members and allies familiar with the topic may wish to jump directly to take action by sending a letter to the key AU decision makers on designation.
Members unfamiliar with what designation means and how we got to this point may wish to read the previous post “De-designation — What is it and why does it matter?” for more context.
AU rejects what members want
While this round of bargaining has been, thankfully, very cordial at the table, AUFA’s proposal on designation has emerged as a significant sticking point. AU’s team has, so far, rejected AUFA’s proposal on designation entirely, with no counter.
However, designation is a significant priority for AUFA members. It comes up every time we ask members what matters to them, and a recent survey suggests that a significant portion of the AUFA membership is willing to go on strike to protect against de-designation.
AUFA’s team is accountable to the AUFA membership, so we are not in a position to simply accept AU’s rejection and maintain the status quo on designation. So, where do we go from here?
“Trust us” is not sufficient
Designation is an authority vested in the university by the Post Secondary Learning Act. The employer does not legally need to get consent from the union or its members to pursue changes to designation policies or practices.
Nonetheless, just because AU has this power does not mean they must use it in a union-busting way. And just because AUFA members have minimal legal redress on designation does not mean that we must simply accept the employer’s decisions without opposition. That is, resolving designation is less a question of legality and more a question of power and pressure.
When this issue first emerged in late 2019, AUFA members engaged in many actions to put pressure on the employer to reverse its stance (more here and in the blog archive). In response, the proposed Designation as Academic Policy was amended at the 11th hour to adjust some of the most egregious issues. That the employer has pursued a slow-erosion strategy of excluding new professional positions rather than moving to de-designate large groups of members suggests that there is a concern about triggering another significant backlash. That is, pressure from members and our colleagues elsewhere in solidarity has proven effective at forestalling the worst impacts of a union-busting policy.
So far, AU has offered nothing more than vague reassurances that they do not intend to seek mass de-designations for the foreseeable future. And yet, in the multiple avenues AUFA has pursued to formalize this beyond simply accepting their word, AU has consistently refused to place any limits whatsoever on their right to do exactly what they say they don’t plan on doing. This is not the stability and security that AUFA members want.
Bargaining and leverage
And so, for the first time, AUFA has attempted to bring designation language to bargaining. Unlike policy consultations or other university-controlled processes, bargaining brings the union and the employer together on more equal footing.
AU’s outright rejection of AUFA’s proposal on designation does not need to be the end. Members have told us how important this issue is, so we are asking members to demonstrate how important this issue is by sending a letter to the key decision makers responsible for AU’s approach to designation: the University President, Provost, and Chief Human Resources Officer (who is also a member of AU’s bargaining team).
Take action
Rhiannon Rutherford
AUFA Governance Lead and Job Action Committee Chair