Spring survey results: Continued distrust in AU executive and strong strike threat

In June, volunteers with AUFA’s Membership Engagement Committee (MEC) completed the sixth membership engagement survey. This survey included the usual climate questions as well as explored issues related to the recently concluded round of bargaining, the jobs in Athabasca issue (which has since become a significant issue), and AU’s implementation of Netskope surveillance software on members’ computers. 

This iteration of the survey was delayed from the targeted April/May timing, which likely impacted response rates. Eighty-two randomly selected members (just under 20% of the membership) completed the call-based survey, with representation across departments and employee types. 

Climate Questions 

Survey callers asked four recurring questions on the general climate at AU. Overall, members report continued distrust in the AU executive, while AUFA’s work is broadly supported. There is an interesting discrepancy between the 39% of members who reported high morale compared to 77% who reported enjoying starting work in the morning. This likely reflects members’ appreciation for the work they do while also reflecting their frustration with their working conditions. 

Looking further at the question of trust in AU’s executive team, there was a slight increase since the last survey (in fall 2021), from 15% to 20% expressing trust, which is still far below the highest rate of 30% who agreed with this question in the very first survey (in fall 2019). There were no clear trends in terms of which member groups are more or less likely to agree or disagree. For example, when analyzing responses based on length of service, new hires reported around the same level of distrust in executive and trust in AUFA as longer-serving staff. 

In the comments provided by members regarding AU’s executive, most expressed strongly negative feelings, with the following emerging as themes: 

• feelings of being mistreated, belittled, or disrespected by the employer  

• dissatisfaction with the communication and information provided to faculty and staff 

• perceptions of mismanagement, ineptitude, or hidden agendas 

• perceptions of a lack of understanding of the university’s culture and values 

• desire for following through with a vote of non-confidence in the current executive 

In terms of factors contributing to these feelings, the employer’s opening position in bargaining featured prominently. Members also spoke about how the various reorganizations at AU—including the IT reorganization and the near-virtual transition—have been and continue to be handled poorly, which is negatively affecting morale.  

Contract Negotiations 

Having narrowly avoided a strike this spring, MEC queried members’ willingness to have withdrawn their labour. The vast majority of members (88%) indicated were likely to have withdrawn their labour during a strike or lockout, with just 6% saying they were unlikely. This reponse suggests AUFA’s strike threat was a credible one. A credible strike threat enhances the bargaining power of the union. 

Members had mixed views about the final contract that was ratified. The largest chunk of repondents (44%) indicated they were “somewhat satisfied”; neutral and “somewhat dissatisfied” responses each received 22%. Very few members indicated they were either very satisfied (5%) or very dissatisfied (about 7%). This distribution of responses suggests that members are feeling rather ambivalent about the settlement.  

Survey respondents provided a wide variety of comments on the contract language, but the issue most members identified as concerning was (unsurprisingly) the loss of Research and Study Leave for professional members. Comments were broadly aligned with the discussion among members during bargaining, which includes broad, but certainly not unanimous, support for this benefit.  

In addition to the RSL issue, cost of living, inflation, and wages were frequently mentioned. Members broadly felt the cost-of-living adjustment was inadequate. Cost of home office was identified as needing to be addressed. 

Jobs in Athabasca 

As previously reported, a majority of respondents (73%) supported AUFA’s current position that, while no current AUFA member should be forced to re-locate, AU should make an effort to hire a portion of new staff to the Athabasca area. MEC also asked if AUFA should take a position on this issue at all, and a majority (67%) agreed that it should. 

Understanding that, as a union, we are often dealing with multiple priorities, MEC also asked about the relative importance of this issue. There was more disagreement on this question, with only 51% of respondents suggesting it was important that AUFA take a position. That is, there seems to be a portion of members (about 15–25%) who think AUFA should take a position and who agree with AUFA’s current position, but who don’t see this issue as a top concern. There were some identifiable differences when analyzing this question in more detail, so it’s worth taking a look at where some of this discrepancy comes from.  

There were some notable differences here when comparing new employees with those who have been at AU for longer. This issue is important to just 31% of employees who have been at AU fewer than 10 years, while 81% of those who have been at AU more than 20 years said this issue was important to them. 

