inflation

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 

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

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

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

Climate Questions 

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

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

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

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

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

  • perceptions of mismanagement, ineptitude, or hidden agendas 

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

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

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

Contract Negotiations 

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

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

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

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

Jobs in Athabasca 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Netskope and Privacy 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Rhiannon Rutherford 

AUFA President

Bargaining Update: Once more, little progress

AUFA and AU met on January 31 for another day of bargaining. The parties signed off on a couple minor items related to administration of the collective agreement and language reflecting the new bi-weekly pay periods.

AUFA presented a counter proposal on the cost-of-living adjustment. On the previous day of bargaining, AU proposed four years of zero increases. AUFA’s initial proposal, presented 10 months ago, was a 3% increase each year of a three-year agreement.

AUFA’s new amended proposal shifts to a four-year agreement. In the first two years, it asks for increases of 2% and 4% to salaries and grids. This proposal approximately matches inflation these last two years (2020 and 2021). AUFA then proposed that 2022 and 2023 cost-of-living adjustments be tied to Alberta’s consumer price index (CPI).

The goal of the proposal is to ensure AUFA members’ salaries approximately match the increase in the cost of living during the course of the agreement. AU has not formally responded to this proposal, although AU’s bargaining lead, external lawyer Chantel Kassongo, oddly proclaimed the offer to be an “escalation”. This assertion is hard to fathom, given AUFA’s proposal reflects current economic realities plus the passage of time caused by AU’s delay in tabling a monetary offer.

AUFA also tabled counter proposals regarding probation and performance of duties for professionals (Article 4), and on occupational health and safety (Article 25). AU has not yet responded to either proposal.

AUFA also presented concerns regarding the process for making changes to Blue Cross benefit entitlements. Specifically, AU has been refusing to consider changes proposed by AUFA at the joint committee tasked with managing the benefit plan. Article 10 (discrimination and harassment) and Article 17 (Association business) were also briefly discussed without resolution.

A surprising amount of time was spent addressing a technical legal matter. AUFA tabled a notice of estoppel regarding the issue of members performing work not in their job description. An estoppel notice is a legal statement to inform the other party that past practice will no longer apply regarding a specific matter.

AUFA was informing AU that, going forward, AUFA would rigorously apply the terms of the collective agreement regarding members performing work not in their job description. This notice is a legal technicality which does not substantially impact bargaining, and thus should have only taken a few minutes to address. Instead, the discussion took almost an hour and a half, in large part due to persistent questioning from Kassongo.

The dragging out of the estoppel notice discussion and AU’s lack of response to AUFA’s proposals suggest that AU is continuing its strategy of “going slow” in negotiations, which impedes progress toward a new agreement.

No further dates are currently scheduled. AUFA has proposed 12 days in February and March for bargaining. We await a reply from AU.

Jason Foster, Chair

AUFA bargaining team

Concordia strike ends in faculty victory

Ten days ago, 89% of the Concordia University of Edmonton Faculty Association (CUEFA) voted in favour of a new collective agreement, bringing Alberta’s first post-secondary strike to a quick and positive conclusion after 11 days. This blog post outlines what we know about the settlement, and provides some analysis for AUFA members. It concludes with an update on bargaining at Lethbridge and AUFA strike preparations.

Concordia Settlement

Through a combination of solidarity within Concordia and widespread support from outside the institution, CUEFA made crucial gains in both workload and salary. It was also able to retain member ownership over intellectual property, and to avoid rollbacks to disciplinary language.

Concordia’s administration agreed to reduce annual instructional loads for teaching faculty by 25%, from 8 courses to 6 courses, thereby enabling CUEFA members to manage increasing university expectations around research and research outputs.

Like our members, CUEFA members receive annual merit increments (the CUE term is “steps”) based on satisfactory job performance reviews. These annual increments continue to operate under the new agreement. The CUEFA deal also contains two types of additional wage increases during the four years of the agreement (July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2025).

  • Inflationary adjustments: Over the four years of the agreement, salaries and grids will be adjusted as follows: 0%, 0%, 0% and 1.5%.

  • Salary adjustments: On both of July 1, 2021 and January 1, 2023, CUE members will receive an additional (or “bonus”) salary increment.

Together, the inflationary and salary adjustments in this agreement will improve CUEFA members’ salaries by 4.39% to 6.85% (varies by member). CUEFA members will also continue to receive their normal annual salary increments.

