Working with COVID-19 at AU

Athabasca University has commenced planning for how it will resume more normal operations when the province green-lights post-secondaries to re-open. The government recently issued re-opening guidelines for post-secondaries.

This planning has not (so far) entailed significant consultation with staff about concerns and issues. The AUFA exec have asked the membership engagement committee to quickly solicit and summarize member concerns to inform AUFA’s input to AU.

Initial list of concerns

The April AUFA telephone survey and subsequent informal canvassing of AUFA members suggests five main areas of concern: 

Exams

The short-term fixes implemented to allow examinations to continue during the pandemic have been identified as having multiple shortcomings. Some students are not able to use online exam arrangements (e.g., due to lack of computer access, a private space, childcare issues, or disability accommodations). Some exams are not suitable for online delivery and some online delivery systems are struggling to cope with the volume. Managing these many problems creates significant additional work for AU staff that is simply being added on to existing workloads. Some members have indicated that this situation is becoming untenable.

Childcare

The disruption of schooling and other childcare services poses a significant issue for many AUFA members. This disruption may continue for some time to come as providers grapple with their own difficulties with re-opening, or it may re-occur if COVID-19 surges again. President Fassina’s assertion in April that AU will not, in the long term, be able to retain staff who cannot work full time has made many staff reluctant to reveal the difficulties they are facing.

Support for teleworking

The present teleworking policy only applies to AUFA members who are academic staff. If other staff are continuing to work from home (permanently, periodically, or on a part-time basis) to facilitate physical distancing, address outbreaks, or accommodate staff or family members with compromised immune systems, additional supports are required. Campus-based staff have identified concerns about improper ergonomic set-ups, inadequate computer equipment, and uncompensated home office expenses.

Safety on campus

Campus-based staff have identified physical distancing and common use areas as important issues. Some office arrangements (e.g., cubicle-based set-ups, narrow passage ways) do not provide adequate space for physical distancing. High-touch surfaces in common areas (e.g., exterior doors, stair railings, washrooms, printers, and kitchen areas) will also require aggressive cleaning or other measures to prevent infection. Campus-based staff also indicate visitors to campus (e.g., students, delivery people) pose a risk of transmission that needs to be controlled.

Outbreak protocols

Several Alberta workplaces have reported outbreaks of COVID-19. If there is suspicion or diagnosis of a case on an AU site, AU will need to develop protocols that are adequately protective of other staff. This may include instructing supervisors to approve or direct working from home and developing a mechanism by which to notify staff of outbreaks.

Your Thoughts

These initial issues represent only a partial list of the potential issues and concerns associated with returning to on-campus operations. The membership engagement committee is interested in any thoughts, ideas or concerns that you have related to AU’s plans for re-opening.

Please provide any comments or concerns you wish AUFA to take forward to AU’s COVID-19 planning group. You may choose to include your name or submit an anonymous comment.

Rhiannon Rutherford, Chair

Membership Engagement Committee

Workload, costs, and equipment identified as home working issues

Last week, the AUFA Membership Engagement Committee (MEC) concluded its second telephone survey of the membership. The methodology and a portion of the results were presented last week. This blog post examines the portion of the survey dealing with working from home.

Context

Since late March, approximately half of AUFA’s membership (mostly professionals) have moved to working from a home office due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Last week, President Fassina noted that this experience was informing AU’s discussions around moving to a semi-virtual workplace. Presently, professionals who work from home receive less financial and material support then do academics.

As noted in a previous post, AUFA’s bargaining team will be tabling proposed language around teleworking. The current teleworking policy is subject to employer control. AUFA’s proposals seek to bring teleworking under the ambit of the contract with negotiated terms. AUFA’s proposals will also seek to level the playing field between professionals and academics.

Results

Most respondents (88%) indicated that they have an adequate home office set-up.

Respondents identified a number of needs if they are to work from home for any lengthy period of time, including:

• proper office equipment (particularly ergonomically appropriate chairs and desks),

• computer equipment (desktop computer, multiple screens, scanner, printer),

• adequate bandwidth (particularly for members in rural locations), and

• dedicated space within their home.

AU is presently providing employees newly working from home with $25 every two weeks (taxable) to defray costs. The teleworking procedure provides AUFA academic members with a $2000 set-up allowance and monthly allowances for telephone ($35), internet access ($52), and printer costs ($9) (all taxable). Academic members can also be reimbursed for office supplies and receive the forms required to deduct a portion of their household costs for income tax purposes.

