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

AUFA will fight any attempts at forced relocations

As more details emerge about the new directives for Athabasca University, AUFA members have raised many questions and concerns. We would like to offer some clarity for members about AUFA’s position and about some of the information shared and claims made so far. 

AUFA’s position

AUFA has had a long-standing position in favour of AU maintaining its presence in Athabasca, which is a region of around 10,000 people north of Edmonton. This position is based on the union’s historical association with the town and the mandate of our members. This position is also based on the notion that the gradual job losses should cease and that a stable, gradually increasing number of positions should be in the town.

However, AUFA has always publicly opposed the notion of forced relocation of staff. Forced relocation would uproot entire families and disrupt lives and obligations. While we cannot know how this situation will eventually be resolved, AUFA will commit to vigorously defending members should any be forced to relocate against their will. 

Notably, Advanced Education Minister Demitrios Nicolaides personally assured the last AUFA President that relocations would not take place. This was obviously a false promise, as the latest news suggests that not only would the provincial government require relocations but also support them with additional funds. 

65% metric is a fantasy

So far, we only have the information that has been reported in the media. We urge the AU Board of Governors and administration to provide the full details of both the plan submitted to the government by AU and the most recent directives from the Minister. 

Still, with the available information, it seems that the key issue is the requirement that 65% of AU staff work out of Athabasca by 2024/25, which (according to AU’s president) would mean relocating about 500 current staff.  

This is, quite frankly, impossible. The Athabasca region simply cannot accommodate 500 new families in such a short amount of time. There is currently a shortage of housing, let alone other infrastructure concerns (schools, doctors, hospitals, etc). The Athabasca campus also does not have enough office spaces. It is unlikely the Minister will build a new building.

Beyond the feasibility, however, even one forced relocation of an AUFA member will be contested fiercely by the union. Anyone who moves to Athabasca should do so voluntarily, whether this is managed upon hiring or as a result of meaningful incentives. 

As well, the AU president shared in the media that this metric would be tied to 9% of the grant received by the government. Our understanding is that this would roughly work out to about 3% of the overall budget for the university (as the operating grant is about one third of total income). Without more information, it is difficult to see how this type of cut represents an existential crisis for the university. It is also difficult to understand why the university administration felt the need to fight back so publicly before consulting with those who would be directly affected or even sharing more fulsome details about the directives.  

Your rights

AUFA members are unionized and have a variety of protections under the collective agreement. Although it is premature to explore all potential legal options, the ability for members to simply say ‘no’ is profound, forcing the employer to explore costly legal mechanisms. With 18 months pay at layoff, extremely expensive discipline language (for the employer), and a variety of potential protections under grievance language, it is uncertain if the employer could successfully force the relocation of one member, and impossible to do it with hundreds.

Misleading statements

There were a few statements in the August 5 video message from the AU president that seem to be at least somewhat misleading if not wholly disingenuous. 

President Scott referred to the 2015 sustainability crisis and suggested that the Imagine strategic plan, along with a “new executive committed to building talented teams” are to be credited with a remarkable turnaround. However, there are many other available explanations and perspectives on this situation. 

The crisis in the mid-2010s was a case of a few years of flat student growth coupled with fiscal mismanagement from the university executive. There was also an explosive boom AU went through in the mid-2000s prior to that which suddenly tapered off. In any case, this situation was completely unrelated to the location of most employees. AU is an extremely successful university that grew four times its size since the 1990s with a significant portion of staff located in Athabasca.

AU’s service to students and ability to achieve the major initiatives of the Imagine plan is unrelated to its location. Despite the fanfare of these initiatives, things like moving to a new course platform and relocating IT systems to the cloud are not completely overhauling AU’s basic model and enduring mission to remove barriers to education. These initiatives rely on staff located both in and outside of Athabasca, and this will continue to be the case. 

President Scott also claimed that “we love that town.” Yet AUFA members and our colleagues have been raising concerns for years about the lackluster (to say the least) attempts to prioritize hiring to the region. A statement appears on many job ads stating that, all other things equal, applicants willing to move to Athabasca would be prioritized. Yet this statement is relegated to the fine print and not backed up with clear instructions for hiring committees, let alone financial incentives or non-monetary support.

