In Memoriam: Sarah Mann (1985-2023)

Guest post from Mark McCutcheon

Sarah Mann, a longtime member of the AU community, has died. Most recently she was a CUPE Tutor in Labour Studies, but she completed two MAs, one with MAIS, the other at Brock with Dr Margot Francis and RA work for Dr Josh Evans (U of Alberta). Before that, I’d supervised her undergrad English studies. She won many if not most student awards AU offers: she won the 2011 Roberts Memorial Award, for undergrad feminist research, for her essay “Fucking Media: Sex Worker Representation and Resistance in Digital Culture.” To borrow words from Jane Arscott’s recent tribute, losing Sarah is a “bittersweet reminder of AU at its best”; she was, “one of our own.” Her loss leaves a crater in this place. I am destroyed.

As a MAIS student, Sarah worked as my research assistant. Her own grad research used AU’s own social network site, the Landing, to publicly research and archive the contents of the groundbreaking lesbian porn magazine On Our Backs. Sarah presented on her research as the first student contributor to the Faculty’s long running research talk series. Sarah was pursuing a SSHRC-funded PhD at Laurentian and teaching at Brock and Laurentian at the time of her death. We kept in touch, I was always writing reference letters for her and I was thrilled when my AU colleague Bob Barnetson made it possible for Sarah to teach here.

A favourite anecdote about Sarah’s graduate research is that, being publicly available online, her work drew interest from a prospective student from halfway round the world. This student wrote to me asking to take the ‘sex course’ I was apparently teaching. To illustrate their credentials, this person sent several photos of themselves doing nude yoga. But the best part is that all these inquiries—and nudes!—were going first to then-AU President Frits Pannekoek, whose office then relayed them to me.

Sarah was a vital presence in Facebook, where she organized a creative writing group for pandemic coping; her constant updates are how I learned she had been adopted (informally or officially, idk) by an Indigenous family in Sudbury, to help her while she studied at Laurentian. [hope i got this detail right—ed.]

But socials and correspondence are how I also know just how precariously Sarah lived, not by choice, of course, but because poverty, and because personal challenges—barriers and troubles she talked about openly but also, critically, understood as structural challenges, systemic failings of underfunded health care and social services. These formed an important focus for her PhD work, on the mental health needs and supports at Canadian universities.

Dr Francis, Sarah’s mother and I have begun working together on plans to publish and archive Sarah’s extraordinary scholarly and critical writings. Sarah was an excellent writer; she also knew the importance of organizing work. To coordinate these efforts and ensure they give appropriate consideration to the family’s wishes and interests, and to help these projects benefit and strengthen the communities and causes that were important to Sarah, Margot and I invite Sarah’s colleagues, collaborators, and community of creatives to get in touch (about publishers, publishing process, archival practice, etc.) and to get updates on our work (and others’ projects, works we’re trying to locate, opportunities to collaborate, etc.). We’re reaching out via Facebook and by email: howtonotsuckatwriting@proton.me, a secure email we’ve named after her funny, wise essay writing guide, https://howtonotsuckatwriting.ca, which you really must read.

“Queer research is about saving queer lives,” Sarah wrote in 2012, in a debate amongst AU faculty and students over what “safety” means, and for whom, in open learning spaces.

The thrust of my research is that the exclusion of certain queer bodies from public spaces (like this one) is 1) linked to an extraordinary amount of violence that those same queers experience on a daily basis and 2) decided on the basis of how class, racial, gendered and other sexual-social statuses mark some bodies and images as particularly disruptive in relation to heteronormative standards. I would be happy—delighted, even—to talk at length with anyone who is curious about how the heteronormative standards for "safety" from the kinds of sexuality that are imagined as disruptive in fact make a great many poor, trans, racialized, and women queers very unsafe.

Sarah, we intend to carry on this conversation, by celebrating your work, and by sharing and connecting more with the communities you were so lovingly building a better future for.

Rest in Power, Sarah.

Both photos are from Sarah’s MAIS graduation in Athabasca on June 12, 2015.