A minority of respondents (28%) indicated that they were covering costs above AU’s stipends as a result of working from home.

These extra costs include office supplies, printer costs, computer peripherals that were not supplied, mobile phone data and long-distance charges, internet upgrade costs, and extra utility costs. Several members also indicated they paid out of pocket to purchase adequate office furnishings in order to work from home.

A minority of respondents indicated that they were experiencing health issues as a result of working from home. The health issues disclosed includes

• social isolation,

• a lack of structured breaks during the day,

• physical discomfort from inadequate office furnishings, and

• difficulties drawing boundaries between work and home (i.e., a sense of always working).

Some staff members also identified a high level of stress due to COVID-19, juggling multiple roles (e.g. work and childcare), and talk about possible layoffs. Others identified that the extra work associated with moving to home offices was taking a toll on their physical and mental health.

Half (50%) of respondents indicated that their work had become more difficult to manage during the pandemic.

Respondents identified the following sources of additional work:

• creating and managing alternative assessments

• shifting in-person courses to online,

• increasing administrative work due to higher registrations,

• responding to additional student questions and/or students in distress,

• adjusting processes and learning new systems,

• additional meetings, including meetings designed to monitor attendance, and

• difficulty coordinating work with colleagues due to (1) lack of face-to-face contact, and (2) their own workloads. 

A number of respondents also indicated that attempting to work while also managing family responsibilities while working was extremely demanding and making it much harder to work. Some respondents also expressed concern about how the institution would allocate the work of the (now 53) staff members who were planning on voluntarily leaving AU. 

A strong majority of respondents (78%) indicated that they are satisfied with their work from home arrangements made with their supervisor. Some respondents indicated that they have arranged for flexible scheduling and other accommodations. Members concerned about their arrangements are encouraged to contact the AUFA office to discuss their situation.  

Demographics

Reviewing the data by demographic information revealed the following:

• Professionals (n=50) and Academics (n=55) did not show substantive differences on most of the questions, with the exception of 18% of professionals had an inadequate home office setup

• Issues related to working from home were the most prevalent in smaller departments (n=15) with 40% showing both additional costs from working from home and an inadequate home office setup, and 33% with health issues from working from home

• Workload difficulty during the pandemic varied by department with Faculty of Health Disciplines showing the most issues and Faculty of Business showing the least.

Conclusion

While the unexpected move to home offices during the COVID-19 pandemic has allowed operations to continue, AUFA members have identified several concerns.

Some of these concerns are specific to the pandemic (e.g., increased workload, difficulty managing childcare, anxiety) and will hopefully resolve with time. In addition to accessing the support available through our benefits, members concerned about their working conditions or accommodations are encouraged to contact the AUFA office.

Other concerns (e.g., inadequate equipment, furnishings, and stipends) are longer term issues that AU will need to address as it moves towards a semi-virtual organization. These concerns are particularly important as AUFA goes into collective bargaining with a mandate to secure adequate remuneration for the costs of working from home for all AUFA members.

Thank you to all the volunteers who helped complete this survey so quickly. Several respondents noted that they appreciated the personal contact from the union. The committee looks forward to further member outreach as we prepare to face the challenges and opportunities of the coming year together.

Rhiannon Rutherford, Chair

AUFA Membership Engagement Committee

Membership survey finds distrust and opposition to de-designation

Over the last week, a team of 27 Membership Engagement Committee (MEC) volunteers engaged in a telephone survey of 105 randomly-selected members. The purpose of the survey was to have individual conversations with AUFA members, gather information about working from home, and to understand the general state and morale of the members in advance of bargaining.

The survey was divided into three sections. The first was a set of environmental questions, which attempted to capture members’ overall morale and their feelings toward their jobs, the university, and the union. The second was a set of questions about AU’s proposal to de-designate 67% of AUFA members. The third section explored member experiences of working from home. 

This blog reports the results of questions about general climate, de-designation, and one of the working from home questions. Next week, we’ll be providing the results of the remaining working from home questions (MEC just needs a bit more time for analysis).