AU has a long history of successfully attracting quality staff to live in Athabasca, and the success of the university to date is an indication this model has worked. Many in Athabasca (and elsewhere in rural locations) feel insulted by the implication that it’s simply not possible to attract the “best and the brightest” to the region, or that current residents aren’t counted in this hypothetical group. If the AU administration really do “love that town,” they should be making more substantial efforts to demonstrate their commitment. 

Finally, there has been a conflation of the jobs in Athabasca issue with the near-virtual initiative. That a strong majority of AU staff in Athabasca elected to work from home rather than report to offices in person is complicated by the fact that a truly hybrid option wasn’t on the table, along with other confusing details about the near-virtual plan. AUFA’s support for a maintained and increased presence in Athabasca is independent of whether individuals work from home or report to offices. 

AUFA believes that staff should be empowered and have choice and autonomy over how they work. If the government wishes staff to report to offices in Athabasca, the choice to do so should be appealing and include inducements and flexible models such as hybrid work from office and work from home.

We also urge both the AU administration and the province to release, in their entirety, the draft talent management plan submitted by AU, the letter with the Minister's directives, and the new Investment Management Agreement. Without more details, it is difficult to separate the real from the rhetoric.

Rhiannon Rutherford, President

David Powell, Past President

Athabasca University Faculty Association

University should consult on response to Ministry on jobs in Athabasca

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

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

Recent developments 

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

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

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

Near-virtual woes 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AUFA’s position 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rhiannon Rutherford, AUFA President 

Myra Tait, AUFA Vice President 

Your turn

AUFA and jobs in Athabasca

Correction: The lobbyist mentioned under ‘The Campaign’ is jointly funded by both the Town of Athabasca and Athabasca County.

Recently, the Alberta government announced a major initiative to recentre Athabasca University in the Athabasca area. This follows a decade of steady job losses in the region and an extensive lobbying campaign run by town locals, originally started by AUFA and AUPE. AU President Peter Scott has responded to this initiative defiantly, making it clear that the university intends to continue a “near-virtual” plan that would see all staff work from home.

Background

In 2015, AUFA identified the gradual loss of professional and excluded positions in the Athabasca area. Although there had been a mass exodus of academics from Athabasca over ten years previous, this was offset by rapid hiring to other positions at AU. The job losses were triggered by 2013 layoffs which primarily targeted Athabascans, and a subsequent recovery that was entirely in Edmonton. While AU’s overall employee numbers grew, Athabasca’s shrank. Since 2012, AUFA’s professional complement in Athabasca has shrunk by 39%.  

After Neil Fassina’s hiring as the first President to not live in Athabasca, AU’s senior leadership (directors, deputies, AVPs, executve) were hired out of town, or moved to join their colleagues. In 2016, 18/25 or 72% of senior leaders were in Athabasca. As of now, it is 5/35 or 14%, despite adding ten more management jobs. Part of the plan of the new executive was a virtual campus where positions would slowly move to work-from-home.

COVID-19 accelerated these plans as almost all AU staff began work from home. This allowed AU to simply cancel any plans to return to offices, and divest itself of its physical locations. As of now the Edmonton and Calgary offices have been permanently shuttered save for one floor with drop-in spaces in Edmonton. It should be noted that this is not without controversy as a complete lack of communications to staff and students over the future of exam invigilation, and a complete lack of awareness of FST programs that require in-person labs has complicated matters. Governing all of this is an expected work from home policy, which AU has been promising for at least two years now.

It should be noted that working from home is broadly popular and many AUFA members have been positively impacted by the shift. At the same time there is a significant minority who are adversely impacted by the forced work from home due to home life situation, lack of office space, or bad internet. Many people took jobs at AU on the expectation they’d have an office.

The campaign

AUFA and AUPE local 69 began campaigning on keeping jobs in Athabasca with a request that future positions be posted to the town. The campaign was successful in raising awareness, but it was not successful in keeping jobs in town. However once it became clear that the executives had left town, a town advocacy group was created to lobby for the cause. The lobbying was publicly funded by both the Town and County, involved several connected conservatives, and hiring a lobbyist who had a long history with Premier Kenney.

