Membership survey reveals striking drop in trust for AU executive
Over the last three weeks, volunteer callers from the Membership Engagement Committee (MEC) conducted AUFA’s regular telephone survey of the membership. This blog post provides a high-level summary of the results.
We are very grateful that many members were very generous with their detailed feedback. We plan to complete a more thorough analysis of the comments provided in the coming weeks.
Method
Approximately one quarter of AUFA members were randomly selected for the survey. This approach increases the representativeness of the responses. The random draw means some members have been selected for consecutive surveys while other members have not yet been surveyed. All responses are anonymized during collection. For this survey, a total of 94 responses were completed within the three-week survey window.
Climate
Members were asked their level of agreement with three statements.
The most striking finding is that 59% of respondents indicated they did not trust the university’s senior executive. Only 18% of staff indicated that they trusted the executive.
As these climate questions are repeated in each iteration of the survey, we can identify trends over time. This very low trust in AU’s leadership marks a significant change from both November of 2019 and May of 2020, where approximately 47% of staff said they distrusted the executive. Based upon the open-ended comments provided, this drop appears to reflect AU’s continued efforts to de-designate staff, the sudden replacement of the Dean of FHD without cause, and a general frustration with the lack of concrete and meaningful information being shared with AU staff.
Seventy-nine percent of members indicated they enjoyed starting work in the morning, which was the same as in May. Eighty-two percent of members indicated they believed that AUFA was doing a good job of representing their interests, which was approximately the same as May (81%).
Demographic Breakdown
The survey was broken down into the four major faculties, Information Technology, and the remaining departments combined due to the small sample size. Results were also viewed according to years of service and job type.
Below are notable changes from the aggregate. Detailed results by department are available upon request.
Faculty of Health Disciplines (n=16) showed the most remarkable result with an 88% disagree to “I trust the executive team” question, as well as only 67% of members who enjoyed starting work in the morning, which was a low result.
Faculty of Business (n=15) had only 63% of members who enjoyed starting work.
Information Technology’s (n=11) distrust in executive team climbed to 73% with only 9% agreeing that they trusted executive team.
Faculty of Humanities (n=25) had the highest agree results to ‘I enjoy starting work in the morning’ and ‘AUFA is doing a good job’ with 92% agree responses to each question.
Faculty of Science (n=10) had the highest trust in AU Executive at 50%.
The combined other departments (n=17) had the highest neutral responses to “I trust the executive team” with 47% neutral responses. As well, the lowest “AUFA is doing a good job” response at 59%.
As with other surveys, newer staff had more favourable opinions of executive team and less favourable opinions with AUFA which changed over time.
Academics and Professionals had equivalent responses on all questions.
Designation
Respondents were asked whether they supported AUFA opposing any efforts to de-designate members.
The vast majority of respondents (85%) supported AUFA opposing de-designation. Respondents who indicated their support would “depend” (13%) typically sought more information about the implications of de-designation and the nature of the resistance contemplated by AUFA. Although there was near-zero support for de-designation, the highest number of ‘it depends’ responses were in Faculty of Science and Technology, and in the combined other departments.
Members were asked what tactics AUFA should adopt resisting the de-designation of members. Responses included challenging de-designation at the labour board, implementing the visiting student boycott, publicly shaming AU, picketing, and various forms of direct job action, including illegal strikes. The appetite among respondents for direct job action was very, very strong, but not universal.
Respondent comments indicated a great deal of skepticism about AU’s explanation of designation and intentions. Respondents indicated very high levels of concern about the implications of being de-designated (e.g., pension eligibility) and anger with suddenly being told that they are not academic staff members.
Workload
Staff were asked if their workload was too high. These results varied significantly by department.
Those respondents who had concerns about their workloads noted that COVID 19 was a factor in escalating their workload. Other repeatedly identified factors included delays in replacing staff who took the spring buyout and enrollment growth.
A recurring point made by respondents was that the university executives did not appear to understand or care about the effect of rising workloads. Some respondents noted that excessive workload was taking a toll on their health and was unsustainable.
Notable was the lack of overwork in the Information Technology department considering the magnitude of active IT work. A low sample in the department (n=11) may have contributed. However, further examination shows that overwork varies by unit within IT, and several members in IT are reporting a lack of direction from senior leadership and being starved of work despite the magnitude of active projects.
Re-organization
Respondents reported mixed awareness of information about the re-organization that was announced last January and, subsequently, delayed.
Those members who were aware of the re-organization (n=44) ad mixed feelings about it.
Members who were pessimistic indicated a general lack of trust in the university executive and the absence of any concrete information nine months after the initial announcement were important factors in their pessimism.
Feedback for Equity Committee
On behalf of the AUFA Equity Committee, this survey also asked for initial input from members about potential future equity-focused initiatives. Anonymized results of the equity-related questions have been forwarded to the AUFA Equity Committee for review and will not be reported on in detail by the Membership Engagement Committee.
Analysis
The primary finding of the survey is that the university executive’s secretive approach combined with efforts to de-designate AUFA members have generated significant levels of distrust. This distrust, coupled with higher workloads, is negatively affecting AUFA members’ morale.
There is a high level of support for AUFA’s efforts to resist any de-designation of members. While not every AUFA member was comfortable with every tactic AUFA might use, there was broad support for following through with the visiting student (transfer credit) boycott should AU proceed with de-designating members. There was also significant support for direct job action in the face of de-designations.
The willingness of the membership to take these sorts of actions means the cost to AU of de-designation will be very high. This high cost, combined with the sudden departure of President Fassina (who may have been the primary architect of de-designation), gives the Board the opportunity to quietly back away from this unnecessary conflict.
On behalf of MEC, I’d like to thank the AUFA members who took the time to participate as well as our volunteer callers and survey coordinator for their hard work.
Rhiannon Rutherford, Chair
Membership Engagement Committee