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

Picketing and the Virtual Strike

AUFA’s Job Action Committee (JAC) is at present tabulating the results of its consultation on striking, strike activities, and strike pay. The short version is there was overwhelming member support, and the consultation generated many excellent ideas, some of which we are adopting. There will be a full report-back in early January. A townhall meeting and ratification vote on a slightly revised set of recommendations will take place in later January.

During the consultation, members asked a variety of questions. Some questions are answered in our Work Stoppage FAQ while others will be answered in the new year via a blog post. This post explains how JAC will organize picketing given AUFA’s distributed membership and the effective closure (temporarily or permanently) of all campuses.

The Logic of Strikes and Picketing

Workers withdraw their labour (i.e., strike) in order to apply financial pressure on their employer to come to a mutually acceptable agreement. Strikes generate pressure primarily by disrupting the employer’s ability to deliver service to their customers and, thus, make money.

JAC has completed a preliminary analysis of the impact of AUFA members ceasing their teaching, internal service, and professional duties. This analysis suggests a strike will significantly degrade AU’s ability to operate and, indeed, function at all. This, in turn, will cause students to defer new registrations, thereby imperilling 50% of AU’s revenue.

Further, any work stoppage will negatively affect AU’s reputation as a reliable and responsible provider of post-secondary education. The risk for the employer (that escalates over time) is that students may decide to take their tuition money elsewhere.

Workers picket to discourage customers, suppliers, and replacement workers from entering the worksite. Essentially, picketing is designed to intensify the operational disruption of a strike as well as attach reputational costs to the employer’s unwillingness to bargain. Intensifying the pressure on the employer is designed to shorten the length of the strike. Picketing often entails walking the sidewalk or blocking a plant gate, carrying signs, handing out leaflets, and the like.

Traditional picketing makes little sense at AU. Effectively, no work occurs on AU’s campuses and no students ever visit them. Further, many AUFA members do not live in close proximity to an AU location. Consequently, JAC is considering two main alternatives to the traditional picket: flying pickets and digital pickets.

Flying Pickets

A flying picket is essentially an in-person picket that moves around (instead of a static picket outside a workplace) and operates for relatively short periods of time. It can, but does not always, entail carrying picket sign. Some examples of flying pickets include:

• Campus visits: Going to a campus that sends many visiting students to AU, having one-on-one conversations with students about our issues and concerns, and asking them not to enroll at AU until the strike is over will apply reputational and financial pressure to AU.

• High-Traffic Pickets: Holding a traditional picket at a high-traffic location (e.g., important intersection at rush hour) to raise public awareness about AU’s behaviour.

• Door Knocking: Informing voters of how the government’s mandate (which presumably shapes AU’s financial offer) is affecting us may generate government pressure on AU to settle (e.g., by agreeing to non-financial improvements).

• Secondary Pickets: Picketing organizations with close ties to the AU or the government may generate pressure from these organizations on AU to settle.

• Pressuring Leaders: Picketing or leafleting at businesses operated by AU Board members or in the neighbourhoods of AU Board members and executives may pressure them to seek a settlement.

Flying pickets address the absence of a meaningful workplace to picket. At present, JAC plans to hold regular flying pickets in Athabasca, Calgary, and Edmonton. These locations are home to approximately 75% of our members and are where AUFA has the deepest bases of local organizers. Flying pickets are possible in other locations if there are enough AUFA members and local organizers available.

Digital Pickets

Approximately 25% of members do not live in or near Athabasca, Edmonton, or Calgary. To accommodate these members, as well as those members for whom flying pickets are not viable, JAC is also developing digital picketing strategies. A digital picket is an activity designed to apply pressure to AU to settle that can be performed regardless of one’s physical location. Some examples of digital picketing include:

• Shareables: The posting of shareables (e.g., memes, infographics) on social media applies reputational pressure to AU, particularly when coupled with a specific time-bound ask (e.g., during a strike, don’t register for AU courses or refrain from donating to AU). Shareables also allow non-AUFA members to amplify these tactics. Social media accounts, including anonymous ones, are readily available and easy to operate.

• Outreach: Targeted contacts (e.g., email, phone calls, letters) can be operationally disruptive as well as apply financial and reputational pressure to AU. Targets can include AU Board members, executives, donors, students, MLAs, and allied organizations.

• Education: Digitally delivered “teach-ins” are a way for AUFA members to interact with members of the public (as well as other AUFA members), build an understanding of why we’re striking, and recruit allies.

