Concordia strike ends in faculty victory

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

Concordia Settlement

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mediation unsuccessful at Lethbridge

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

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

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

AUFA bargaining

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

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

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

Toronto-area flying picket

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

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

Strike Callers Wanted

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

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

Jason Foster, Chair

Bargaining Committee

Bob Barnetson, Chair

Job Action Committee

Strike Planning Update: Committees start to spin up

AUFA’s Executive has directed the Job Action Committee (JAC) to be ready to strike no later than March 15. Whether or not we’ll see a work stoppage remains uncertain and is largely contingent on bargaining reaching impasse, AUFA and the employer completing a legislated mediation process, and the outcome of a member strike vote. This blog provides an update on strike planning.

Provisional Strike Structure

At its December meeting, AUFA’s Executive has developed a provisional structure (below) detailing AUFA’s work stoppage task allocation, reporting lines, and broader strategy. This structure assumes AUFA members’ approval of the strike pay and picketing recommendations at Wednesday’s townhall. The structure is also likely to evolve as work-stoppage preparation continues.

To meet the March 15 strike-readiness deadline, AUFA’s Executive authorized JAC to begin populating the committees that report to it. The first committee JAC has formed is the Materials Committee.

Materials Committee

The Materials Committee is responsible for generating strike materials to support flying and digital picketing, such as signs, online shareables, and leaflets. The committee will also be responsible for maintaining AUFA’s blog during the work stoppage. The committee presently comprises Eric Strikwerda (chair), Corina Dransutavicius, Ian Grivois, Jonathan Leggo, Mike Voaklander, Suzanne McCullagh, and Tamara Jackson. It held its first meeting last week.

Unions often run multi-strand social media campaigns during work stoppages, with different messages for different audiences at different times. Some messages will be critical, targeting the employer directly, and designed to attach a reputational cost to the employer’s behaviour. AUFA-generated memes in support of the Concordia University of Edmonton strike are an example of that approach. Other times, unions will run more positive messages aimed at sustaining member morale, for instance, or that will target different audiences (e.g., students, the public).

The Materials Committee is seeking AUFA member input (see questions below) about possible issues, themes, slogans, and multimedia ideas that, together, will bolster AUFA’s social media presence in the event of a work stoppage. We are especially interested in hearing your thoughts on different targeted audiences, as well as the intended effect of each idea. You can fill out the form below as many times as you like. As always, all submissions are anonymous. You can also email ideas and images to Eric Strikwerda (erics@athabascau.ca).

Eric Strikwerda, Chair

AUFA Materials Committee

JAC Volunteers Needed

JAC is seeking AUFA members willing to perform between 1 and 3 hours of online research between now and February 15. The research entails conducting online searches for contact information of between 10 and 15 AU donors and entering your findings into an online form.

This research will give JAC the option of contacting AU donors during a work stoppage to exert reputational and financial pressure on AU to settle. We have over 300 past donors identified and need some assistance to work through them all. If you are interested in volunteering, please contact Bob Barnetson (barnetso@athabascau.ca).

Bob Barnetson, Chair

Job Action Committee

Your Turn

Faculty strike at Concordia enters second week

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

Background

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

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

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

Bargaining to Date

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

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

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

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

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

One social media report suggests Concordia was offering:

2021/22: 0%

2022/23: 0%

2023/24: 0.5%

2024/25: 1.0%

2025/26: 1.5%

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

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

Strike Impact

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

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

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

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

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

Impact on Sessionals

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

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

Settlement Prospects

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

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

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

Implications for AUFA

The CUEFA strike has a couple of lessons for AUFA:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob Barnetson, Chair

Job Action Committee

Strike Support Rising—Member Survey

In late November, AUFA’s Membership Engagement Committee (MEC) completed its fifth telephone survey of members. Thirty-one volunteer callers contacted 102 randomly selected AUFA members (~23.5% of the membership). The resulting sample is broadly representative of our membership as a whole. This blog presents aggregated results. Key themes include: 

• AUFA enjoys broad support (90%). 