Survey Method

The survey was delivered by telephone to a random sample of 105 AUFA members, which is 25% of the current membership. This slightly exceeded our goal of 100 responses. The survey was delivered over a short timeline of 10 days to mitigate against the risk of major news developments skewing responses.

Responding members were also compared to AUFA demographics by department, location, and if they were academic or professional. The demographic breakdown of the sample ended up closely matching our actual member population.

The data was analyzed in aggregate as well as by location, years of service, department, and whether the respondents were academic or professional. Noteworthy differences are identified below.

General Climate Questions

Three statements were read to the respondents, who ranked their answers on a five-point scale: strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree. Open-ended comments were solicited at the end of this section.

The chart below illustrates how these numbers break down into three simplified categories.

The AUFA members we surveyed are generally happy to come to work and happy with their union.

Distrust of the university executive was notable, with

• 29.1% indicating they trusted the executive,

• 23.3% indicating they neither trusted not distrusted the executive, and

• 47.6% indicating they distrusted the executive.

Demographic breakdowns by department and area indicated the following:

• Academic and professionals did not have notable differences in their responses to climate questions.

• Distrust of Executive Team increased along with years of service, with members within their first two years showing the strongest trust in Executive Team

• Staff who normally report the Athabasca location (n=28) showed only 14% trust in Executive Team while Peace Hills Trust (n=11) showed 55% trust.   

Notable responses by department were:

• Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, which showed 83% distrust in executive team and 100% support of AUFA (n=26).

• University Relations, which showed 83% neutrality on AUFA and 100% trust in Executive Team (n=6).

• Faculty of Health Disciplines had 29% disagree that they enjoyed starting work in the morning (n=7).

• Faculty of Science and Technology, which had 31% neutral on trusting executive team, and 38% neutral on feeling AUFA represented their interests (n=13).

• Other departments had too few respondents to draw conclusions or had responses that did not vary greatly from the aggregate.

The overwhelming theme recorded in the open-ended comments was a lack of trust in the university executive’s statements and behaviours. Of particular concern was the executive’s proposal to de-designate 67% of AUFA members. Members described the executive’s behaviour around this issue using words such as sneaky, dishonest, insulting, incompetent, disingenuous, destabilizing, demoralizing, and duplicitous.

Concerns around the broader operation of the university and the gap between the executive’s espoused i-Care values and their behaviour were also identified as problematic. The threat of layoffs was of concern to some members. Potential layoffs were cited as a cause of declining morale and commitment.

Generally, comments about AUFA were positive, particularly around AUFA’s efforts to communicate about and navigate the designation issue. A small number of respondents identified areas where they would like to see changes in AUFA’s behaviour. These concerns will be passed on to the AUFA executive.

It is important to acknowledge that the level of conflict at AU is high. Some AUFA members are uncomfortable with this situation or AUFA’s approach to managing this conflict. The majority of members surveyed indicate satisfaction with AUFA’s resistance to AU attacks on member interests.

It is interesting to flag that some members see AUFA as too focused on the interests of professionals while others are concerned there is too much attention on the interests of academics.

Designation Questions

Members were asked two questions about AU’s proposal to de-designate 67% of AUFA members from the bargaining unit. The responses to these questions are particularly important because AU informed AUFA on Wednesday that it wished to continue consultations after a two-month break. There is no indication that AU has amended its proposed policy.

Approximately 87% of respondents opposed AU’s proposal while only 2% supported it. The remaining 11% were unsure of their support or opposition.

Members were also asked how concerning this proposal was to them. Eighty-two percent rated this proposal as concerning (14%) or extremely concerning (69%).

Demographic notes on this question are:

• All demographic groups showed a significant majority of members were concerned or extremely concerned with the policy

• 72% of professionals (n=55) were extremely concerned as compared to 64% of academics (n=48)

• FHSS, FHD, and IT showed the most extreme concern while University Relations and FST showed the least

Comments on the de-designation question mirrored those reported in the climate section, with some AUFA members suggesting this was an effort to undermine the union’s bargaining power right before a difficult round of bargaining. Some members identified that AU’s proposal lacks a credible rationale while others suggested the executive were demonstrating a lack of understanding of how the university operated. A small number of members indicated they would accept a limited de-designation of deans, whom they perceive as performing management functions.

Balancing Work and Caregiving Demands

At the March 31 conversation with the president, President Fassina indicated that AU would not be able to “continue to employ people” who were unable to work full-time due to caregiving responsibilities.