• Creative activities: Creative activities, whether self-directed or structured (e.g., limerick, haiku, photo, and song contests), offer an important way to build morale, engage with one another, and apply reputational pressure on AU.

In addition to flying and digital pickets, JAC and the AUFA executive will be working on other pressure tactics, including transfer-credit boycotts, advertising, and media coverage. Ideally, AUFA would like to have a suite of strike activities available that allow all members to meaningfully participate in winning better working conditions.

We hope this brief discussion of AUFA’s approach to strike activities is helpful. If you have any questions, you can contact me at barnetso@athabascau.ca.

Bob Barnetson, Chair

AUFA Job Action Committee

Your Turn

JAC would like to hear your feedback on the approaches outlined above as well as any ideas you have.

Designation is about power; consultation continues

Last fall, AU proposed a new designation policy that would remove 67% of AUFA members from the bargaining unit. Three consultation meetings with AUFA, AUPE and CUPE took place in February. These meetings ended with no clear resolution or process for further consultation.

An April survey of AUFA members revealed that only 2% of members supported AU’s proposal. On May 12, AUFA, AUPE and CUPE representatives met with representatives of the employer to continue consultation on the proposed Designation as Academic Policy.

May 12 Meeting Summary

The three unions affirmed their collective desire to maintain the status quo on bargaining unit boundaries, citing the need for labour peace and collegiality. Each of the unions stated the issues that they saw in the proposed policy, namely that AUFA would suffer heavy membership losses, and AUFA members would face uncertainty regarding their representation, protections, and benefits.

When AUFA asked whether or not the employer intended to provide a revised draft of the policy, the employer’s representatives replied that no, they have not revised the policy, claiming that they do not understand the unions’ objections to the policy. This statement is difficult to reconcile with the fact that we had met three times previous to this meeting, and had very clearly stated our reasons for objecting.  

AUFA representatives maintained their stance that the designation policy should take an inclusive approach to the definition of an academic, citing the current policy (in place since 2003, and revised in 2013). The current policy contains a broad and effective definition of academic, given that it is a labour relations term for the purposes of designation and since any definition of academic has implications for bargaining unit membership, as per the PSLA.

AUFA again questioned the university’s motives in proposing a policy that would result in massive membership losses. No satisfactory response was received. Rather, AU representatives simply stated that they have already answered that question, and insist that they are unaware of the implications for membership loss as a result of the implementation of the policy as its being proposed.  

When pressed with the question of whether or not the bargaining units would remain the same if this policy were to be implemented as it is now presented, the employer’s representative conceded that if employees were found not to fit the definition of academic in the proposed policy, then the composition of the bargaining units would change.

The three unions have agreed to continue to meet with the employer to consult on the policy. No additional meeting dates have been set.

Analysis

AU continues to frame this consultation as a good-faith undertaking, designed to establish a clear definition of what an academic is and then apply it to the existing AUFA bargaining unit. This framing avoids engaging several important issues:

• AU has not advanced a clear rationale for making major changes to a policy that has been in effect since 1983. In short, the radical changes in the proposed policy do not appear to solve any problem. It is difficult to meaningfully consult when the employer will not name the problem that its proposal is trying to solve.

• The proposed policy would significantly and negatively affect the terms and conditions of AUFA members who would be dedesignated. President Fassina declined to discuss these changes in a townhall, saying the changes would be identified after the new policy would be enacted. AU has provided no information about potential impacts since then. It is irresponsible for AU to propose profound changes without identifying the implications of those changes for affected members.

• The proposed policy would dramatically reduce the bargaining power of those members left in AUFA and thus AUFA’s ability to resist rollbacks at the bargaining table. It would do so by reducing the ability of AUFA to disrupt operations during a strike or lockout.

The last point suggests that this consultation is not simply a review of the policy. It is also an effort to reduce the bargaining power of AUFA. Absent a powerful strike threat, AU would be able to force wage and working condition rollbacks on the few remaining AUFA members. For this reason, it is important to focus on the labour-relations outcome of AU’s proposed policy, rather than getting draw into debate about what is the definition of an academic.

Next Steps

AUFA, AUPE and CUPE will continue consulting, but the employer’s behaviour suggests it has little intention to alter its aggressive proposal. In the event that the Board proceeds to de-designate AUFA members, AUFA has developed a strategy combining member actions with an appeal to the Labour Relations Board. AUFA will also be raising the designation issue when the two sides begin meeting to commence collective bargaining.

Jolene Armstrong, President