• Trust in the university executive is low (15%). 

• Members want a reasonable wage increase to offset inflation. 

• Member solidarity is high and there is growing support for a strike. 

Climate Questions 

Survey callers asked three recurring and one new climate question. Overall, there were no major differences between the views of professional and academic members. The new question (about morale) addresses comments in past surveys that members often enjoy their job (thus enjoy starting work in the morning) but are frustrated with working at AU. 

Overall, 39% of members agree that their morale is high while 34% indicate it is low. This is significantly different than the 75% of members who indicate they enjoy starting work in the morning. Comments associated with these questions suggest that many members enjoy the work they do. However, they find the context in which they do that work very frustrating. A number of members noted that they have intentionally reduced their university service work in order to reduce their frustration. This new morale question appears to generate a more nuanced assessment of where the membership is at and will be retained going forward.  

When asked if they trust the executive team of the university, 15% of respondents said yes while 58% said no. These results are similar to the April 2021 survey, where 16% of respondents indicated they trust the executive and 63% indicated they did not. It appears the departure of Neil Fassina has arrested the freefall in member trust but the executive has not been able to repair the damage. 

Respondent comments identified several issues driving ongoing mistrust of AU’s executive. These include efforts to bust the union through de-designation, continuing problems with the IT re-organization, lack of any meaningful progress at the bargaining table, unmanageable workloads, pay inequity, the sneaky withdrawal of market supplements, executive invisibility, and insincere communications.  

One member’s comments (paraphrased by the interviewer) provide a representative view of the AU executive: 

The pandemic has been incredibly difficult and the actions of the AU executive team during this time have been cruel. They appear to operate with a total disregard for university employees, in fact they seem to operate with a disregard for what makes AU a good place to work and a good university. I have little faith that they make decisions with the interests of faculty, staff, and students in mind. It has become difficult to hope that the future of the university will be a good one. Their detached, non-transparent, and hostile-to-consultation style of leadership is likely to be disastrous for the university.  

A very small number of members hope a new president will change the executive’s behaviour. It is difficult to imagine how the current executive can turn matters around and a top-to-bottom executive “house cleaning” may be the best option. 

When asked whether AUFA was doing a good job, 90% of members agreed; only 2% disagreed. This is broadly similar to the April 2021 survey, where 93% of respondents indicated AUFA was doing a good job and 2% disagreed.  

Bargaining Questions 

The survey asked several questions about bargaining. The full results have been provided to the bargaining team to inform their approach at the table going forward. Significantly, there has been a notable increase in member willingness to strike. In April 2021, 69% of members said they would strike to avoid a 4% rollback. In this survey, 96% of members said they would strike to avoid any rollback. 

Members were asked what their highest priority change to the collective agreement was. By far, the most common answer was a raise to address inflation. AUFA members have not had a raise in salary grids in four years. Job security was also ranked as a priority, although notably less so.   

With the employer yet to table a full proposal (i.e., monetary plus full language on a number of items are still missing), there is a chance that AU may attempt some wedge tactics. To gauge the effectiveness of this potential approach, members were asked about their willingness to accept an employer offer that provided them with a small gain but only if they agreed to a rollback that would harm other members.  

Respondents overwhelming (81%) rejected such wedge tactics, with only 1% indicating they would accept such an offer. 

What this survey suggests is that wedge tactics would not be an effective approach for AU. This high level of member resistance to wedge tactics is likely influenced by AU’s efforts in 2020 to de-designate large portions of the AUFA membership. This cynical move only strengthened member solidarity.  

Members were also asked whether they had any concerns or questions about a possible work stoppage. These items have been passed along to the AUFA Job Action Committee for discussion. In the meantime, members with questions about a possible work stoppage are encouraged to consult the following resources on the AUFA website:  

• strike primer 

• work stoppage FAQs   

• financially preparing for a strike or lockout 

• professional and practical strike or lockout preparation 

• strike prep 

• striking and strike pay consultation 

Finally, the survey asked members questions about equity issues at AU. These results will be passed along to the AUFA Equity Committee for discussion. Members’ responses will also be shared as part of AUFA’s external equity audit. More information about this audit process (including how to get involved) will be shared in the new year.  