The photo shows from left to right; Joshua Evans, Janyce Mann (Sarah's mom), Sarah Mann, Mark McCutcheon, FHSS Dean Veronica Thompson. Everyone is close together, smiling, standing in front of a black curtain. Joshua, Mark, and Veronica are wearing their red and black PhD regalia and Sarah is wearing her Master’s graduation regalia.

The photo shows Sarah Mann and Mark McCutcheon standing next to each other and smiling. Sarah has a nametag around her neck. There is a large flower arrangement behind Mark and an Athabasca Unversity banner behind Sarah.

Link to the Go Fund Me campaign: https://www.gofundme.com/f/paying-tribute-to-sarah-mann

Link to the AU Hub article: https://news.athabascau.ca/faculty/faculty-of-humanities-social-sciences/in-memoriam-sarah-mann/

Link to the obit with funeral info: https://www.simplewishesnorth.com/obituary/Sarah-Mann

Starting Social Groups to Combat Isolation

A post from Heather McLean (Equity Committee) and Kristin Rodier (Constituency Rep)  

Hello!   

At AUFA, we have heard from members that they want more opportunities to bridge the gap of social isolation working remotely. As we all know, working online can be isolating, and lonely. News reports that inflation is causing isolation to rise in some populations are circulating, as well as research confirming what many of us feel (or, rather don’t feel) communicating primarily through screens.  

In response to member concerns, we are interested in creating more gathering space/spaces for socializing, solidarity, and care. We’ve heard from members they are struggling with a sense of detachment. We are interested in finding ways to humanize our work lives and build connections with each other as we face what seem like growing workloads and new predicaments.  

For about a year now, we’ve hosted a monthly meet-up group for casual chats and support for newer faculty. We reached out to AUFA after we were hired in 2021 to see if something like this existed, but it didn’t. So, we asked AUFA for a list of faculty who were hired around the same time as us, and reached out across the university to meet others who were onboarding at the same time. We talked about getting to know AU systems, pandemic parenting, online teaching, our pets, our gardens, frozen drink recipes — so many topics! And we learned a lot from each other about practical work related topics and built a friendly sense of community. A few times, we invited people from different areas of the university (course production, student services, media relations, etc.) This group has not added any new members in some time, and many of us have found that year 2 and 3 of the job is much much busier. So, the group is waning a bit. But this model really helped us through a difficult period—and here we are working together! 

We are asking AUFA members for suggestions for platforms for online engagement where we can be ourselves and build solidarities. This is important for our wellbeing and for preparation and solidarity ahead of another round of bargaining to begin next year. Any thoughts?  

  
Some of our ideas:  

• Monthly Cafés and/or beer hang outs. Would you like to host (virtually) or organize a meet up where you live? Would you want them on a theme? Suggestions for physical meet ups?   

• Walks or outdoor meet ups with or without dogs.   

• More professional meetups online where we learn about each others jobs, professional development, retirement, co-working groups for writing, research, tenure and promotion, or other topics you are seeking feedback on.  

• Online engagement that is fun—games, trivia—you tell us! 

• Discussions on mental health, work from home life, sharing ideas about ways to humanize life online with each other, students and our communities.  

What would you like to see? Be creative!   

What would you like to volunteer for/participate in? AUFA appreciates you!  

Heather and Kristin 

Petition: Require COVID-19 preventative measures at FHSS Symposium

The Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences (FHSS) is hosting a symposium September 22-23, 2022. The Dean’s Office has promoted this event as an opportunity for FHSS to reconnect after a long hiatus, in order to build community and a sense of belonging. However, the lack of directives to make the event safer and more accessible to those who want to participate is at odds with this goal. 

Human Resources has provided no preventative measures related to COVID-19 to be implemented, other than asking those with symptoms to stay home. Preventative measures can include providing and requiring N95 masks, providing HEPA filtration in conference rooms, opening windows, and providing rapid tests to attendees. Requiring all attendees to wear masks and having rapid tests available is a small price to pay to facilitate broader participation.  