Analysis

The CUEFA agreement will result in immediate salary increases greater than the increase contained in the autumn AUPE government services deal (2.75% to 3.25%). The AUPE deal appears to match the current provincial mandate in PSE.

That said, as important as CUEFA’s salary gains are, they’ll still likely result in a modest net loss of CUEFA members’ purchasing power over the life of the agreement. Alberta inflation from January to December, 2021 was 4.8%. Inflation is projected at 3% in 2022 and 2.5% in 2023.

Further, while it is important to note that monetary gains in the CUEFA deal increase member salaries, the top step of the CUEFA salary grids only move up 1.5% (in the fourth year of the deal). That is to say, the top of the CUEFA grid does not move up with inflation.

What this means is that the purchasing power of the maximum salary that CUEFA members can earn will be significantly eroded by inflation. For unions (like AUFA) that have a defined-benefit pension plan, stagnant grids also reduce the value of members’ eventual pension benefits (because the maximum annual salary is lower). To avoid such outcomes, most unions seek increases that apply to both salaries and salary grids. For example, AUFA’s opening offer is a 3% increase to salaries and grids in each of the proposed three years of the deal.

Overall, CUEFA resisted what would have been devastating rollbacks, and won significant and immediate gains for its members. CUEFA’s circumstances were slightly different than those facing AUFA. For one thing, Concordia is a private institution, and therefore was not bound by secret government mandates. And for another, Concordia is rolling in cash.

Acknowledging those differences, the CUEFA strike tells us that it is possible to make big gains if a faculty association is prepared to strike. It also tells us that, if we’re not prepared to fight, we will be stuck taking rollbacks.

CUEFA applied operational, financial, and reputational pressure to Concordia to get a deal. The strike forced administrators to cancel all classes, and, consequently, lose out on tuition revenue and suffer significant reputational harm. Strike support from groups of Concordia students (although notably not from the students’ union) intensified the reputational pressure.

AUFA’s Job Action Committee is presently exploring the forms of pressure AUFA can exert on AU to reach an agreement. For example, AU’s sponsorship of the Tenth Pan-Commonwealth Forum on Open Learning in Calgary from September 14 to 16 presents several opportunities to exert reputational pressure on AU.

Mediation unsuccessful at Lethbridge

Meanwhile, the University of Lethbridge Faculty Association (ULFA) announced Monday night that formal mediation with the University of Lethbridge had concluded without a deal. The mediator declined to recommend a settlement because the parties were too far apart.

The conclusion of mediation triggers a 14-day “cooling off” period (during which time the parties can continue to bargain if they wish). At the end of the cooling off period (February 1), the union can apply to take a strike vote. Once ULFA members have authorized a strike, a strike can begin at any time with 72 hours notice.

A strong strike vote can sometimes result in renewed bargaining as the employer confronts the possibility of a strike. At Concordia, a strike vote triggered movement by the employer on workload language. Nevertheless, a strike was still necessary for the employer to agree to reasonable salary improvements and a complete withdrawal of unfair language rollbacks.

AUFA bargaining

At Wednesday’s AUFA strike prep meeting, 283 attendees (65% of members) received a brief update on bargaining. Two items of note from the meeting are:

  • Vote on picketing plan: An electronic membership vote on the proposed picketing plan passed. There were 259 votes cast (~59% of the membership), with 206 in favour, 20 opposed and 33 abstentions. Discounting abstentions, 206 of 226 is 91.2% in favour. JAC will now move forward with strike planning.

  • Essential Services Agreement: On January 4th, almost 4 months after AUFA applied for an essential services agreement (ESA) exemption, AU finally agreed to AUFA’s proposal. AUFA and AU are currently completing some paperwork on that matter. AUFA hopes an ESA exemption will be issued in early February. Receiving an ESA exemption allows AUFA or AU to apply for formal mediation. Formal mediation is one of the last steps before AUFA is able to proceed to a strike vote. The timing of such a vote is uncertain but the Job Action Committee is working towards a March 15 strike-readiness deadline.

Toronto-area flying picket

AUFA members in Toronto are organizing a flying picket. If you are interested in participating in such a picket during a strike or lockout, please email torontoaufa@gmail.com.

If you are an AUFA member outside of Athabasca, Edmonton, Calgary, and Toronto who is interested in organizing a local picket during a strike, please contact Bob Barnetson (barnetso@athabascau.ca).

