Open letter to Dr. Peter Scott and AU’s Executive Team

Dear Dr. Peter Scott and members of AU’s Executive Team,

As you are likely aware, collective bargaining between AU and AUFA has not been going well.

We fully respect that you are maintaining distance from the process to allow AU’s bargaining team to represent the employer’s interests at the table. However, the current context does suggest that some direction from the Executive Team may be necessary to bring this extended conflict to a mutually satisfactory conclusion.

Specifically, there are significant contextual factors that are important to highlight.

AUFA members want a fair deal

AUFA members recently rejected a mediator’s proposed settlement by 77%, with 91% of members voting. This sends a strong and clear message that the concessions AU has been seeking in this round of bargaining are simply not acceptable.

No one is looking forward to a strike or lockout that could entail significant disruptions for learners. But AUFA members have also demonstrated that they are not willing to accept significant concessions that would erode working conditions, collegiality, and student experiences over time. Despite previous framing of AUFA as the aggressive party in this dispute, AUFA members are fully aware that our true position is that of defending valued protections and benefits from an unnecessarily aggressive employer.

Not all our members agree on every issue—that is the nature of a democratic organization—but our ongoing engagement efforts have revealed some clear themes that provide important context for determining what a fair deal might look like in this context.

We want to be excited about the future of AU

Our members have told us they believe deeply in the mission of this university. The strongest consensus that has emerged from our consultations is that we care about students and about learning. We want to be excited about our work. We want to be innovative, creative, and rigorous. But we feel blocked by a combination of factors and forces.

The most common concern is that our members feel overwhelmed by work and stripped of agency. Professional members affected by reorganization and major change initiatives feel they are denied the chance to do their best work. Academic members worry about the erosion of collegial governance while pressure increases a sense of precarity, especially for those newer to AU. Our members tell us key decisions are made in ways that shut out our expertise, experience, and enthusiasm.

We don’t oppose change and transformation, but it matters how that change happens. We don’t want to feel bullied, belittled, or ignored. We want you to listen to our feedback—really listen—and meaningfully include us in decision-making processes.

AUFA members are realizing that the process of collective bargaining offers a rare chance to assert our own agency. We don’t have to passively accept negative changes to our working conditions. Instead, we can demand the respect we deserve. We have heard from many members who suggest that they don’t want to strike but they will if necessary.

It’s about more than the language on the table

We all know this round of bargaining doesn’t exist in isolation. Our collective agreement has a long history and context and is intertwined with other aspects of our work environment.

There are a wide range of management decisions that influence how we feel about what’s going on at the bargaining table. There are many examples of this, so we’ll only name a few.

• The IT Optimization project was a really negative experience for most of our affected members, many of whom continue to feel devalued and stripped of agency.

• Top-down decisions affecting members in the Faculty of Health Disciplines, in particular, have combined with the pressures of educating front-line workers throughout the pandemic to create significant stress and erode morale.

• Many members have experienced the Near-Virtual initiative as stressful and contradictory.

• Many members have expressed concern about the lack of consultation and transparency during the implementation of the Integrated Learning Environment.

• We routinely field calls from members looking for clarification and support with navigating AU’s own processes, including significant concerns about a lack of support from HR with basic employment needs and an unnecessarily adversarial approach to labour relations.

• Members continue to feel anxious about AU’s threat to de-designate them from the union.

These experiences illustrate why we see a clear signal in our surveys that our members have extremely low levels of trust in AU’s leadership. Trust was already low when we started the surveys during Dr. Neil Fassina’s tenure, and it has only dropped since. In November 2021, only 15% of members surveyed said they agreed with the statement, “I trust the executive team of the university,” while 58% said they did not. AUFA members are not alone in this. Many AUPE and CUPE members have shared similar frustrations.

This low level of trust affects how we interpret communications from AU. Many members describe feeling insulted or outraged when reading AU’s communications, even on topics unrelated to bargaining, and have described it as incomplete, misleading, or disingenuous.