Respondents were asked if it would be fair to fire AU staff members who were forced to balance working from home with child- or elder-care responsibilities. Ninety-two percent of respondents indicated that this would be unfair.

Many participants commented on how unjust it would be if AU chooses to terminate employees who, due solely to the pandemic, are juggling multiple roles. This statement was viewed as lacking in compassion, out of step with the rest of the world, and ignoring how hard staff are working in very difficult conditions.

Conclusion

As with the November 2019 survey results, a clear narrative emerged from the data and comments. Although a sizable minority of surveyed AUFA members are generally happy with the current state of affairs at AU, the majority vary from conflicted to extremely unhappy at AU. Dissatisfaction with the behaviour of AU’s executive team is a significant factor in high levels of distrust.

There is clear opposition from AUFA members to AU’s de-designation proposal as well as President Fassina’s suggestion that AU would need to terminate staff who are forced to balance working from home with caregiving responsibilities.

Additional analysis of the working from home data will be provided next week. MEC would like to thank the volunteers for their hard work in recording these results, and the participants for their willingness to engage.

With AUFA going into bargaining in the next few months, the active participation of the membership will be essential for defending our rights and improving our working conditions. Members interested in volunteering for various tasks as they arise are encouraged to reach out to the Membership Engagement Committee at engagement@aufa.ca.

Rhiannon Rutherford, Chair

AUFA Membership Engagement Committee

Working from home survey starts this week

As was previously announced, the Membership Engagement Committee (MEC) will be conducting a short telephone survey of 100 members (about 25% of AUFA) starting late this week. This survey seeks to document and understand the challenges faced by AUFA members’ with working from home.

This telephone survey will take about 15 minutes and includes three sets of questions. We will be repeating three of the climate questions we piloted in November. These questions are designed to take the temperature of the membership. We will also be asking two questions about the employer’s proposal to carve 67% of AUFA members out of the bargaining unit.

The majority of the questions will focus on our experiences of working from home and identifying what supports are necessary for AUFA members to be successful working at home. These questions are a mixture of yes/no questions and open-ended responses. Their development was informed by the many helpful responses MEC received to last week’s blog asking for feedback.

The survey will once again be administered by a group of volunteer callers drawn from the AUFA membership. We hope you will feel safe to speak frankly and honestly. We’re taking all the measures we can to protect your privacy and confidentiality.

Responses from the survey are confidential and will only be sent to the Membership Engagement Committee. The data from the surveys will be held by the AUFA Office.

The aggregated numerical responses will shared with the AUFA membership in early May. Summarized comments will be shared to prevent identifying individual AUFA members.

The Membership Engagement Committee wishes to thank the many volunteer callers who will be helping us conduct these surveys. When your name is randomly drawn to participate, we ask that you assist the caller who reaches out to you in finding a mutually agreeable time to conduct the call. As an AUFA member, your voice matters.

If you have any questions about the survey or wish to share some thoughts about bargaining, the employer, or anything else, contact us at engagement@aufa.ca.

Rhiannon Rutherford

Chair, Membership Engagement Committee

Membership Engagement Survey Results

Over the last two weeks of November, a team of sixteen AUFA volunteers engaged in a telephone survey of 100 randomly-selected members. The purpose of the survey was to have individual conversations with AUFA members, gather information for bargaining, and to understand the general state and morale of the members in advance of bargaining.

The survey was divided into three sections. The first was a set of environmental questions, which attempted to capture members’ overall morale and their feelings toward their jobs, the university, and the union. The second was a set of bargaining questions, which attempted to gauge the level of support for a number of potential items to bring to the table this spring. The third section asked members to provide additional comments to help us get a deeper understanding of the numbers as well as to identify issues or items that we didn’t think to ask about. 

Due to the sensitive nature of bargaining, the responses to bargaining questions will only be shared with the AUFA bargaining team. However, we are happy to share the environmental questions and results publicly, along with summaries of the comments and demographics breakdowns.

Survey Method

The survey was delivered by telephone to a random sample of 100 members, which is 23.8% of the current membership. Additional random members were added to the sample when some on the original call list could not be reached or declined. The result was 100 responses out of 135 attempts. AUFA membership data was taken from the reports HR provides to AUFA, as of November 1st.