Strike Callers Wanted

The Membership Engagement Committee is recruiting 40 AUFA members to act as callers during any upcoming work stoppage. Callers would be responsible for making weekly phone calls to other AUFA members to check in with them, pass on information, and solicit feedback.

Time spent calling would count towards a member’s weekly strike service. If you are interested in volunteering, please contact Rhiannon Rutherford (rhiannon.rutherford@athabascau.ca). Half-day caller training sessions will be held February 11 (almost full) and repeated on February 18. This workshop is open to all AUFA members and does not obligate you to participate as a caller.

Jason Foster, Chair

Bargaining Committee

Bob Barnetson, Chair

Job Action Committee

Bargaining Update: AU finally tables opening offer

The parties met to bargain on January 21. After months of pressure from AUFA, AU finally presented their monetary proposals. This post will outline the major items in their proposals and offer an analysis. You can find a copy of the employer’s full monetary offer here.

Their proposals can be grouped into two categories. First, they offer some general monetary items. These include:

  • A four-year agreement, expiring June 30, 2024

  • No cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) over the life of the contract (0%, 0%, 0%, 0%)

  • Changes to the probation and promotion rules and process (not fully specified at this time)

  • Restricting the right to appeal merit increment decisions to academic staff members only

The second group of proposals include sweeping changes to Research and Study Leave:

  • Eliminating the right of professional staff to take research and study leave (existing banked days would be honoured)

  • Renaming research and study leave to “sabbatical”

  • Reduce academic staff’s remuneration while on research and study leave to 90% of salary

  • Increase the time before eligibility for research and study leave from three years to six years

  • Require that research and study leave be for a 12-month period only and capping accrual to a maximum of 12-months

  • Require that upon completion of research and study leave, staff members must “present” outcomes to the university community

  • Require staff members returning from research and study leave to commit to remaining in the employment of AU for a period of time equal to the leave or else repay salary paid during the leave (proportionate to the time not worked)

  • Make approval of research and study leave conditional to “operational requirements”

There are a number of other minor and ancillary changes which won’t be discussed in this post. In addition to receiving AU’s proposals, AUFA presented a counter-proposal on Article 8 (Grievance Procedure), but the parties did not discuss it. An analysis of the key items of AU’s proposals will be offered below.

Zero Wage Increase

AU is proposing that AUFA members take another four years without a COLA increase. This proposal would mean AUFA members would go seven consecutive years with no COLA increase. For context, Statistics Canada reports that inflation was 4.8% in 2021. Notably, the offer is below where many other public sector agreements are landing regarding wages. In their presentation, AU indicated that they could have proposed rollbacks but chose not to, implying that AUFA members should be thankful.

The AU team asserted that AU is in a difficult financial situation at the moment. The parties have not yet discussed the wage proposal, but the AUFA team will express skepticism at this claim when the opportunity arises. AU has been mostly spared from government cutbacks compared to other institutions in the province. While enrollments are currently down, they are down from record highs during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Plus, AU has a track record of mid-year reports of deficits only to come out at the end of the fiscal year with surpluses.

That AU’s opening proposal is significantly lower than agreements elsewhere suggests to the AUFA team that AU’s offer is not reflective of the current provincial government secret mandate and they are seeking additional sacrifices from AUFA members. AUFA will be offering a counter-proposal soon.

Changes to Research and Study Leave

AU proposes sweeping changes to research and study leave, which they propose be re-named to sabbatical. By far, the most significant change is to remove from professionals the right to take research and study leave. This proposal is a continuation of their persistent attacks against AUFA’s professional members. In this bargaining round, AU is proposing to revamp professionals’ promotion and performance review process, remove professional freedom from the agreement, and lower the requirement for laying off professionals. On Friday, AU added to this list removing professionals’ right to appeal not receiving a merit increment.

During bargaining, AU’s team has regularly diminished professionals’ role at AU. AU’s bargaining lead, external lawyer Chantel Kassongo, described professionals’ rights in the collective agreement as “outliers”. They believe that professionals at AU do not deserve research and study leave, professional freedom, or layoff protection. The AUFA bargaining team will continue to defend our professional members against this attack.

AU’s proposed changes also negatively impact academics. Academic staff on leave will only receive 90% of their regular salary, a significant pay cut. AU justifies this by claiming it is an attempt to “incentivize” academics to seek out external funding for their leaves. This claim conveniently forgets that most funding agencies forbid applicants from collecting salary from their grant. Unless AUFA members were to commit fraud, this proposal is simply another salary cut.