It is also worth noting that support for AUFA’s position on this issue varies widely between faculties and departments, with the strongest support in FB, FHSS, and the IT department, and weakest support in FHD, FST, and other departments. 

Member comments were diverse. Some members noted that requiring candidates live in Athabasca may narrow the applicant pool unacceptably. Other suggested that candidates could be enticed to live in Athabasca through meaningful incentives.  

Some members felt AU’s primary role is to educate students, not contribute to the economy of Athabasca. Other members note that AU’s location was chosen for economic development purposes and there is no necessary conflict between providing online education while having a portion of jobs located in the Athabasca area. 

Other members were concerned that successive Boards and executives had mishandled this issue (primarily by ignoring it) and that the government was intervening due to political pressure. Some members suggested that the university executive should be expected to model a commitment to Athabasca by living in the Athabasca area, at least part of the time. Others suggested rethinking this issue in order to take advantage of the possibilities a rural campus offers.  

While a lot has happened since this survey was conducted in June, the AUFA executive’s open letter points to several ways in which this issue might be resolved in a constructive and mutually beneficial way.  

Netskope and Privacy 

Members were strongly in favour of AUFA taking steps to protect their privacy after AU installed surveillance software called Netskope on member computers without forewarning or data governance. 

Members’ comments provide many insights about their concerns with this program being used on their work computers, with some common themes: 

• It constitutes a breach of privacy. Members feel concerned about this being a breach to their right to privacy, confidentiality, and security in the workplace. 

• It creates a culture of mistrust between workers and the employer, as they feel not trusted and feel spied and surveilled by the employer. 

• Lack of transparency. Members manifested being concerned about not being properly informed on the reasons why this program is being used, about the data that is being collected, and about the implications that this may have for their privacy in the workplace. 

• It jeopardizes research participants’ right to security, anonymity, and confidentiality. Members who manage and storage research data collected among vulnerable populations (including Indigenous, racialized, and those with precarious legal status) think that the tracking of this information jeopardizes the security of research participants and their right to confidentiality and privacy, making researchers to incur in violations of research protocols. 

• Lack of informed consent. Members feel concerned about the fact that the decision to install a program to collects information was made on a top-down manner, without previous consultation, proper notice, or consent. 

• Insecurity in the workplace. Members fear that the information that is being collected can be used to punish those engaged in disputes with the employer. 

• Threat to safety. Members feel unsafe in the workplace, as they have no clear understanding of what type of information is being tracked and collected, and as they have no clear understanding if this information includes family/personal information. 

• It affects productivity and morale, as the feelings of being spied “all the time” discourages engagement with the job. It also discourages the search of information that can be seen as “suspicious” from the point of view of the employer. 

• There are no clear policies and rules governing the use of this software in the workplace. 

The AUFA executive is following up with the employer about the use of this software and the timelines for a privacy impact assessment, but have so far received no new information.  

The survey also asked members about their use of the AUFA website. This feedback has been shared with the communications committee and will help inform future work to improve the website for members.  

MEC extends its thanks to its volunteer callers as well as the members who took the time to answer the survey. The next MEC survey is planned for this fall. If you would like to be volunteer to help with survey calls, please email engagement@aufa.ca. 

Rhiannon Rutherford 

AUFA President

University should consult on response to Ministry on jobs in Athabasca

The question of Athabasca University’s presence in the Town of Athabasca has once again made headlines. This blog post aims to summarize recent developments, concerns with the near-virtual strategy, and AUFA’s position on the issue.  

In brief, AU administration and the provincial government seem to be locked in a dispute about the future of AU in Athabasca. While AUFA supports increased hiring to the town, we vigorously oppose forced relocation of existing faculty and staff, especially when these expectations appear not to extend to AU executives. AUFA further supports collegial governance, which requires administration to consult meaningfully with faculty and staff on decisions that affect them. It should be clear to decision-makers that we all have a stake in their decisions, especially on something so basic as where we and our families work and live.  