To be clear, this is not a reflection of the way our members who facilitate AU communications do their work. Rather, this reflects frustration and even exasperation with the lack of meaningful, transparent, and timely communication shared by AU’s top leaders.

It’s important for you to understand that our members have learned over the years to be suspicious or skeptical of the information and spin offered by AU’s leadership. What this means is that platitudes and vague promises won’t win our trust back. We need concrete and tangible actions.

You have the power to change course

The AUFA executive and volunteers will keep listening to AUFA members. In the past few weeks, we have heard that many members feel distracted and demoralized, and that most would very much appreciate an end to this lengthy battle. But our members are also focused on safeguarding and advancing valued protections and benefits.

It is clear that the university is the body with the power to change course. You have the opportunity to set a new tone that foregrounds respect for the workers of this university. You have the chance to open a new chapter of improved labour relations and increased collegiality. Give us all—our members, our colleagues, and our students—the chance to look to the future of AU with renewed optimism and energy.

We ask that you send a strong signal that you are ready to acknowledge, respect, and value the work we do. It’s time for you to demonstrate that you’re prepared to empower us to do our best work in service of our shared mission to remove barriers and increase equality of educational opportunity for adult learners worldwide.

Respectfully,

AUFA Executive and Members

This letter, with 130 AUFA members' signatures included, was delivered to Dr. Scott and the AU Executive on April 5, 2022. We are hopeful this will help to encourage the employer to take a different approach to bargaining than we've seen over the past several months.

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.  

Bargaining Update: AUFA Presents Counter-Proposals

AU and AUFA met for a part day of bargaining on March 2, as AU representatives were unable to make themselves available for much of the afternoon. AUFA used the limited time to present its own package of counter-proposals in an effort to move toward a fair deal. This update provides highlights of AUFA’s proposals. An analysis of where things stand as we move into formal mediation next week will come in the following days.

AUFA continues to reject the list of concessions demanded by AU, including reductions to professionals’ rights, cuts to research and study leave, the removal of Deans from the bargaining unit, and negative changes to grievance and appeals processes. Our new package reflects this stand.

AUFA made a counter-offer on the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). AU’s proposal on Monday offered the settlement given to AUPE (2.75% to 3.25% provided late in the contract).

AUFA’s new COLA offer is:

• July 1, 2020: 0%

• July 1, 2021: 0%

• July 1, 2022: An average of 2.5% increase to base salary awarded as flat dollar amount per-member, pro-rated for FTE.

• July 1, 2023: An average of 2.5% increase to base salary awarded as flat dollar amount per-member, pro-rated for FTE.

AUFA’s COLA proposal is designed to increase equity among all AUFA members. If COLA is distributed as a percentage, as it has been for years, then members higher up on the wage scale receive a larger wage increase in real dollar terms than do those lower on the wage scale. For example, a 2.5% COLA for someone earning $75,000 equals $1,875. For someone earning $150,000, that same percentage increase equals $3,750. In contrast, AUFA’s proposal ensures that each AUFA member receives a COLA of approximately $2,600 in each of the last two years, based on AUFA members’ current average salary. AUFA’s proposal is meant to correct the inequities inherent in AU’s tendency in recent years to lowball new hires on starting salary.

AUFA’s latest proposals maintain our existing requests expanding appeals rights to disputes over workload and performance, securing fair work-from-home allowances and improvements to equity language, creating four floating vacation days, and ensuring protections against the de-designation of AUFA members. We also renewed our call for a joint pay equity review process.

Finally, AUFA amended its proposals for stronger occupational health and safety language and new contracting out language. Both remain on the table for discussion.

AUFA’s package did not include a counter-offer to the employer’s proposal on tenure and promotion processes (Article 3). AUFA is still deliberating on its response to that item.

AU has not yet responded to the package. The parties enter formal mediation on March 8.

On behalf of the bargaining committee,

Jason Foster

Chair

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 

Bargaining Update

AU and AUFA met last week for two days of bargaining (October 25 & 29). AU continues to refuse to present 12 of its proposals, including its monetary proposals. The AUFA bargaining team once again re-iterated how this refusal is blocking progress at the table.