Although several members have repeatedly asked about additional preventative measures, the Office of the Dean of FHSS and HR have only agreed to meet the lowest bar possible, as required by Alberta Health Facilities and federal health authorities. Other academic conferences have shown leadership in this area and have taken measures to both ensure better accessibility and protect attendees. For example, last month the American Sociological Association required vaccination, masking, and provided rapid tests for attendees at their conference. Instead of providing these sensible and minimally intrusive requirements, the Office of the Dean has stated that those who “have concerns about large gatherings” should attend virtually.  

Despite the lack of public health measures at the provincial and federal level, COVID-19 continues to be a public health issue. In many places, COVID-related deaths this year have exceeded those from last year (for example, Ottawa). COVID continues to exact a high toll, causing hospitalizations, missed work, and deaths that disproportionately affect BIPOC, disabled, older, and low-income people who are more exposed and less protected. In Alberta, COVID deaths continue to rise, and health experts are predicting a fall surge in COVID cases. 

For reasons of equity and workplace safety, AUFA and the undersigned are now asking FHSS to voluntarily adopt preventative measures to both encourage wider accessibility, and to prioritize the health and wellbeing of our colleagues and their families who are immunocompromised, disabled, or caring for those who are not able to be vaccinated or who are at increased risk. These measures will allow greater participation for members, foster community, and protect everyone who will be attending or working at the event. To fail to provide these measures is to facilitate further exclusions.  

While this conference is for FHSS members, the symposium guidelines can set a precedent across faculties. We invite you to sign this AUFA petition to require preventative measures for the Symposium. 

Resources: 

A blog post by a well-known writer, educator and trainer for transformative justice and disability justice Mia Mingus about the difficulty for disabled people to navigate pandemic while preventative measures are made options (CW: death): https://leavingevidence.wordpress.com/2022/01/16/you-are-not-entitled-to-our-deaths-covid-abled-supremacy-interdependence/ 

A Twitter thread by Stephanie Tait (@StephTaitWrites), a disability inclusion specialist, about the downloading of risk onto high risk people: https://twitter.com/StephTaitWrites/status/1567593587109666816?s=20&t=diBYBIgz9kq15DAQmd_miQ 

An NPR article about the experiences of disabled people: https://www.npr.org/2022/07/14/1109874420/covid-safety-disabled-people-immunocompromised 

AU’s COVID protocols may not comply with OHS Act

On March 19, 2022, AU’s COVID-19 Planning Committee announced changes to the university’s COVID protocols. While most staff are required to continue to work from home, staff who permitted to be on campus are now no longer required to wear masks.  

A number of AUFA members questioned the logic of this change. Essentially, how can COVID be both dangerous enough to warrant working from home and not dangerous enough to require mandatory masking when on campus?

This blog post outlines AUFA’s investigation to date, sets out our assessment of whether this policy change is compliant with the province’s Occupational Health and Safety Act, and asks members how they would like AUFA to proceed.

Background

By late 2021, AU’s COVID-19 protocol required almost all staff to work from home. If staff needed to be on campus, they would require special permission to do so, to be vaccinated and to wear a mask while on site. 

In March 2022, with no consultation with AU’s unions or the Joint Health and Safety Committee, AU’s COVID committee eliminated mandatory masking. The elimination of mandatory masking was a surprising change, given that COVID-19 is primarily spread through the air, via both droplets and aerosols. 

Under Alberta’s OHS legislation, AU is required to conduct an assessment of the hazard posed by COVID in the workplace, as well as institute controls to eliminate or otherwise reduce the risk posed by COVID to staff members. You can review AU’s most recent COVID hazard assessment here.

AU General Hazard Assessment COVID-19 AU Main Feb. 2022.pdf

AU’s COVID Control Strategy

AU has implemented a series of controls designed to reduce the risk of workplace infection among staff. As noted above, the primary control being used is directing staff to work from home. This control eliminates work-related exposure to COVID for those who work from home.

This control does not protect staff members who must regularly or occasionally work on campus. The OHS Act and Code requires AU to implement additional controls to protect these staff members. AU’s on-campus controls presently include:

Vaccination: AU’s Vaccination Policy and Procedure requires workers prove they have received two doses of an approved vaccine to be onsite. The logic here is that a vaccinated worker is less likely to have COVID (and thus less likely bring it into the workplace) and is less likely to contract COVID during a workplace exposure. 