Other changes will require AUFA members to wait longer (six years) for each sabbatical, limit the accrual of sabbatical leave, and remove the flexibility of determining the length of sabbatical. The new reporting and return-to-service requirements also place new, unnecessary burdens on members.

Academic Promotion and Tenure

AU also presented a suggestion regarding the reform of academic promotion and tenure (Article 3). They did not present specific language, but instead offered an overview of a possible direction for change. The parties had a productive discussion about the ramifications of such a suggestion.

AU suggested creating a “Faculty Evaluation Committee” responsible for handling probation and promotion applications, and possibly also handle merit increment and research and study leave decisions. This would centralize many of the decisions that currently take place in a decentralized fashion. AU argues it would also make it easier to implement consistent standards. AUFA raised concerns about how a central process might affect equity and recognition of diverse approaches to research and publishing.

Also, they presented the possibility of merging the tenure and promotion processes for assistant professors (i.e., requiring assistant professors to apply for both at the same time). At present, most assistant professors are able apply for early promotion, which also confers tenure. The AUFA bargaining team sees both pros and cons to such a reform. Finally, AU floated granting tenure to newly hired full professors at the time of hire.

The discussion was wide-ranging and AUFA team members asked many questions and raised concerns, including how the proposal might affect issues of equity. The discussion was limited by the lack of detail provided – the AU team was not in a position to answer many questions and, with issues such as this, the devil can lies in the details. The next step will be for AU to table specific language regarding their proposal.

The AUFA bargaining team recognizes issues related to tenure and promotion of academic members are complex and that AUFA members may hold diverse views about how the process should be structured. We also recognize that the lack of detail to date makes it difficult to offer a clear assessment. Members are welcome to offer their feedback on this matter.

The parties meet again on January 31. As always the AUFA bargaining team will keep working to find a fair deal for AUFA members.

Jason Foster

Chair, Bargaining Committee

Faculty strike at Concordia enters second week

Last Thursday, 10 AUFA members joined in solidarity with striking faculty at Concordia University Edmonton (CUE), walking the picket line in blisteringly cold January weather. The CUE strike is unprecedented. It is the first post-secondary strike in Alberta’s history. This post provides some background and analysis on the strike, as well as identifying the implications for AUFA.

Background

Concordia is a private university located in Edmonton that focuses on providing high-quality, mostly undergraduate degrees. The university’s faculty association is small (~82 members) and includes faculty members, professional librarians, laboratory instructors, and field placement coordinators. Concordia also employs a large number of temporary sessional instructors who are not members of Concordia University Edmonton Faculty Association (CUEFA).

Concordia’s financial situation is strong. Its 2020/21 expenditures were $35.3 million and it generated an operating surplus of $11.5m (~33%). The previous year, its operating surplus was $7.8m. Most of the surpluses come from tuition revenue (enrollment and tuition are increasing). Overall, tuition and fees account for 64.3% of total university revenue.

At the end of fiscal year 2020/21, Concordia had $39.8m in the bank. Rather than reinvest some of that surplus to compensate chronically underpaid teaching staff, the university instead used $1.75m to buy the historic Magrath Mansion on Ada Blvd. University administration insists that the residence will serve as a campus, but it’s presently zoned as residential so it can’t be used that way. The building is also more than a century old, is architecturally unsuited for university use, and requires significant and ongoing financial resources just to maintain it.

Bargaining to Date

CUEFA has been bargaining for a new contract since early 2021. Concordia faculty have among the lowest salaries in Canada, and labour under among the heaviest teaching loads in Canada (~8 courses per year). Not surprisingly, then, fair and reasonable salary improvements, as well as a workload reduction remain top issues at bargaining.

The nexus between salary and workload is especially salient, since Concordia’s administration is demanding ever greater faculty research output in an effort to enhance the institution’s research reputation. Concordia’s goal is fine. But it can’t do that on the backs of relatively low-waged and overworked staff. The parties are also negotiating intellectual property provisions.

During bargaining, Concordia proposed new disciplinary language which appears to mean that university administrators could terminate faculty without just cause. No other faculty association in Canada has disciplinary language that gives the employer so much latitude, in part because workers know an employer will abuse such discretion. It’s also just plain unfair, and violates basic principles of any collegial workplace.