Academic and professional freedom (Article 11) and Article 4, which relates to professional’s probation, performance and promotion were the primary topics of discussion. The parties also agreed in principle to some small housekeeping changes to Article 20 regarding external professional activities (i.e., work outside of AU), although some larger issues in that article remain.

On academic and professional freedom AUFA provided a counter-proposal which would protect key elements of academic freedom and enhance professional freedom. While AU did not provide a formal response to the proposal, AU repeated its claim that professionals do not need protection because no professionals have ever been disciplined for speaking out or criticizing the employer. AU continued to make this claim even after AUFA provided an example of a professional being disciplined for expressing professional concerns over an employer decision.

On the topic of professionals’ probation, performance, and promotion (Article 4), the parties had extended discussions over AU’s proposal to eliminate key processes such as the probation review and position evaluation committees. These processes ensure that decisions regarding probation and position classification are fair to the member. These rollbacks are accompanied by a proposal to reduce the probation period to 12 months (from 2 years).

AU’s proposal is a classic “carrot-and-stick” proposal. AU is offering something that benefits the members (i.e., shorter probationary periods) but has paired it with series of measures that profoundly undermine members’ rights (i.e., fair probationary review and position evaluation processes). AU has not presented a compelling rationale for reducing the fairness of the probationary and position evaluation processes. AUFA continues to advocate for fairer processes for these kinds of decisions, including resolving disputes over workloads and performance evaluations.

AU’s insistence on rolling back rights for professionals with the justification that professionals don’t deserve these rights because other universities don’t provide the same level of protection to their professionals is an example of a wedge strategy. A wedge strategy seeks rollbacks affecting a subset of the full membership. These rollbacks are often paired with some sort of minor improvement for other members. This strategy is designed to erode the solidarity of a union’s members by incentivizing the majority of members to vote for a small gain that benefits them at the expense of the subgroup targeted for rollbacks. In subsequent rounds, the employer builds on the animosity it has created by targeting a different group for rollbacks.

Rolling back rights of professionals is contrary to the university’s longstanding commitment to relative parity between professional and academic groups. AUFA argues this parity is warranted because education delivery at AU is more integrated than at bricks-and-mortar institutions and professionals are more involved in all aspects of the university’s mandate. In this way, AU is unique and the collective agreement reflects this uniqueness.

When AUFA reminded the employer’s bargaining team of AU’s uniqueness as an institution, it was told that AU being unique is “dangerous”. “One problem we face is thinking that we are unique”, AU co-chair Margaret Kierylo warned. “We are exactly like other institutions”.

AUFA believes this drive to separate professionals and academics is behind many of AU’s bargaining proposals, and may even be reflected in their monetary offer when it is finally presented. If AUFA’s members allow AU to roll back rights for professionals in this round of bargaining, AU will almost certainly come for the rights of academics in the next round of bargaining.

Finally, AUFA provided 11 dates in November and December where the team is available and willing to bargain. AU was unable to respond to those dates. AUFA, once again, must wait for AU to offer dates. AUFA is growing concerned about the lack of AU’s availability to bargain. Bargaining for a few days each month is insufficient to reach a deal in a reasonable timeframe.

As a reminder, AUFA is holding a town hall meeting for all members tomorrow, Tuesday November 2, at 10:00 am, to discuss the status of bargaining and to answer members’ questions about a possible strike/lock out. If you have questions, please attend.

As always, the AUFA bargaining team will work hard to represent the members’ best interests at the table.

Jason Foster

Chair, AUFA Bargaining Committee

AUPE successfully resists rollback mandate

AUPE and the Government of Alberta recently concluded mediation for a new contract for government workers. This settlement affects most workers employed directly by the government. It does not affect AUPE members employed by AU, other PSEs, or AUPE health care workers.