The jobs mandate

On March 24th, the Premier, Minister of Advanced Education, and Minister of Agriculture and Forestry all attended a packed town hall in Athabasca. There, they announced the following:

• That Athabasca residents would be appointed to the Board of Governors

• That the AU Board must develop and implement a comprehensive talent development, attraction, and retention strategy by June 30th to maintain and grow a range of employees in Athabasca

• That the AU Board must develop and implement a reopening strategy to resume most employees working onsite

• To allow public access to services such as registries, student support, and specialized services

This was a complete reversal of all AU plans since Fassina became President. Notably, no representatives from Athabasca University attended the town hall.

I met with Minister Nicolaides on April 26th who provided further details:

• There is no interest in forced relocation of AUFA members

• Those who are in Athabasca should receive incentives of some form for the university to determine

• This approach will likely take time

• A priority in the mandate is to re-centre AU’s senior leadership in Athabasca

AU’s Response

AU’s current administration have made the ‘near-virtual’ campus a top priority and the Board of Governors approved a strategic plan which would permanently move most staff to work from home. Although originally there was discussion of a hybrid model in the Athabasca area, it is clear those offices were intended for partial or complete closure as well. The announcement of the Premier clearly caught AU Executive off guard.

After an initial response that said very little, Peter Scott said the following in a letter to AU staff:  

… Consequently, we have received several inquiries from AU team members regarding reports of these [The Minister’s] comments. I would like to underline that our operations, mission, and mandate remain unchanged.

AU’s mandate, developed by the Board of Governors in consultation with the Minister of Advanced Education, provides the direction under which the Board is obligated to manage and operate the university under the Post-secondary Learning Act [PSLA s.60(1)(a)]. AU is leading the future of open and accessible education and our mandate and direction are clear. We are committed to “…open access and digitally enabled lifelong learning [as] … Canada’s only public and research-intensive university offering fully accredited distributed learning from its online virtual campus.”
…

The university has been clear in every meeting with the Government of Alberta, the town and county councils of Athabasca, and local community members that AU has no plans to leave the community, that we are reaffirming our primary physical location is in Athabasca by ending office leases in Calgary and Edmonton, and that we will continue to give preference to suitably qualified candidates for both place-based and virtual roles who live in, or are interested in moving to, the Athabasca region.

The gist of the above message is a hard ‘no’ to the government’s order, relying on the notion that AU’s near-virtual plan is a part of its mandate and thus can’t be changed. This is incorrect, although it is definitely problematic for a government to allow an updated institutional mandate and then overrule it, it is completely within their legislative power to do so.

Further comment from President Scott at the last General Faculties Council underlined his full intention to resist the government mandate, leaning heavily on the concept of institutional autonomy and openly insulting the Premier and Minister of Advanced Education. Although every faculty association has been encouraging its administration to stand up to the government for decades, the President’s hypocrisy is troubling.

Autonomy

Institutional autonomy is an important concept in universities and is tied heavily with concepts of collegial governance and academic freedom. If a university is too beholden to a government, it compromises the integrity of the academic mission. Interference in internal operations prevents a university from being a true place of learning, and instead corrupting it to a political tool of the government.

A February 25th email from President Scott underlines his enthusiasm for this kind of university:

On a positive note, it is really heartening to see in the provincial budget a focus on "powering up" the Alberta 2030: Skills for Jobs agenda. The government has come forward with a future-facing plan that includes targeted opportunities over the next three years for Alberta’s post-secondary institutions to compete for new initiative funding.

Work-integrated learning, for example, is a key component of the plan, so government is proposing increased work placement support in a broad range of industries experiencing skills shortages. At AU, we know many of our learners are already focused on the world of work, balancing careers, family, and education; so, this should be an area in which we might think creatively.

Where was the President’s defiance at this point? Not only is the extent to which AU’s budget been cut still kept secret, but the current Alberta government is openly trying to rebuild the post-secondary sector in their party vision. Massive cuts to almost all PSEs followed by new money tied to metrics is a deliberate attempt to reshape the teaching and research into job creation, which is a complete misread of the purpose of a university. This gross violation of institutional autonomy was cheerlead by President Scott.

The location of a university’s buildings and jobs is not within the spirit of institutional autonomy. Grande Prairie Regional College could not close its campus and move to Edmonton and then cry foul if the government intervened. Universities are public works projects and placing them in key locations to boost the economy is the normal function of a government. Ensuring they stay there is similarly just as normal.

AUFA’s Position

Since 2015, AUFA has held a position that Athabasca University should at minimum maintain or at best expand its presence in the Town of Athabasca.

