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

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

AU's near-virtual process violates bargaining freeze period, labour law

Earlier this month, AU sent all AUFA members in the Edmonton area who would have had an office prior to covid a letter informing them of the outcome of a job assessment. Almost all members were told they would work from home permanently, and the letter then asked them to accept this change. Although the ‘accept’ was later updated to ‘acknowledge’ once it was pointed out this was unintentionally conferring some bizarre authority on individual staff, this entire process is a violation of labour law.

AUFA is informing its members not to sign these letters, at the request of legal counsel.

In a unionized environment, the union is the sole bargaining agent of its members. Furthermore, during open bargaining (which has been going on for a very long time), the employer cannot change terms of work without the union’s permission. In short, this change to terms of work needs to be negotiated rather than asserted.

This issue is not simply a point of principle as AUFA members are almost all working from home anyways, but one of material importance. AU’s offices provided work spaces, bandwidth, electricity, accessibility, ergonomics, and other forms of structure and support for doing work. All of these costs will be transferred to the staff sent from home, and there is no indication on how this will be handled beyond a vague promise of an updated policy.

Currently, AU academics are governed by a stale-dated Telework Policy, and other staff who are working from home are subject to an emergency setup which provides a small bi-weekly stipend and a one-time office setup fee. Once the emergency situation ends, so too will those supports. Furthermore, there have been significant issues with accommodation during this process with simple requests like sit-stand desks taking several months. This leads to major concerns about workplace equity and safety.

AU must work through AUFA, not around us, and must negotiate this significant change to ensure that AUFA members receive a fair deal. A copy of the letter sent to the Chief Human Resources Officer is here.

David Powell

AUFA President

Athabasca-location OHS update

The Athabasca-location Joint Health and Safety Committee held its bimonthly meeting on July 16. Three main issues were discussed.

Returning to Work

The committee discussed the protocol and training AU is developing for a partial return to campus-based work, which is expected in mid-August at the earliest. Copies of the protocol were not yet developed but its main features are expected to include:

• A minimal number of staff returning to work on site and only when site-based work is required. Returning will require an application justifying the return.

• Staff will be required to complete supplementary COVID OHS training and will be screened (e.g., temperature check) prior to entry each day. This will also require some staff serving as screeners.

• There will be physical and operational changes to ensure social distancing. This may include increased distances between desks, more frequent and enhanced cleaning protocols and the use of personal protective equipment. AU has indicated hand sanitizer and masks will be provided as required.

Ergonomic Issues

AU’s move to a near-virtual organization (i.e., most staff working from home permanently) highlights the need for AU to provide appropriate home office equipment. Staff working at home during COVID continue to use workstations that may not be ergonomically appropriate.

At present, AU indicates it does not have the capacity to assess or install ergonomically appropriate workstations in home offices. The issue has been raised with the COVID committee, which handed off the matter to the university executive (as part of its review of the teleworking policy).

While some delay in resolving this issue is understandable, the COVID situation does not excuse AU from its obligation to comply with the OHS Code. Staff members who are facing discomfort or injury due to the absence of an ergonomically appropriate workstation are encouraged to submit the ergonomic assessment form. If AU takes no action, please contact your union OHS representative about filing an OHS complaint.

Injuries

AU recorded one time-loss injury over the past two months. This injury has been reported to the Workers’ Compensation Board and the staff member is recovering. As well, AU is awaiting a final report and recommendations from a consultant regarding a workplace violence incident from earlier this year.

Rhiannon Rutherford and Bob Barnetson

AUFA Athabasca Location OHS Committee Members