Vaccination does not, however fully control the risk of COVID for those working onsite. The emerging evidence is that two doses of vaccine is not effective at preventing COVID inflection. Further, the effectiveness of vaccination appears to wane over time and AU does not require staff to have a booster shot. Essentially, vaccinated staff can still have, transmit, and acquire COVID in the workplace. This suggests the effectiveness of AU’s vaccination control is moderate and declining over time.

Cleaning: AU has implemented enhanced cleaning protocols in the workplace. This control is intended to remove the virus from surfaces and thus prevent surface transmission of the virus. Cleaning does not control the risk of droplet or aerosol transmission.

Social Distancing: AU recommends staff maintain a distance of six feet from one another in the workplace. Distancing reduces the risk of droplet transmission but does not control spread through aerosols. Aerosols can stay in the air for hours and spread throughout a workspace.

Symptom Exclusion: AU requires staff members who are exhibiting symptoms consistent with COVID to stay out of the workplace. Workplace exclusion is intended to reduce staff exposure to the virus. This control is of limited effectiveness because some COVID positive workers do not exhibit symptoms at all. COVID is also contagious prior to someone exhibiting symptoms. 

Analysis

To summarize, AU’s present control strategies and their effectiveness for workers who work on-site are as follows:

• Working from home: Not applicable.

• Vaccination: Moderate and diminishing

• Cleaning: Low

• Social Distancing: Low

• Symptom Exclusion: Low

An effective control for staff who work onsite is wearing a mask. Wearing a mask dramatically reduces transmission of the virus. 

Section 3(1) of the OHS Act requires “Every employer shall ensure, as far as it is reasonably practicable for the employer to do so, (a) the health, safety and welfare of (i) workers engaged in the work of that employer”. 

Mandatory masking in the workplace is a control that is reasonably practicable for AU to implement, entailing little cost and having little to no operational impact. 

In May, AUFA provided this analysis of the effectiveness of AU’s March 2022 COVID protocols to AU’s COVID Planning Committee and asked the committee to reinstitute mandatory masking. The committee declined this request:

The COVID-19 Planning Committee met to review yours and AUFA’s concerns and to discuss AU’s COVID-19 progress forward.  The committee identified that throughout COVID-19 it is has always remained cautious toward the lessening of COVID-19 restrictions and therefore did not take the removal of it’s [sic] masking protocols lightly.  The committee appreciates AUFA’s concern on this matter but continues to feel that the controls remaining in place were adequate to control the COVID-19 hazard for those working on site.  

Moving forward, the committee will be continuing to recommend adjustment of AU’s controls based on continued assessment of the hazard and with continued guidance from Government Agencies as well as other resources as it works toward reopening its place-based work sites.

Next steps

AUFA’s OHS representatives are seeking member input about how to proceed with this issue. Essentially there are two options:

1. Take no action: AUFA can decide not to pursue this matter any further. This means that staff members who regularly or periodically work onsite will experience an increased risk of contracting COVID. These staff members can, in part, reduce this risk by choosing to wear a mask.

2. File an OHS complaint: AU’s unwillingness to require mandatory masking appears to violate AU’s obligations to take all reasonably practicable steps to control the hazard posed by COVID 19 for AU employees who must be onsite.

The anonymous survey below gives you the opportunity to provide direction to AUFA’s OHS representatives.

Rhiannon Rutherford and Bob Barnetson

AUFA OHS Representatives

Your Turn

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 

Member meeting with Faculty of Science and Technology

Last week, AUFA’s membership engagement committee hosted a meeting with AUFA members in the Faculty of Science and Technology. This was another in a series of meetings for addressing topics of interest to various departments or sub-groups within AU and to allow for a looser, more open dialogue than is possible in more structured general membership meetings.

Although more than one topic was planned for discussion, most of the meeting was taken up with discussions of workload and a few related issues. The meeting was lively with good attendance and solid engagement from the faculty. In addition to the main topic of workload, questions on other matters emerged, such as gaps in support for faculty and staff when dealing with abuse from students as well as the role of our union in social causes.