MEC very much appreciates the work of the 31 volunteer callers, who made this survey the easiest to conduct yet. MEC also appreciates the 102 AUFA members who took the time to speak with the callers and help AUFA’s various committees understand the views and needs of AUFA members. 

Rhiannon Rutherford, Chair 

AUFA Membership Engagement Committee 

Picketing and the Virtual Strike

AUFA’s Job Action Committee (JAC) is at present tabulating the results of its consultation on striking, strike activities, and strike pay. The short version is there was overwhelming member support, and the consultation generated many excellent ideas, some of which we are adopting. There will be a full report-back in early January. A townhall meeting and ratification vote on a slightly revised set of recommendations will take place in later January.

During the consultation, members asked a variety of questions. Some questions are answered in our Work Stoppage FAQ while others will be answered in the new year via a blog post. This post explains how JAC will organize picketing given AUFA’s distributed membership and the effective closure (temporarily or permanently) of all campuses.

The Logic of Strikes and Picketing

Workers withdraw their labour (i.e., strike) in order to apply financial pressure on their employer to come to a mutually acceptable agreement. Strikes generate pressure primarily by disrupting the employer’s ability to deliver service to their customers and, thus, make money.

JAC has completed a preliminary analysis of the impact of AUFA members ceasing their teaching, internal service, and professional duties. This analysis suggests a strike will significantly degrade AU’s ability to operate and, indeed, function at all. This, in turn, will cause students to defer new registrations, thereby imperilling 50% of AU’s revenue.

Further, any work stoppage will negatively affect AU’s reputation as a reliable and responsible provider of post-secondary education. The risk for the employer (that escalates over time) is that students may decide to take their tuition money elsewhere.

Workers picket to discourage customers, suppliers, and replacement workers from entering the worksite. Essentially, picketing is designed to intensify the operational disruption of a strike as well as attach reputational costs to the employer’s unwillingness to bargain. Intensifying the pressure on the employer is designed to shorten the length of the strike. Picketing often entails walking the sidewalk or blocking a plant gate, carrying signs, handing out leaflets, and the like.

Traditional picketing makes little sense at AU. Effectively, no work occurs on AU’s campuses and no students ever visit them. Further, many AUFA members do not live in close proximity to an AU location. Consequently, JAC is considering two main alternatives to the traditional picket: flying pickets and digital pickets.

Flying Pickets

A flying picket is essentially an in-person picket that moves around (instead of a static picket outside a workplace) and operates for relatively short periods of time. It can, but does not always, entail carrying picket sign. Some examples of flying pickets include:

• Campus visits: Going to a campus that sends many visiting students to AU, having one-on-one conversations with students about our issues and concerns, and asking them not to enroll at AU until the strike is over will apply reputational and financial pressure to AU.

• High-Traffic Pickets: Holding a traditional picket at a high-traffic location (e.g., important intersection at rush hour) to raise public awareness about AU’s behaviour.

• Door Knocking: Informing voters of how the government’s mandate (which presumably shapes AU’s financial offer) is affecting us may generate government pressure on AU to settle (e.g., by agreeing to non-financial improvements).

• Secondary Pickets: Picketing organizations with close ties to the AU or the government may generate pressure from these organizations on AU to settle.

• Pressuring Leaders: Picketing or leafleting at businesses operated by AU Board members or in the neighbourhoods of AU Board members and executives may pressure them to seek a settlement.

Flying pickets address the absence of a meaningful workplace to picket. At present, JAC plans to hold regular flying pickets in Athabasca, Calgary, and Edmonton. These locations are home to approximately 75% of our members and are where AUFA has the deepest bases of local organizers. Flying pickets are possible in other locations if there are enough AUFA members and local organizers available.