AUPE is recommending its members accept the new contract. The contract represents the culmination of a long and drawn out negotiation that saw AUPE successfully resist virtually every concession that the government initially demanded, including wage rollbacks, and it instead features modest salary gains for AUPE members. This blog provides some analysis of what this deal means for AUFA.

Government’s Opening Position

Going into bargaining, the government wanted a 4% wage rollback followed by several years of wage freezes. The government also sought further wage reductions in some specific job classifications as well as reductions in shift differentials, weekend premiums, health spending accounts, benefit costs, paid holidays, and overtime. Finally, the government sought to eliminate language about job security.

These proposed rollbacks were consistent with what government agencies, boards, and commissions (ABCs) have been seeking, presumably in response to secret government mandates. In theory, the government could have legislated these rollbacks (as was suggested by the MacKinnon panel in 2019) if it wanted to risk a court fight.

Recommended Agreement

Last week, AUPE announced that it had reached a mediated settlement with the government. The four-year deal (ending March 31, 2024) would have the government withdraw virtually all of its rollback demands (one exception is noted below) and offer some modest gains to government workers. These include:

• A 1.25% salary increase on January 1, 2023 and an additional 1.5% increase on September 1, 2023. Depending on economic conditions, an additional 0.5% increase is possible in September 2023.

• Job security for permanent staff until December 31, 2022.

• An 8% wage bump for some staff (mostly policing) whose jobs have expanded retro to April 1, 2021.

The one rollback is to the grids for three classifications. This rollback will affect new hires only. AUPE frames this as a win, but with job turnover of ~10% per annum, this is really more of a delayed loss. Significantly, this contract also pushes out the next round of bargaining until after the next expected election date.

Analysis

The agreement between AUPE and the government holds several lessons for AUFA. First, the agreement shows that government mandates are malleable. External factors can affect what the true bottom-line is for an employer. In this case, the government’s dismal polling amongst Alberta voters, together with its limited capacity to engage in additional conflicts likely contributed to the government walking away from rollback demands and agreeing to modest gains for AUPE members.

Internal factors can also affect the true bottom line, such as the willingness of a bargaining unit to strike and the negative impact of such a strike on the employer. While AUPE spent a lot of effort building strike capacity in this bargaining unit, it was not at all clear that AUPE could mount an effective strike (i.e., one where the operational disruption and political harm caused by the strike outweighed the cost savings and long-term gain for the government). Nevertheless, these preparations likely contributed to the government making a quiet about-face.

The second lesson is that what unions get (and can keep) reflects what they can win. AUPE managed to fend off almost every rollback the employer wanted and even made modest gains, which is laudable. That said, these gains are very modest. A wage increase of 2.75% (or maybe 3.25%) over four years (during which time inflation will likely run 8%) represents a net loss to their members’ purchasing power.

This may well have been the best deal AUPE could get in the circumstances. Other unions (or AUPE bargaining units) with more powerful strike threats (i.e., they are more likely to go out or, if they go out, the cost for the employer will be greater) may be able to get an even better deal for their members.

For AUFA, this means we need to have a credible strike threat if we want to avoid rollbacks and make gains. More bluntly, AUFA members need to be prepared to strike. And the operational, financial, and reputational consequences of such a strike need to be serious enough that, in the end, the employer would prefer to improve our wages and working conditions than weather a strike.

Attaching profound consequences to change the employer’s behaviour was how AUFA prevented rollbacks during the 2018 round of bargaining. And it was how AUFA prevented AU from de-designating two-thirds of the members of the unit in 2020. Indeed, AU’s interest in widespread de-designation of AUFA can be usefully understood as an effort to undermine the power of AUFA’s strike threat.

Conversely, if AUFA cannot mount a credible strike threat, then there is basically no way for AUFA members to avoid accepting whatever rollbacks the employer proposes. Some AUFA members have expressed discomfort with the potential negative impact that a work stoppage will have on students and on the programs that AUFA members have spent years developing. The employer knows about this very understandable discomfort among AUFA members and it is hoping that these concerns will sap AUFA members’ willingness to strike.