Recent developments 

This blog post from earlier this year summarizes how we got here: AUFA and jobs in Athabasca. The nutshell version is that, due in part to the efforts of a local advocacy group concerned about AU’s diminishing presence in the town of Athabasca, the Alberta government requires AU to reverse this trend and increase jobs in the area. The university has been publicly defiant about the government’s demands, insisting that the near-virtual strategy meets the needs of the community. It’s not clear at this point, whose ‘needs’ are being considered in AU’s strategy. 

Clarification: Members have requested that we clarify that this group has accessed the services of a well-connected conservative lobbyist. There are also many in the region who share many of the same concerns but don't necessarily agree with all of the goals of the Keep Athabasca in Athabasca University group.

The June 30 deadline to submit a plan to attract and retain more workers to the Athabasca area passed with little fanfare. Neither AU administration, nor the Minister provided AUFA any information about the university’s submission to the government. This past weekend, it was reported that the Minister of Advanced Education was not pleased with AU’s response and has threatened to cut funding if AU leadership doesn’t submit something more in line with the government's expectations by September 30.  

Near-virtual woes 

The university’s “near-virtual” strategy seems to be a sticking point in this fight. We have heard very little positive feedback about the university’s near-virtual strategy and implementation. Rather, AUFA members and our colleagues have shared many concerns and frustrations about a process that seems needlessly complicated, inflexible, and contrary to chatter about AU’s desire for reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. 

For example, in June, Athabasca-based employees went through a role assessment process under the near-virtual framework. The process was confusing, contradictory, and involved multiple delays in communicating with staff. Despite short notice, a June 14th meeting saw an extremely high level of engagement from staff, who respectfully posed valid questions and raised significant concerns about how assessments would be conducted, only to be met with impatience and exasperation from university representatives.  

What was clear from the June 14th meeting was that administration flatly rejected a hybrid model that would allow Athabasca-based staff to opt to split their time between working from home and from a dedicated office space. Instead, staff could elect to work exclusively from home or on the Athabasca campus, with some drop-in office space available. Administration has plans to reconfigure office space in some way, but no details were provided, making it difficult for staff to make an informed decision—one that they will be unable to change, with few exceptions, for at least three years.  

Many employees, including members of AUFA and AUPE, have expressed significant frustration about the near-virtual plan and implementation. Many of the concerns raised stem from the managerial approach taken, limiting the question of job location to whether a role could be performed virtually (based on job descriptions that are often very outdated), rather than on what employees might need or want to be able to do their jobs most effectively.  

For many AUFA members, especially professionals, the insistence within the near-virtual plan on roles and “objective criteria” rather than human or even operational needs is reminiscent of how administration has approached other concerning initiatives, including the development of a new designation policy and the restructuring of the IT department. For academics, most of whom can work remotely all the time, there is no consistency on how (or if) the “near-virtual” policy applies to them, given the seemingly arbitrary requirement of some, but not all, academics to live in the province.  

One concern that both AU administration and the Minister seem oblivious to, is the importance of place for Indigenous research and researchers. The reduction of AU’s presence in Athabasca will undermine important research opportunities that rely on connection to community and respect for Indigenous protocols. “Near-virtual” simply does not facilitate reconcilation, and undermines the TRC Calls to Action for educational institutions to establish respectful and equitable relationships with Indigenous Peoples and their communties.  

The timing and lack of meaningful consultation or even clear communication about the university’s priorities and intentions are contributing to the significant work-related stress and anxiety many AUFA members and our colleagues are experiencing. Some have described the anticipated fallout of work-related stessors as a coming mental health tsunami, one that is being further fueled by the confusing and contradictory approach to implementing AU’s “near virtual” plan. 

AUFA’s position 

Since about 2015, AUFA has advocated that a portion of new hires should report to offices in the Athabasca area, but that no current members should be forced to relocate. This position received majority support (73%) in a recent membership engagement survey (for which a more fulsome report will be provided soon).

Update: Further context for this number has been provided in a subsequent post.

The current conflict is between the governing party and AU administration, and there is currently no clear mechanism for AUFA to formally intervene. Nonetheless, we recognize this latest threat from the government has increased the stakes and increases concern from members about their very livelihoods.  