Digital Pickets

Approximately 25% of members do not live in or near Athabasca, Edmonton, or Calgary. To accommodate these members, as well as those members for whom flying pickets are not viable, JAC is also developing digital picketing strategies. A digital picket is an activity designed to apply pressure to AU to settle that can be performed regardless of one’s physical location. Some examples of digital picketing include:

• Shareables: The posting of shareables (e.g., memes, infographics) on social media applies reputational pressure to AU, particularly when coupled with a specific time-bound ask (e.g., during a strike, don’t register for AU courses or refrain from donating to AU). Shareables also allow non-AUFA members to amplify these tactics. Social media accounts, including anonymous ones, are readily available and easy to operate.

• Outreach: Targeted contacts (e.g., email, phone calls, letters) can be operationally disruptive as well as apply financial and reputational pressure to AU. Targets can include AU Board members, executives, donors, students, MLAs, and allied organizations.

• Education: Digitally delivered “teach-ins” are a way for AUFA members to interact with members of the public (as well as other AUFA members), build an understanding of why we’re striking, and recruit allies.

• Creative activities: Creative activities, whether self-directed or structured (e.g., limerick, haiku, photo, and song contests), offer an important way to build morale, engage with one another, and apply reputational pressure on AU.

In addition to flying and digital pickets, JAC and the AUFA executive will be working on other pressure tactics, including transfer-credit boycotts, advertising, and media coverage. Ideally, AUFA would like to have a suite of strike activities available that allow all members to meaningfully participate in winning better working conditions.

We hope this brief discussion of AUFA’s approach to strike activities is helpful. If you have any questions, you can contact me at barnetso@athabascau.ca.

Bob Barnetson, Chair

AUFA Job Action Committee

Your Turn

JAC would like to hear your feedback on the approaches outlined above as well as any ideas you have.

Strike prep: 500 days without a contract

Today marks the 500th day that AUFA members have been working without a contract. Indeed, we don’t even have a full opening offer from the employer yet. AU’s bad-faith bargaining is making it impossible to negotiate a new contract. Since the employer won’t bargain, AUFA’s Job Action Committee (JAC) has begun preparing for what seems like an inevitable strike.

A few weeks ago, JAC asked members to suggest tactics designed to pressure AU to agree to an acceptable contract settlement. A credible strike threat is necessary to get a fair deal at the table, and AUFA members should have some input into the tactics AUFA employs.

This blog outlines a high level overview of some of those member-suggested tactics. It also answers some of the questions AUFA members asked JAC. Over the coming weeks, JAC will discuss these tactics in some detail, as well as strategize when and how best to use them.

Suggested Tactics

The suggested tactics fall into three broad categories:

• Operational: When AUFA members withdraw their labour, AU processes that rely on AUFA members’ work will slow or stop.

• Financial: A strike (or its prospect) disincentivizes students to enrol in courses, thereby reducing institutional revenue.

• Reputational: Strike-related communications (before or during a strike) can do long-term damage to AU’s reputation as a good place to work or go to school.

AUFA members suggested four main operational tactics:

• a work slowdown or working to rule,

• refusing certain or additional work assignments,

• signing a “no scabbing” pledge with AUPE and CUPE, or

• fully withdrawing labour (i.e., a strike).

AUFA members suggested a number of ways to apply reputational pressure to AU. In these examples, please read “bosses” as meaning members of both AU’s executive and AU’s Board of Governors.

• contacting bosses and/or politicians (in person and electronically),

• bringing in a mediator to bargaining sessions (creating an observer effect),

• holding a non-confidence vote in AU’s bargaining team or the Board,

• conducting a media campaign highlighting AU’s bargaining position and behaviour,

• organizing information pickets (e.g., pickets, car convoys, leafleting) that target bosses and MLAs’ homes, offices, and businesses, as well as meetings of the Board of Governors,

• publicizing data related to bosses’ salaries and administrative bloat,

• informing and/or pressurizing the new president about how AU’s bargaining is affecting staff relations, and

• organizing a national campaign of censure over AU’s bargaining approach.