The question for AUFA members is at what point do we stop sacrificing our wages and working conditions to keep the peace and instead seek well-earned and warranted improvements?

Bob Barnetson, Chair

AUFA Job Action Committee

Strong support for job action if necessary

Last week, AUFA’s executive and members of the Membership Engagement Committee (MEC), bargaining team, and Job Action Committee (JAC) met to discuss next steps in collective bargaining. This meeting was held to develop a common understanding of where bargaining is at, what the next steps are, and to brainstorm ideas for escalating pressure on AU to actually negotiate.

Bargaining Background and Status

AUFA and AU exchanged proposals in March and have held additional bargaining sessions in April, May, and early June. A half day of bargaining is scheduled for June 23.

There has been little progress at the table. AU has been resistant to AUFA’s proposals. AU has also refused to table the majority of its own proposals, including its monetary asks. It is not possible to reach an agreement with AU when AU refuses to tell us what it wants.

Member Support for AUFA Proposals

Online polling has demonstrated strong membership support for AUFA proposals, including extending academic and professional freedom and conducting a pay equity analysis. Members have also strongly rejected AU’s proposals to make it easier to layoff and discipline staff.

Unless there is significant movement at the bargaining table, AUFA members will need to begin taking job action to apply pressure to AU to negotiate a reasonable agreement. While we are a long way from going on strike, there are many things members that AUFA members can do to apply pressure.

For example, many members sent questions to Acting President Deborah Meyers ahead of her May Connect with the President sessions. Meyers declined to answer those questions. This suggests that AUFA members will need to take more forceful action to convince the university executive and the Board that there is no appetite among AUFA members for the concessions that AU is demanding.

If AU is unwilling to change course, AUFA members may ultimately need to strike in order to maintain their pay and benefits, AUFA has been preparing for a work stoppage since 2017.

Member Priorities at the Table

As part of this preparation, AUFA’s April MEC survey asked members about their bargaining priorities and their willingness to strike. Random sampling makes us reasonably confident that this data is valid and reliable (but see caveats below).

AUFA members identified resolving the ongoing designation issue, job security, and wages as their three most important priorities. Regarding wage increases, AUFA members noted:

1. AUFA members have accepted multiple years of salary freezes

2. The cost of living has risen appreciably during this time.

3. Workloads have increased significantly.

4. AU can afford cost-of-living increases.

Member Willingness to Strike

When asked about their willingness to strike over specific issues, there was strong support for striking to prevent rollbacks.

Overall, 69% of AUFA members said they would be likely or very likely to strike to prevent a wage rollback of 4%. While AU has not provided its monetary offer, a 3-4% rollback followed by another 3 or 4 years of wages freezes is a clear pattern across Alberta universities and colleges.

When asked if they would strike to prevent reductions in layoff language, 64% of AUFA members said they be likely or very likely to strike.

Finally, when asked if they would strike to protect professional members rights, 83% of AUFA members said they would likely or very likely to strike. This result demonstrates that AU’s wedge tactics (i.e., offering carrots to academics and applying the stick to professionals) has entirely failed.

A couple of caveats are in order about this approach to assessing member willingness to strike. The first is that asking members about willingness to strike on an issue-by-issue basis is a bit artificial. Actual strike behaviour is driven by an assessment of the totality of the alternative to a strike (i.e., the employer’s last, best offer). Consequently, these issue-by-issue questions may underestimate the overall willingness of members to strike.

For example, if we polled only two members (Bob and Jane) and found that Bob will only strike against wage rollbacks and Jane will only strike to protect professional rights, it will look like only 50% of members will strike over each issue. But, if the employer’s final offer contains wages rollbacks and cuts to professional rights, both Bob and Jane will end up supporting the strike (so 100% of the membership will walk).

Second, asking people about their willingness to strike is different than asking people to actually strike. When the rubber hits the road, people often have second thought because strikes are scary (especially first strikes). This means these numbers may over-estimate the willingness to actually strike.