The survey was delivered over a short timeline of two and a half weeks to mitigate against the risk of major news developments skewing responses. The sample of 100 members was to ensure the survey could be completed efficiently and quickly, with future surveys planned.

Responding members were also compared to AUFA demographics by department, location, and if they were academic or professional. The demographic breakdown of the sample ended up closely matching our actual member population, which is a good sign for the survey results.

Results

The following five statements were read to the respondents, who ranked their answers on a five-point scale: strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree. Comments were solicited for particularly strong responses.

The statements were determined by the MEC, with one question about overall job satisfaction, three questions about common concerns at AU (trust, safety, and respect), and one question about the member’s view of AUFA. Some of the statements referenced senior leadership, which has been used by AU to mean excluded managers above director level, such as the AU Executive Team and Associate Vice Presidents. 

View fullsize

Environment Question Results

The chart below illustrates how these numbers break down into three simplified categories.

View fullsize

Environment Question Results, Combined (n=100)

Overall Observations

The AUFA members we surveyed are generally happy to come to work and extremely happy with their union, with several members offering praise for AUFA’s handling of the last round of bargaining and its communication to members. Distrust for senior leadership is the most significant concern for AUFA members, followed by a lack of respect and a hesitancy to share contrarian opinions.

Comments

Comments provided were analyzed to identify common themes. The most popular themes were, in order:

Disingenuous Communications

The most frequently cited complaint was about the substance and tone of communications from AU’s senior leadership. More charitable comments described the communications as superficial and devoid of content, while many more described the communications as disingenuous, putting forth a pleasant façade while major changes were planned in complete secrecy.

Contempt for Staff

There were repeated mentions that AU senior leadership has open contempt for its staff. Many members believe that their work is not well understood, their opinions are ignored, and their motives considered suspect. It seems that staff who historically had input into major AU activities are now cut out and that decisions are increasingly being made behind closed doors.

Mismanagement

Several commenters stated that AU is being mismanaged, with a leadership that does not understand AU, the staff, or the students. Additional complaints were about excessive red tape, decisions which are irresponsible and foolish, and that published plans are either incoherent or doomed to fail.

Punitive Environment

Several commenters shared that they felt they were vulnerable to repercussions from management if they spoke out, or that their work environments were toxic.

Demographic Information

The data was examined by location, years of service, department, and whether the respondents were academic or professional. While sharing too much detail could compromise respondents’ confidentiality, there are some noteworthy features.

Athabasca

The Athabasca location (n=24) showed strongly negative responses on morale questions, with 75% distrust in senior leadership and 63% feelings of disrespect.  

Years of Service

Negative responses were more or less likely depending on the number of years the respondent had served at AU. For example, 70% of AUFA members with over 20 years experience did not trust current AU leadership, compared with 25% of members who have been at AU for under two years.

Departmental

The table below shows the breakdown of departments by AUFA members. As there are 100 responses, the response by department is also a straight per cent of total responses. Departments with fewer than 10 respondents were aggregated into an “other departments” category.

View fullsize

AUFA Membership vs Survey Responses by Department

We identified the following observations on where a department’s responses differed noticeably from the total responses:

• Information Technology and Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences both had highest mistrust in senior leadership with 63% and 58% disagreeing with question 2. In IT, 50% of respondents reported feeling disrespected by senior leadership.

• In the Faculty of Health Disciplines (FHD), 90% agreed they could share contrarian opinions should they arise, which was the highest of all departments.  

• Faculty of Science and Technology and FHD tended to answer neutrally where other departments disagreed.

Conclusion

A clear narrative emerged from the comments: although approximately a third of surveyed AUFA members are generally happy with the current state of affairs at AU, the remaining two thirds vary from conflicted to extremely unhappy at AU. For many members, there seems to be a disconnect between their satisfaction with and commitment to their daily work and their dissatisfaction with the behaviour of AU’s senior leadership.

The high level of support for AUFA is a positive finding for this committee. As a union, we will likely be facing many challenges over the next several months, and the active participation of the membership will be essential for defending our rights and improving our working conditions. Members interested in volunteering for various tasks as they arise are encouraged to reach out to the Membership Engagement Committee at engagement@aufa.ca.

We would like to thank the volunteers for their hard work in achieving these results, and the participants for their willingness to engage.