AUFA members suggested a number of ways to apply financial pressure to AU, including:

• organizing a student boycott for the duration of any work stoppage, and

• asking colleagues to refrain from recommending that students attend AU or accept transfer credits from AU until bargaining is settled.

A small number of members noted that a work stoppage would lead to students experiencing delays in completing their education. Other members identified the risk that reputational harm might persist after a new contract is settled.

Questions

Members asked a number of questions. JAC has endeavoured to answer them below.

Q: Will AU save money during a work stoppage?

A: AU’s expenses during a work stoppage will decline because it will not pay AUFA salaries or benefits. This means that, for a strike to be effective, the financial impact of a work stoppage on AU’s revenue must be sufficiently large to offset these savings.

Q: Will we lose our jobs if we strike?

A: Unlikely. Alberta’s Labour Relations Code bars employers from terminating staff for participating in a strike. Article 12 of our collective agreement does allow AU to lay off staff (with notice), but AU would only be permitted to do this if a) “the employer permanently discontinues some or all of its operations, or no longer employs employees to do certain work” or b) AU is able to show financial exigency.

It is of course possible that AU will trigger a reduction in tuition revenue by forcing AUFA to strike. But AU normally manages enrollment fluctuations by reducing CUPE members’ teaching loads, so the risk of layoffs resulting from a strike is very low.

Q: How will I afford to live during a work stoppage?

A: A few weeks ago, AUFA provided information about strike pay and benefits as well as strategies AUFA members may wish to use to prepare for the financial impact of a work stoppage.

Q: Will the reputational harm cause long-term damage to AU?

A: Maybe. AU’s approach to labour relations over the past few years (e.g., repeatedly seeking unnecessary rollbacks to our collective agreement, adopting an unnecessarily antagonistic approach to labour relations, trying to bust the union) has made AU a less attractive place to work. Forcing AUFA to strike would only reinforce this view. A strike would also make AU look like an unreliable provider of education. AU could avoid these outcomes by changing its behaviour, both at the bargaining table and in the workplace more generally.

Q: Why does AUFA use Lego graphics in its blog posts and information updates?

A: Lego is a low-cost way to create custom graphics that convey the gist of AUFA blog posts and information updates in a quick and accessible way. These graphics drive up readership of the blog in a way that clip-art posts or posts with no graphics do not. The graphics also attach costs to bad behaviour by AU’s executive (e.g., by lampooning them) which, over time, appears to reduce their willingness to continue behaving badly.

Q: What is the status of the unfair labour practice complaint AUFA filed?

A: AU has delayed the hearing of the unfair labour practice complaint (as well as AUFA’s application for an ESA exemption) by providing few dates when AU is available to attend Labour Board meetings and hearings as well as by continually asking AUFA for additional information.

Q: Why is AUFA talking about a strike while bargaining is still underway?

A: Planning a successful strike takes time, so we need to start now. Members also need time to prepare. Preparing publicly to strike gives AU time to recognize that the threat of a strike is real, to consider whether it wants to alter its behaviour to avoid one and, instead, to negotiate a new contract (which is the ultimate goal).

Q: Is it common to wait until the end of bargaining to negotiate wages?

A: Sometimes parties choose to negotiate language before tackling monetary issues (e.g., AU and AUPE Local 69 are doing this). This decision is often justified as being a way to gain momentum at the table before tackling harder issues like wages.

It is worth noting, however, that the supposed dichotomy between monetary and non-monetary issues is a false one. Almost every piece of contract language has monetary implications.

One of the consequences of settling language issues before talking money is that doing so reduces the number of bargaining chips available to AUFA (and AU, for that matter) to structure a final deal that is acceptable to both sides.

Given AU’s track record and its lawyer’s assertion that AU’s full proposal is so bad that AU expects AUFA to strike, AUFA’s bargaining team thinks it is advisable to see the entirety of AU’s opening proposal before agreeing on any changes.

Q: Why is AUFA focused on complaining about AU not providing a full offer instead of telling us about wins at the table?

A: AUFA’s bargaining team provides updates after each set of bargaining dates. There have been no wins at the table to report. This is, in part, because AU’s partial opening offer contains a large number of rollbacks for which there is no justification.