While AUFA is supportive of increased hiring to the town, the government’s recent threats seem counterproductive at best, as university staff and students are the ones who would bear the brunt of funding cuts. There are many more positive ways to support the town, including meaningful incentives that would encourage relocation while still offering employees agency, flexibility, and choice. This is yet another example that leads AUFA members to wonder when AU administration will begin to demonstrate the iCare values of Integrity, Community, Adaptability, Respect, and Excellence, which they purport to hold so dear. 

The intransigence of AU’s current executive team is frustrating, to say the least. Repeated membership engagement surveys have indicated that AUFA members overwhelmingly lack trust in their leadership, and the related issues of jobs in Athabasca and the near-virtual strategy certainly contribute to this dissatisfaction for many members. The top-down, managerial approach to developing strategies and implementing new policies is also concerning as it undermines collegial governance. This discontent is so deeply felt by members that many members have hinted at imminant resignations, making a public declaration of a loss of confidence in AU leadership from those who remain inevitable.  

All faculty and staff have a stake in this situation and will be impacted by any decisions made by the university administration and Board of Governors. We implore the university to consult—openly and meaningfully—with faculty and staff about the response to the government’s directive, including a genuine role for collegial governance bodies. 

Rhiannon Rutherford, AUFA President 

Myra Tait, AUFA Vice President 

Your turn

Upcoming AUFA Elections

Elections for the AUFA Executive and committees will take place at the upcoming Spring General Meeting on Tuesday, May 31, 1:30–4:00pm MST. This blog post outlines the positions that will be elected and highlights other ways to get involved in AUFA.  

Nominations for all elected positions will be open until the final call during the Spring General Meeting (that is, individuals can be nominated from the floor during the meeting). However, if you would like to nominate yourself (for any position) in advance and have a candidate statement included in the meeting package, please send this to Brenda Skayman by end of day Friday, May 20.  

Executive 

The AUFA Executive includes five officers (President, Vice-President, Treasurer, Secretary, and Past President) and up to nine member representatives (also called constituency representatives). Each of these positions, with the exception of Past President, will be up for election as part of the Spring General Meeting. The one-year term will begin on July 1, 2022, and end on June 30, 2023.  

The time commitment and scope for these positions varies, as there are few rigid requirements in the current AUFA bylaws. In addition to regularly attending AUFA Executive meetings, officers or member representatives may chair or serve on other AUFA committees, attend conferences or meetings of umbrella or allied organizations, or participate in other initiatives undertaken by the AUFA Executive. For example, the incoming AUFA Executive may choose to pursue projects related to the Equity Audit that is currently underway.  

Questions about any of these positions can be directed to Jolene Armstrong, AUFA Past President, who chairs the Nominating Committee.  

In addition, the AUFA Executive includes non-voting positions: the two AUFA staff members (Executive Director and Professional Officer) and the AUFA representative on the AU Board of Governors (who is currently one year into a three-year term).  

Elected Committees 

Also up for election will be several committee positions. The AUFA bylaws state that both the Equity and Social Committees will “normally” consist of five members each, though in previous general meetings the AUFA membership has extended more flexibility to these committees to expand this number. The terms for elected members of these committees will be one year, from July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2023. For more information, contact the AUFA office to be connected with current committee members.  

As well, there are two committees outlined in the collective agreement that will be up for election this year, each with two-year terms (from July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2024): 

• Professional appeals: Five non-probationary, full-time professional staff members—three primary members, two alternates. See Article 9.5.10.a in the collective agreement for more.  

• Professional appeals with respect to position evaluation: Five non-probationary, full-time professional staff members—three primary members, two alternates. See Article 9.6.4 in the collective agreement for more. 

There is also an academic appeals committee (Article 9.5.10.b in the collective agreement), but this committee is currently in the middle of a two-year term and will be up for election in 2023. Contact the AUFA office or Jolene Armstrong for more information about these committees.  

Appointed Committees  

There are also a number of committees that are appointed by the AUFA Executive.  