AU’s massive growth over the past few years has impacted everyone, but the Faculty of Science and Technology has been particularly hard-hit. The impacts of this ongoing and extreme workload issue not only creates incredible personal stress with resulting health issues, but also has a negative impact on academic career performance. It is difficult to apply for promotion if your workload is so high you can do nothing but teach.

This stems from several key factors:

Covid-19

The closure of our physical exam centres has resulted in a huge increase in alternate assessments, potentially more than in other faculties. This creates an incredible amount of manual work for anyone teaching a course, not only from the actual creation and execution of the assessments, but also from managing student issues due to the scrambled response. With the permanent closures of the Edmonton and Calgary offices announced by the interim President, it is still unknown what AU intends to do about these issues.

Under-hiring

AU has been hiring extensively over the past two years. However, not all departments have benefitted equally. Notably absent is growth in positions in the Faculty of Science and Technology despite huge student growth in their courses and other factors that lead to increased workload. Some planned academic coordinator positions were even axed by Provost Matt Prineas for unknown reasons, leaving the increasing work to pile up on existing faculty and staff.

Unequal workload

As sciences are highly specialized, there is not much opportunity for crossover and coverage across disciplines. This means that while some areas have comparatively light student loads, others are completely overloaded and coordinating as many as seven courses with significant enrolment simultaneously. This causes an issue seen in many workplaces – the members whose work is the most responsible for AU’s incredibly profitable past few years are the least likely to benefit from it.

Open enrolment

An unexplored issue by AU administration is if there should be a limit on enrolment within courses. The highest-enrolment courses in FST have many thousands of students but, like any other course, have only a single coordinator. Capping enrolment was an idea brought up to prevent the complete collapse of the structures that keep these courses running. AU administration clearly have perpetual growth as a goal, but there are significant questions about the sustainability and scalability of our current structures.

Solutions

The faculty was eager to discuss potential solutions to workload issues. These included caps on the number of students, or number of courses, or a mix of both. The inability to do course revisions when overloaded was another issue, and one member asked about specialized release from teaching to focus solely on updating courses. With the bargaining team ready to discuss language over workload appeal, these ideas are relevant and can be considered in the light of general discussions.

Outcome

Engagement with all areas in the university is critical to our success as a union and ensuring we can get the best deal possible for all members in bargaining. We were delighted to have this meeting and to properly speak with so many members from a faculty we have not spoken much with in the past. AUFA will continue to schedule these departmental meetings, but going back to FST for a second meeting will be a priority as there is still much more to speak about.

David Powell

AUFA President

Ongoing ergonomic issues – looking for feedback

As we approach one year of almost all AU staff working from home, we have been hearing from many members about the cumulative effects of ongoing ergonomic issues. In December, AU provided one-time payments to staff members who moved to working from home due to COVID to help purchase new equipment.

While we applaud this gesture, it is becoming apparent that this was not enough to adequately meet many members’ ergonomic needs. In addition to concerns about the cost of equipment, we have received several complaints that suggest AU may not have adequately met their legal requirements to accommodate employees’ medical or workplace needs.

We also became aware that earlier this year that AU issued a request for proposals for a contractor to run the ergonomic program at AU. It is unclear the extent to which this contracted out work may replace, continue, or build on the ergonomic supports currently in place or those in place prior to COVID-related closures.

However, we recognize that this may be a broader issue affecting many staff who have not come forward yet. We are therefore asking AU employees to complete a short, anonymous survey to share perspectives and provide input on their experiences with the support for ergonomics they have received from AU.

Main Campus Inspection Complete

The Joint Occupational Health and Safety Committee inspected the Main and ARC buildings last Thursday. Facilities has made significant progress over the past 12 months, both in renovating the building and in remedying past OHS issues.

No significant OHS problems were discovered during the inspection. Additional carbon monoxide monitoring of the ARC building was undertaken in January after anomalous reading in December. Additional monitoring did not turn up any results of concern. The December readings were likely the result of sensor error.

The Joint Committee meets again this month. Topic to be addressed include revisions to current OHS training and outgoing telephone messaging. Your main campus HIS representatives are Rhiannon Rutherford and Bob Barnetson.

Rhiannon Rutherford and Bob Barnetson

AUFA Main Campus OHS committee members