Further hampering bargaining is AU’s unwillingness to present a full opening offer (see question above). It is unfortunate that AUFA has to pressure AU into doing the bare legal minimum required to engage in good-faith bargaining. But that’s a function of how AU is approaching bargaining.

Bob Barnetson, Chair

AUFA Job Action Committee

De-designation, Reputational Harm, and Recruitment

One of the consequences of AU’s efforts to carve 67% of AUFA members out of the bargaining unit is that AU is damaging its own reputation and making recruitment harder. Last week, AUFA received a copy of the letter below (addressed to AU Board Chair Nancy Laird).

The authors (librarians at the University of Lethbridge) have identified carving librarians out of the faculty association as problematic and as having caused one of them to decide against applying for a job at AU.

It is unfortunate that AU continues to pursue its misguided efforts to de-designate AUFA members. This approach is likely to continue damaging AU’s reputation as we go forward.

Jolene Armstrong, President

---

June 25, 2020

Ms Nancy Laird

Chair, Athabasca University Board of Governors

Dear Ms Laird:

We, the undersigned Professional Librarians at the University of Lethbridge, are writing to express concern regarding Athabasca University’s proposed de-designation policy. It is our understanding that the proposed removal of all professional staff from the Athabasca University Faculty Association (AUFA) may include professional librarians.

The rationale, including benefits to the wider institution, of academic status for academic librarians has been well articulated:

·         CAUT Policy Statement on Academic Status and Governance for Librarians

·         ACRL Standards for Faculty Status for Academic Librarians

Of chief importance are the unique ways in which academic librarians enable and support learning, teaching, and research for students and faculty throughout the university.  Their work, which includes curating, organizing, preserving, and providing robust, equitable access to learning and research resources, and helping students understand how to find, use, evaluate and use such resources ethically, is fundamentally academic in nature and is integral to all academic endeavours.

We therefore disapprove of any efforts to remove academic librarians from their institution’s academic staff association. An academic library is central to a research-intensive university’s teaching, learning, and research mission. Academic librarians, who are indeed academics, advance every aspect of this mission. When you weaken your librarians, you weaken your library and your institution as a whole.

The threat of removal of librarians and other employee groups from AUFA is already a recruitment issue. One of our own librarians was interested in a position currently posted at your library, but the possibility of de-designation from AUFA discouraged her from applying. Destabilizing AUFA may well impede academic staff recruitment in other areas, which would be unfortunate for Athabasca University’s students and programs.

We urge you to reconsider the repercussions of implementing the proposed de-designations, as their true costs will add up over time and may ultimately undermine anticipated advantages. Beyond recruitment challenges, likely outcomes of going ahead with the policy include a widespread hit on employee morale, which would undoubtedly reduce creativity, productivity and employee retention—strengths that are desperately needed if Alberta’s universities are to survive the COVID-19 crisis and the provincial government’s ongoing budget cuts.

Athabasca University has a strong reputation and leadership role in online distance education within an academic and research-based environment. This achievement has taken decades of hard work and dedication on the part of many, including AUFA members. We urge you to rethink the proposed de-designations, as they will hamper the ability of your academic librarians and other AUFA members to continue to offer the well-regarded educational programs and support services that underpin the University’s unique position within Canada’s post-secondary sector.

Sincerely,

Paula Cardozo (AU MEd Alumna, 2009)

Sandra Cowan

Nicole Eva

Rumi Graham

Mary Greenshields

Mike Perry

David Scott

Emma Scott

CC

·         Neil Fassina, President, Athabasca University neil.fassina@athabascau.ca

·         Jolene Armstrong, President, AUFA jolenea@athabascau.ca

·         Canadian Association of Professional Academic Librarians (CAPAL) capalibrarians@gmail.com

·         Angela Henshilwood, President, Ontario College and University Library Association (OCULA) angela.henshilwood@utoronto.ca

·         David Kaminski, President, University of Lethbridge Faculty Association kaminski@uleth.ca