The AUFA Executive is currently seeking interest in serving on the Occupational Health and Safety committee. Two members are required to serve on the single, central joint committee that includes employer representatives as well as representatives from each bargaining unit (AUFA, CUPE, and AUPE). These positions are appointed by the AUFA Executive; contact the AUFA office or current OHS representatives (Rhiannon Rutherford or Bob Barnetson) for more information.  

Other appointed committees include the Grievance, Membership Engagement, and Joint Benefits committees. Contact the AUFA office for more information on these committees.  

Jolene Armstrong 

AUFA Past President 

Chair, Nominating Committee 

Putting Research and Study Leave into Context

As AU and AUFA continue bargaining, language changes represent the biggest gulf between the two parties. The item that has gotten perhaps the most attention from members is the employer’s proposed removal of Research & Study Leave (RSL) for professional staff.  

Previous posts have provided an analysis of the proposed changes and reflected members’ overwhelming rejection of them. Since the initial language was tabled in late January, AU’s team has signaled some minor movement by offering a small payout in exchange for the removal of the benefit for all professionals.  

While it seems that a large majority of members are opposed to this particular rollback, some members and observers may be wondering what all the fuss is about. This post responds to common concerns and puts this proposal in context.  

Concerns about professional RSL  

“Not everyone uses it” 

It has been pointed out that not every professional makes use of the RSL benefit: this is certainly true. But it’s also true that not every member makes equal use of other benefits. If anything, this is an argument for maintaining the benefit because it doesn’t cost the university anything when members choose not to apply.  

Professional members who take RSL usually find it enormously valuable, and they often return from their leave invigorated and more fully engaged in their work. Further, we’ve heard from numerous professional members who have said this benefit was a key reason they accepted employment at AU in the first place.  

We’ve also heard from many professional members who would like to access this benefit but are discouraged by the multiple barriers that often make it difficult to take this leave, including a lack of support from upper management. That professional RSLs are often shorter or part time speaks less to the value professional members place on the benefit and more to the flexible arrangements that are often the only way professional members can access this leave.  

“It’s hard to manage” 

A few members have raised concerns about operational impacts when staff take RSL. It is up to the employer to effectively manage the impact of leaves. Unfortunately, some areas do not manage this well, leading to leave denials or delays and associated stress and uncertainty. On the other hand, some teams do enjoy a healthy distribution of RSL and manage to balance workloads and impacts.  

With effective planning and support, RSL can be a net positive for individual staff members, their teams, and the university as a whole.  

“No one else has it” 

AU’s bargaining team co-chair recently highlighted that this benefit is uncommon within the sector. But there are a lot of things that make AU unique and difficult to compare to other universities in the province. Several members have shared that this benefit was specifically highlighted in their hiring process as a positive feature of employment at AU, and that it was a key factor in deciding to accept the relatively lower salary.  

Many members have even indicated they would support extending this benefit to all staff at AU, not just AUFA members. Rather than seeing collective bargaining as a race to the bottom, these members believe that we can and should be advocating for more respect and benefits to accrue to all members of the university community. Maintaining this valuable benefit for our members may also encourage other workers and employers to initiate something similar.   

“It should only be for academics” 

Another argument AU’s bargaining team is making seems to be that only academics take RSL as it is intended: to publish and disseminate research. Setting aside the fact that some professionals do indeed use the leave to research and publish (and the problems with the “publish or perish” culture in the academy), this is an extremely narrow view of the value of this benefit. Providing staff with dedicated time to focus on scholarly and professional pursuits is a way of demonstrating the respect and value that AU claims to have.   

Context matters 

The recent communication from AU’s bargaining team highlighted that AU’s offer of a one-time payout is time limited. Leaving aside the details of exactly how much this benefit might be worth in purely financial terms, there are a number of issues to highlight with this approach.  

First, the timing is very curious. AU only tabled its full proposal in late January, after more than six months of active bargaining. If this RSL issue was such a priority for the employer, why was it not included with the in-going (incomplete) proposal tabled nearly one year ago? Why the rush now?  