Third, these polls are a snapshot of member feelings at a particular moment in time (late April). As the context changes (e.g., the employer acts unreasonably or racks up another operating surplus), the willingness of members to strike will change.

Despite these caveats, these numbers, especially so early in the bargaining process, suggest that AUFA could mount an effective strike if AU is unwilling to negotiate an acceptable offer. A smart employer would see these numbers as an opportunity to rethink their aggressive strategy and begin negotiating in earnest for a mutually acceptable contract.

Your Thoughts

AUFA would be interested in your thoughts about the next steps in bargaining.

Bob Barnetson, Chair

Job Action Committee

AU de-designates deans; delays implementation

AU’s Board of Governors (BoG) has been considering an application by the AU executive to de-designate the deans from the AUFA bargaining unit. The business case developed by the Provost to support this de-designation was deeply defective. AUFA provided a response to the executive’s application, suggesting that AU should bargain this issue and advanced proposals about designation in collective bargaining.

The BoG’s Human Resource and Compensation Committee (HRCC) voted on May 21, 2021 to de-designate the deans. AUFA and the deans were informed of this this week, nearly a month later.

The BoG has decided to delay the implementation of this change until the resolution of a complaint filed by AUFA to the Alberta Labour Relations Board (ALRB). The nub of this complaint is that decanal de-designation constitutes a change of terms and conditions of employment during collective bargaining (which is a prohibited practice).

The Labour Board is holding a mediation meeting about this complaint on July 7. If the matter is not resolved via mediation, then the complaint will proceed to hearing. AUFA is seeking a hearing as soon as possible (because violating the freeze period affects our ability to bargain). AU is suggesting the earliest they could be ready for a hearing is March of 2022.

AUFA has advised all candidates in the current decanal searches of AU’s intent to de-designate and the implications of de-designation.

In addition to the current complaint, AUFA has the option of appealing AU’s de-designation to the ALRB. While the basis of the appeal is still being sorted, the substance of the Provost’s business case are likely to be at issue.

AU has asserted the deans don’t do this combination of work and thus don’t meet the (highly contestable) definition of academic that AU just established. As it turns out:

• Teaching: Four of the five deans perform direct teaching. The fifth dean (who does not teach) was parachuted in from administrative leave following the termination of the dean of FHD. Indeed, the deans who are supervising graduate students would be forced to give that up if they are de-designated, because the Faculty of Graduate Studies regulations require supervisors to be full-time and continuing faculty members.

• Service: All of the deans serve on university governance committees.

• Research: All of the deans are engaged in scholarly research.

AU has also argued that deans should be excluded because they perform managerial functions, including making decisions with respect to hiring, promotion, discipline, and discharge, and that they have an important role in labour relations within AU. This assertion founders in several ways:

• Section 58.1(4) of the Labour Relations Code explicitly allows for academics who perform managerial functions to be considered employees and thus eligible for membership in faculty association.

• Article 3.5 of the collective agreement outlines how hiring occurs. A search committee makes a recommendation to the VPA and the VPA requests the President make an offer. Deans are not decision makers in the hiring process.

• Article 3.6 outlines how promotion works. A promotion review committee makes a recommendation to the VPA and the VPA makes a recommendation that the President promote or not promote. Deans are not decision makers in the promotion process.

• Article 7 outlines how discipline and termination works. A dean can investigate a concern (although in practice, HR does the investigation) and then makes a recommendation to the VPA who, then decides if discipline is warranted and what the discipline (which can include termination) shall be. Deans are not decision makers in the discipline and termination process.

• Deans have effectively no role in labour relations as it affects AUFA members. Deans may have a role in labour relations regarding CUPE tutors or AUPE support staff. This is neither relevant to nor precludes their membership in AUFA.

AU has also asserted that the goals of deans in bargaining will likely conflict with those of other AUFA members. AU has not substantiated this assertion. To date, AUFA has been unable to find any instances of meaningful conflicts of interest occurring.

Dave Powell, President