In November, CUEFA took a strike vote. Ninety-five percent of members voted and 90% of them voted in favour of a strike. Subsequently, the employer and the union were able to make some progress on faculty workload issues (but not for other members).

Concordia offered to withdraw its disciplinary proposal if CUEFA agrees to sign over its members’ intellectual property to the employer. This proposal suggests Concordia’s disciplinary language is simply an effort by the employer to generate some bargaining leverage. After the first week of the strike, Concordia withdrew this just-cause proposal.

One social media report suggests Concordia was offering:

2021/22: 0%

2022/23: 0%

2023/24: 0.5%

2024/25: 1.0%

2025/26: 1.5%

For context, inflation in Alberta in 2021 was 4.3%. Concordia declined CUEFA offers in mediation and the faculty began their strike on January 4.

Concordia not only has the capacity to pay its faculty a fair wage, but, as a private institution, it is not subject to the provincial government’s secret bargaining mandates that limit what other PSEs can agree to. Essentially, this strike is entirely the making of Concordia’s Board and president. This means that Concordia can resolve this strike at any time by returning to the bargaining table (which they have so far refused to do).

Strike Impact

One way to think about a strike is as an effort by workers to attach costs to an employer’s behaviour. If the costs are high enough, the employer will behave differently and, presumably, a mutually acceptable collective agreement will be negotiated. The CUEFA strike has (so far) generated the following costs for Concordia:

  • Operational: All classes are cancelled, including those taught by non-CUEFA employees (see below).

  • Financial: Concordia has deferred tuition deadlines and is at risk of losing an entire semester of tuition.

  • Reputational: Concordia has received negative media stories and social media coverage that contrast its decision to buy a literal mansion with its decision to grind faculty wages. This bad press jeopardizes Concordia’s reputation as a good employer and a reliable provider of education.

It is unclear what Concordia’s strategy is beyond trying to starve out to CUEFA. University administrators may be hoping that CUEFA will call off its strike before Concordia loses the semester and a large portion of its revenue. It may also be that Concordia does not have much of a strategy; it was reportedly taken aback that faculty were prepared to strike.

Impact on Sessionals

A largely unreported aspect of the strike is that Concordia’s decision to cancel classes has left its large complement of non-unionized sessional instructors in the lurch. These instructors, highly qualified and dedicated all, are not being allowed to teach and are not being paid even though they are not on strike.

The sessionals have few options and none of them are good. They may be able to sue for wrongful dismissal, but that is expensive, slow, and likely means they will never work at Concordia again. Alternately, they can sit tight and hope for a quick resolution. Either way, they’re facing deeply unfair financial hardships.

Settlement Prospects

Bargaining resumed after the first week of the strike. Concordia reportedly dropped its demand to fire faculty for no reason at all on the first day of renewed bargaining. Issues remaining in dispute are workloads for CUEFA members other than professors, intellectual property, and salaries.

CUEFA is reporting that its wage demands could be met with approximately $350,000 in additional funding (or, if you prefer, approximately 0.18 mansions). Concordia forcing a strike and risking its reputation over 3% of its annual surplus demonstrates astoundingly bad judgment.

One impediment to a settlement may be government pressure on Concordia to not settle for more than the government’s PSE mandate (which presently appears to mirror the AUPE government settlement). Ego may also be an issue: such a settlement would be a big step-down by Concordia bosses, including its president (and mansion enthusiast) Tim Loreman.

Implications for AUFA

The CUEFA strike has a couple of lessons for AUFA:

  • Pressure works, but incrementally. CUEFA made workload gains only after it took a strike vote. CUEFA forced Concordia to drop its discipline language only after striking. Essentially, each time CUEFA has upped the pressure, the employer has moved.

  • You can’t bluff. You have to be prepared to carry out your threats. If you won’t strike, you are stuck accepting whatever rollbacks the employer wants to impose. And the employer won’t take you seriously next time if you get caught bluffing.

  • Effective strikes are possible, even in a pandemic. CUEFA has fully disrupted Concordia’s operations and choked off Concordia’s main source of revenue.

  • Solidarity helps. Flying and digital pickets help boost strikers’ morale and amplify their message. This intensifies the pressure on the employer to bargain. CUEFA has seen strong support from other unions, faculty associations, and students.

  • Pressure takes time to work. It took a week of financial and reputational pressure for Concordia to drop its disciplinary demands. Having access to the CAUT strike fund allows CUEFA members the time to let the pressure work.