The explanation for this current “take it or leave it” approach is that the one-time payout is only possible because of an “unexpected one-time forecasted favorable operating budget variance.” Previous communications from the provost have highlighted an approximately 12% drop in enrolments as a cause for concern. However, this drop likely represents a levelling out of longer-term enrolment trends after a large COVID-related increase. As well, AU is not facing the same deep cuts to operating grants as most other universities in this province. That is, AU seems to be in good financial health and can afford to maintain or improve AUFA members’ current benefits.  

Second, RSL is only one of several significant rollbacks included in the employer’s offer. It would also weaken protections against discipline, increase managerial control over academic promotion and tenure processes, remove workload protections, and reduce job security for professionals, among other changes. AU is now putting pressure on members to agree to these sweeping changes by offering a one-time payment that only relates to one item.  

Finally, many members have pointed out similarities between AU’s approach to bargaining and the attempt by the employer to remove professionals (as well as other academic staff!) from the AUFA bargaining unit in 2019-20. The implication that professionals don’t deserve the same benefits and protections as academics are especially reminiscent of that distressing time.  

Divide and conquer 

Given these factors, it is difficult to see AU’s proposal and pressure tactics as anything other than a divide and conquer strategy. AU’s communications have consistently painted AUFA as aggressively preparing for a strike, when the reality is that AUFA members have been forced to defend our valued benefits and protections from an employer seeking sweeping and negative changes in our contract.  

AUFA members came together to prevent the de-designation of hundreds of colleagues, and we can come together in solidarity again. In polls, surveys, town hall meetings, and other forums, AUFA members have overwhelmingly signaled that they do not support the employer’s attempts to sow division and discord.  

A strike is a last resort if the employer refuses to back down from the deep, insulting, and unnecessary rollbacks it is seeking. While a strike would be distressing and disruptive for members, our colleagues, and our students, the alternative could be much worse in the longer term. Being forced to accept these rollbacks would lead to burnout, turnover, and extremely low morale – at a time when faculty and staff would much rather feel respected, valued, and positive about the future of this university.  

Rhiannon Rutherford 

Chair, AUFA Membership Engagement Committee 

Your Turn  

The Membership Engagement Committee is coordinating member-to-member calls to chat about how folks are feeling about bargaining. If you would appreciate a personal contact from another member, please leave your name below.  

You may also use this space to share feedback about the bargaining process or anything else that’s on your mind.  

Strike Support Rising—Member Survey

In late November, AUFA’s Membership Engagement Committee (MEC) completed its fifth telephone survey of members. Thirty-one volunteer callers contacted 102 randomly selected AUFA members (~23.5% of the membership). The resulting sample is broadly representative of our membership as a whole. This blog presents aggregated results. Key themes include: 

• AUFA enjoys broad support (90%). 

• Trust in the university executive is low (15%). 

• Members want a reasonable wage increase to offset inflation. 

• Member solidarity is high and there is growing support for a strike. 

Climate Questions 

Survey callers asked three recurring and one new climate question. Overall, there were no major differences between the views of professional and academic members. The new question (about morale) addresses comments in past surveys that members often enjoy their job (thus enjoy starting work in the morning) but are frustrated with working at AU. 

Overall, 39% of members agree that their morale is high while 34% indicate it is low. This is significantly different than the 75% of members who indicate they enjoy starting work in the morning. Comments associated with these questions suggest that many members enjoy the work they do. However, they find the context in which they do that work very frustrating. A number of members noted that they have intentionally reduced their university service work in order to reduce their frustration. This new morale question appears to generate a more nuanced assessment of where the membership is at and will be retained going forward.  

When asked if they trust the executive team of the university, 15% of respondents said yes while 58% said no. These results are similar to the April 2021 survey, where 16% of respondents indicated they trust the executive and 63% indicated they did not. It appears the departure of Neil Fassina has arrested the freefall in member trust but the executive has not been able to repair the damage. 

Respondent comments identified several issues driving ongoing mistrust of AU’s executive. These include efforts to bust the union through de-designation, continuing problems with the IT re-organization, lack of any meaningful progress at the bargaining table, unmanageable workloads, pay inequity, the sneaky withdrawal of market supplements, executive invisibility, and insincere communications.  