With regards to working in-office, AUFA’s position is that it should be down to member choice. As the UCP has mentioned there should be inducements to work in Athabasca, these inducements should be tied to required in-office hours at the campus. Members who wish to work entirely from home, regardless of location, can forego the inducements. Those who do not wish to be affected by this change, should not be.

Any administrative plans that may change the working conditions of our members should be done through thorough consultation with the union, and in compliance with our collective agreement.

Why AUFA holds this position

• This issue primarily affects Athabasca members, who have repeatedly supported this position

• An overall majority of AUFA members has supported some continuing hiring in the town

• This is a unified issue with AUPE Local 69, and brings the two unions closer together

• The position can be supported without adversely affecting members outside of Athabasca

• AU is the top employer in Athabasca, as jobs leave the quality of life for the remaining AUFA members will suffer

• The desire for administration to run a fully online workplace is tied to a desire for increased casualization, contracting out, and other forms of union-busting

• AU is a less appealing target for government cuts when it is tied to a small town that has swung both Conservative and NDP

What happens next?

The UCP have already made good on their promise on the Board of Governors and have appointed three people tied to the Athabasca region to the board. Although AU has signalled it will resist this move, it is unlikely the AU Executive can do so permanently. The AU executive is hired by the Board of Governors, the Board of governors is determined by the ministry.

It is difficult to determine where this will land. However, the complete defiance of the government is an unusual, and highly risky thing for a university executive to do. One of the reasons why university Presidents so openly support bad government policy like metrics-based funding, is they know it is political folly to talk back. A more conventional political strategy would be to say little and then do the bare minimum to get the government off their backs. Open defiance may carry consequences and if  President Scott is not careful, he may dig himself a hole so deep he finds himself back in Australia.

Dave Powell

President

Athabasca University Faculty Association

Premier announces Athabasca University jobs in Athabasca program

While we are in the middle of bargaining tensions, the following major announcement was just made in Athabasca a little over an hour ago. Premier Jason Kenney, Minister of Advanced Education Demetrios Nicolaides, Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Economic Development Nate Horner, and local MLA Glenn Van Dijken announced the following to a packed house in the Athabasca multiplex as transcribed below.

We believe that Athabasca University must be rooted in this community for its long-term future. And so Minister Nicolaides has sent a directive to the volunteer board of this institution that we will amend the regulations of the Athabasca University Act to ensure permanent representation on the AU board of the local Athabasca community. Our cabinet recently just appointed one such individual with two more to come at the next cabinet meeting. Next we have reaffirmed our commitment to the local community and fulfilling the recommendations of the Cotes report, which recommended the university work towards expanding the size of its operation in the town of Athabasca and in Alberta generally.

More specifically, we have directed the board of governors to strengthen its physical presence in the town of Athabasca by consolidating executive and senior administration offices in Athabasca at the earliest possible opportunity. We've also directed the board to develop and implement a comprehensive talent development, attraction, and retention strategy by June 30th of this year, to maintain and grow a broad range of employees in Athabasca, and to develop and implement a reopening strategy for the Athabasca campus to resume most employees working on site, and to allow public access to services like registries, to student support, and specialized services.

These mandates are broad and may be implemented in a variety of ways, however they are significant. This is a direct response to the work of the Keep AU in Athabasca group, a group of locals who have been lobbying for more job growth in the area. AUFA first identified the loss of AU jobs in Athabasca issue in 2015 and has since promoted creating future jobs in the area while respecting the rights of all members who reside outside of Athabasca.

I had the opportunity to ask Minister Nicolaides two questions as paraphrased below:

What will happen to AU staff that reside out of Athabasca?

AU staff outside of Athabasca are not included in the above mandate and that will be for the university to decide. Our assumption is this will mean status quo for all who currently live outside of the area.

We are nearing the first strike vote in AU history, when you speak about incentives to move to Athabasca. Our benefits are excellent incentives, will you commit to reaching a fair deal with AUFA?

His response was that although there is a mandate, negotiations are with the board of governors. However, I hope the desire for the government to get a ‘win’ with Athabasca university will provide incentive for AU to deal fairly with us and avert a strike.

This has significant implications on the many AUFA members still in the Athabasca area as it may mean a return to offices in some form or another. However, the details of the above mandate have not been worked out as this information is very new. There will be more to come, including how this announcement affects our status in bargaining.

David Powell

President