  • Employers often seek outcomes that they don’t objectively need. Concordia is flush with cash and doesn’t need wage freezes. So why did it trigger a strike? Common reasons include the employer wanting to knock workers down a peg, undermine growing worker power, appease someone powerful, and to protect bosses’ egos. Employers can also blunder into strikes by under-estimating worker resolve.

  • Employers don’t care about students (or other workers). Concordia’s decision to force a strike is harming students and sessionals. These predictable spillover effects are an unfortunate reality of work stoppages. It isn’t up to workers to prevent these harms—only the employer can do that.

  • Nonetheless, students and workers are supportive of strikes. Most have more in common with the strikers than they do with the bosses. They understand the need for fair wages and working conditions. And they understand that striking is how workers achieve those goals.

AUFA will again be joining CUEFA on the picket line on Thursday afternoon, from 1-3. If you’d like to come out, please contact me at barnetso@athabascau.ca .

You can also send CUE president and mansion enthusiast Tim Loreman and email using this CAUT mailer. So far, Loreman has received nearly 1200 emails.

Bob Barnetson, Chair

Job Action Committee

Post-Secondary Salary Trends in Athabasca

Last week, the AUFA executive appointed the members of the 2020 AUFA bargaining team. The team presently includes Alexa DeGagne, Jason Foster, Serena Henderson, Bangaley Kaba, and Eric Strikwerda (Chair). We will be joined by a support member from the office staff.

Preparation for bargaining will begin soon with a structured consultation with the membership. As a prelude to this consultation, it may be useful to review some of the government data about salary settlements in the post-secondary sector. This data allows us to assess the effectiveness of our bargaining efforts. When compared to inflation, we can also track the purchasing power of our salaries over time.

Table 1 outlines settlements by the three bargaining units at Athabasca between 2005 and 2018. The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) represents support staff, and the Canadian Union of Public employees (CUPE) represents tutors and academic experts. All values are expressed as uncompounded percentage increases.

Inflation data is Statistic Canada’s Consumer Price Index for Alberta as provided by AUPE staff. The annual inflation was calculated by averaging monthly year-over-year (July to June) changes to create a reasonable proxy for annual inflation.

Table 1: Athabasca settlements (%) over time versus inflation, 2005 to 2018.

AUFA cost-of-living adjustments appear to have kept our salaries even with inflation, but when you compound COLA and inflation we find our salaries increased by approximately 38% while inflation increased approximately 51%.

It is also notable that since 2013, AUFA cost-of-living-adjustments (+5.75%) have lagged inflation (+10.6%). That is to say, since 2013, the employer has succeeded in grinding down AUFA members’ salaries through increases that have lagged behind inflation. All AU employee groups took another wage freeze in 2019 while inflation is running about 1.3% so far this year.

This pattern is also evident when we examine settlement patterns among faculty associations at Alberta’s four Comprehensive Academic Research Universities (CARUs). While AUFA has done well in comparison to most CARUs, since 2013 all CARUs are seeing wage increases lag behind inflation.

Table 2: University faculty settlements over time, 2005 to 2018

Table 2: University faculty settlements over time, 2005 to 2018

One of the factors affecting this pattern has been the traditional reliance on arbitration to break bargaining impasse. Arbitrators tend to establish wages with reference to other, known settlements among comparator institutions. The first few settlements in a sector often “set” the pattern. In this dynamic, a “bad” settlement by one institution would often limit the settlement that other associations could realistically expect to get.

Legislative change in 2017 means that arbitration is no longer the de facto means by which a bargaining impasse between CARUs and faculty associations is broken. While institutions will continue to cooperate in order to hold down wage settlements (often at the behest of government), faculty associations are no longer automatically constrained by the settlements at other institutions. Instead, faculty can strike in an attempt to increase their wage settlement.

As AUFA’s analysis of AU’s financial statements previously demonstrated, AU could have afforded to give all employee groups a raise last year. While it is unclear what (if any) reduction in government operating grants is planned for this year, AU is likely to continue to have a healthy operating surplus and a reasonable accumulated surplus.

Another factor that may be relevant going forward is whether the government chooses to legislate a wage freeze or wage rollback, either in the October 2019 or Spring 2020 budget. It is unclear whether the government will take such action and whether such legislation would survive a constitutional challenge.

Eric Strikwerda

Bargaining Chair