One member’s comments (paraphrased by the interviewer) provide a representative view of the AU executive: 

The pandemic has been incredibly difficult and the actions of the AU executive team during this time have been cruel. They appear to operate with a total disregard for university employees, in fact they seem to operate with a disregard for what makes AU a good place to work and a good university. I have little faith that they make decisions with the interests of faculty, staff, and students in mind. It has become difficult to hope that the future of the university will be a good one. Their detached, non-transparent, and hostile-to-consultation style of leadership is likely to be disastrous for the university.  

A very small number of members hope a new president will change the executive’s behaviour. It is difficult to imagine how the current executive can turn matters around and a top-to-bottom executive “house cleaning” may be the best option. 

When asked whether AUFA was doing a good job, 90% of members agreed; only 2% disagreed. This is broadly similar to the April 2021 survey, where 93% of respondents indicated AUFA was doing a good job and 2% disagreed.  

Bargaining Questions 

The survey asked several questions about bargaining. The full results have been provided to the bargaining team to inform their approach at the table going forward. Significantly, there has been a notable increase in member willingness to strike. In April 2021, 69% of members said they would strike to avoid a 4% rollback. In this survey, 96% of members said they would strike to avoid any rollback. 

Members were asked what their highest priority change to the collective agreement was. By far, the most common answer was a raise to address inflation. AUFA members have not had a raise in salary grids in four years. Job security was also ranked as a priority, although notably less so.   

With the employer yet to table a full proposal (i.e., monetary plus full language on a number of items are still missing), there is a chance that AU may attempt some wedge tactics. To gauge the effectiveness of this potential approach, members were asked about their willingness to accept an employer offer that provided them with a small gain but only if they agreed to a rollback that would harm other members.  

Respondents overwhelming (81%) rejected such wedge tactics, with only 1% indicating they would accept such an offer. 

What this survey suggests is that wedge tactics would not be an effective approach for AU. This high level of member resistance to wedge tactics is likely influenced by AU’s efforts in 2020 to de-designate large portions of the AUFA membership. This cynical move only strengthened member solidarity.  

Members were also asked whether they had any concerns or questions about a possible work stoppage. These items have been passed along to the AUFA Job Action Committee for discussion. In the meantime, members with questions about a possible work stoppage are encouraged to consult the following resources on the AUFA website:  

• strike primer 

• work stoppage FAQs   

• financially preparing for a strike or lockout 

• professional and practical strike or lockout preparation 

• strike prep 

• striking and strike pay consultation 

Finally, the survey asked members questions about equity issues at AU. These results will be passed along to the AUFA Equity Committee for discussion. Members’ responses will also be shared as part of AUFA’s external equity audit. More information about this audit process (including how to get involved) will be shared in the new year.  

MEC very much appreciates the work of the 31 volunteer callers, who made this survey the easiest to conduct yet. MEC also appreciates the 102 AUFA members who took the time to speak with the callers and help AUFA’s various committees understand the views and needs of AUFA members. 

Rhiannon Rutherford, Chair 

AUFA Membership Engagement Committee 

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

New Member Preliminary Survey Results

In November, AUFA’s Membership Engagement Committee (MEC) sought feedback from new AUFA members about their experiences of joining AU. This short survey was the first step in what will be a deeper look at the needs of new AUFA members.

Thirty-three AUFA members who were hired after January 1, 2019 responded, with an even split between new academic and new professional members. With one exception, the results were similar for academic and professional members. Key themes include:

• New AUFA members did not have enough information to effectively negotiate an offer.

• AU provided inadequate orientation to their jobs and to the organization.

• New AUFA members struggled to self-orient because of inadequate and incorrect documentation and the absence of mentors.

• Social isolation has intensified the challenges faced by new AUFA members.

In the spring, MEC members will be undertaking more in-depth interviews with AUFA members about their onboarding experiences.

Negotiations at Hire

Q1. During your hiring, did you have enough info to negotiate an offer effectively with AU?

The vast majority of members identified that they lacked information during the hiring process, and this affected their ability to negotiate. Negotiations are important because starting salaries are the pivotal factor in life-time earnings.

In their comments, respondents reported that AU would not answer questions, was unwilling to meaningfully negotiate, and refused to provide support to members having to relocate. Members also flagged that, when they became aware that their starting salaries were inequitable, there was no meaningful remedy available to them.

Orientation to Job

Q2. During your first two weeks on the job, were your job specific duties adequately explained to you?

Q3. Do you know the criteria against which your performance will be judged at the end of your probationary period?

In their comments, many respondents emphasized that their orientation to their jobs was inadequate. This included tasks, duties and how their work fit into the organization which was not explained or shifting as time went on. What information was provided was provided in an overwhelming volume without adequate context. Respondents also repeatedly emphasized that organizational documentation was often out of date, they often had no one to ask questions of, and the answers to questions often conflicted (depending upon who one asked).

Orientation to Organization

Q4. Do you know what you need to do to take a few days of sick leave?

Q5. Do you know what your PD account can and cannot be spent on?

Q6. Do you know how to book a vacation?

Q7. Do you know how to get help with IT problems?

In their comments, respondents also identified that their orientation to the organization was inadequate or non-existent. Many struggled to understand their entitlements, actual processes almost never matched written policies and procedures, how different parts of the university worked and interacted were unclear, and they struggled to find anyone who could answer their questions. Over time, new AUFA members navigated processes by trial and error.

Isolation and Workload

In their comments, new professional and academic members noted that the isolation created by COVID and the near-virtual model intensified their difficulties understanding their jobs and the organization. There have been few opportunities to develop informal connections and social networks and AU has made no effort to address this issue.

Staff (mostly professional) also identified rising workloads as a significant problem. These comments are, in part, related to AU’s disastrous IT Optimization process, but workload concerns are not restricted to only IT and course production staff. Enrollment growth, additional job responsibilities or workload volume (often associated with the move to working from home), and delays in staffing were factors contributing to workload problems.

Next Steps

In the spring, the New Member Research Committee will be conducting more in-depth interviews with new AUFA members. A final report is due in June. This report will include identifying areas for improvement for AU (which is primarily responsible for orienting new staff) as well as for AUFA.

As interim measures:

• In June, AUFA posted a new member handbook providing a basic overview of rights, entitlements and processes. Based upon member feedback, AUFA will be reframing this as simply a member handbook in the near future.

• In September, AUFA began phoning all new members on a go forward basis and providing an orientation to the union and the collective bargaining agreement. New or long-serving members who wish to receive such an orientation can email engagement@aufa.ca to set up a call.

• In December, AUFA will be developing a 2022 calendar of important dates for AUFA members.

Your Turn

The New Member Experience Committee would appreciate any further feedback you have on this topic as it prepares to commence interviews.

Corina Dransutavicius, Eloy Rivas Sanchez, Susan Cake, and Bob Barnetson

AUFA New Member Experience Committee

Autumn telephone survey starts next week

AUFA’s bi-annual telephone survey starts next week. Over twenty volunteers with the Membership Engagement Committee (MEC) will begin calling 100 randomly selected AUFA members to solicit their views on a variety of topics.

The purpose of the survey is to provide good quality data to the AUFA executive and committees. The survey data is anonymous. MEC reports some data back to the whole membership, but only in aggregated form. Other data (also anonymous) is reported only to the AUFA executive.

This autumn’s survey includes the usual environmental questions (member morale, trust in AU’s executive group, and so on) from surveys past. These questions allow us to track changes in member views over time. The results from our spring survey are here.

MEC expects the autumn survey will also include some questions related to collective bargaining and equity issues.

If you are randomly selected to participate in this autumn’s survey, we’re hopeful you can find 10 minutes or so to let AUFA know how it can most effectively serve its members.

AUFA is also looking for additional callers for this survey. The time commitment is minimal (about 45 minutes over the course of 10 days), and it’s a great way to connect with colleagues who you might otherwise never encounter. A full script and training package is available. If you are interested in calling 2-3 AUFA members, please email engagement@aufa.ca .

Rhiannon Rutherford, Chair

Membership Engagement Survey