The most recent AUFA member survey revisited a series of general questions aimed at understanding members’ feelings about their work, workplace, and union. The 163 responses received suggest ambivalence toward AU leadership, continued pressures on salaries and workload, and complex feedback for AUFA volunteers to consider.
We are writing on behalf of AUFA and its members to express our strong opposition to the renewal of Dr. Matthew Prineas’ term as Provost at Athabasca University. The Provost is a pivotal academic role in the university, and is central to providing space for an academic community to flourish, but also for building an equitable and supportive workplace enabling all employees to do excellent academic work. Under Matthew Prineas’ watch, AUFA has seen exponential growth in issues culminating in grievances that expose AU’s toxic workplace culture and a diminishment in our ability to be leaders of academic excellence.
The recent employee engagement survey report supports this position, in addition to what members are telling us directly. AUFA is extremely concerned about chronic low staff morale, deteriorating mental health of members, and the routine exclusion of staff from key decisions that impact the future of Athabasca University. The lack of engagement from the Provost with faculty and significant challenges faced by them has undermined their ability to be responsive to students, work collegially, or even maintain good health.
AUFA is alarmed by the record number of serious grievances reporting discrimination, harassment, and harm being experienced by our members. In response, instead of addressing these concerns in a collegial manner, they are ignored and consequently require being escalated to arbitration to attract any meaningful response from HR. Worse, the Collective Agreement, Article 7: Discipline, is being used to target and isolate members, particularly pre-tenure, equity-deserving members, in response to reported conflicts, all under the watch of Dr. Prineas acting as the primary executive officer responsible for overseeing affected members. The pattern can be named: it is systemic institutional racism.
After decades of institutional inaction, over the last year AUFA and its members have repeatedly raised concerns, naming serious equity issues. These concerns continue to remain unaddressed, or at best received vague and ill-defined responses. The incumbent Provost has refused to engage with AUFA members on the development of an equity office, signed on to the Scarborough Charter without meaningful commitment to supporting the flourishing of Black academics and staff members, and made empty promises on moving forward with conciliation with and active support of Indigenous Peoples, including with our own faculty and staff members.
AU needs a diverse faculty to engage with a diverse student population, including at the graduate level. The Provost has failed to attract and retain a diverse faculty, and members of equity deserving groups are grossly underrepresented at AU. As an academic institution that purports to support EDI and decolonization, AU is at odds with its Mission to reduce barriers to education. The lack of active engagement on issues of JEDI is jeopardizing AU’s responsibilities to the Tri Council policies on Equity, the Scarborough Charter, and the TRC Calls to Action, which now invites significant reputational harm to AU and its faculty.
While the ILE promised much, under the management of the Provost, it has delivered little. The result to date is a general sense that the expertise and knowledge of staff members is irrelevant, and managerialism has been allowed to run amok, stifling true innovation. Massive financial investment in the ILE project has deprived faculties from maintaining their staff complements, and workloads for those who remain are increasingly unmanageable. While enrolments continue to drop, payouts to departing executives are up, and executive positions have ballooned.
The disproportionate emphasis on MSCHE accreditation, at the expense of reaching underserved Albertans, most notably Indigenous, single-parent students, and students seeking accommodations for learning differences is disappointing. This misuse of faculty time and resources is a demonstration of yet another ill-conceived project of the Provost. While AU employees have asked for an analysis of the benefit of this program, the Provost has provided nothing.
Our members collectively hold extensive institutional memory. From our perspective, the Provost has much to answer for in the lackluster performance of the entire executive team, particularly with the management of the Human Resources Department. We have watched HR extend its scope into affairs that normally function under the purview of the VP Academic, making decisions that used to be part of a functioning collegial governance model. Reliance on external legal investigations of our members based on specious allegations is particularly troubling.
The Provost has managed an embarrassing and harmful EDI and decolonization response, and led us toward the current unsustainable financial trajectory. While attention has been devoted to failing projects, the lack of institution-wide strategic and academic planning itself is a cause for alarm. We therefore implore the Provostial Review Committee to weigh these concerns, and rather than acquiesce to Dr Prineas’ appointment renewal, to put the needs of AU’s faculty and students first and foremost. We deserve better.
The reappointment of a Provost is subject to AU’s Appointment and Reappointment of Academic Vice-Presidents Policy, and related procedure. Under this Policy, a call out and election are required for appointment of committee members (Section 4.10). This process is part of required collegial governance and provides an important opportunity to hear from each faculty.
The President has further invited each of us as valued community members to provide written contributions to the renewal committee. We encourage members to write individual submissions, which are impactful in ways an Open Letter may not be. Feel free to elaborate what’s most important to you, and why.
Signed, written contributions should be submitted in confidence to the committee at provostrenewalsubmissions@athabascau.ca by Monday, April 17, 2023 at 4:30 p.m. (Mountain).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
On March 19, 2022, AU’s COVID-19 Planning Committee announced changes to the university’s COVID protocols. While most staff are required to continue to work from home, staff who permitted to be on campus are now no longer required to wear masks.
A number of AUFA members questioned the logic of this change. Essentially, how can COVID be both dangerous enough to warrant working from home and not dangerous enough to require mandatory masking when on campus?
This blog post outlines AUFA’s investigation to date, sets out our assessment of whether this policy change is compliant with the province’s Occupational Health and Safety Act, and asks members how they would like AUFA to proceed.
By late 2021, AU’s COVID-19 protocol required almost all staff to work from home. If staff needed to be on campus, they would require special permission to do so, to be vaccinated and to wear a mask while on site.
In March 2022, with no consultation with AU’s unions or the Joint Health and Safety Committee, AU’s COVID committee eliminated mandatory masking. The elimination of mandatory masking was a surprising change, given that COVID-19 is primarily spread through the air, via both droplets and aerosols.
Under Alberta’s OHS legislation, AU is required to conduct an assessment of the hazard posed by COVID in the workplace, as well as institute controls to eliminate or otherwise reduce the risk posed by COVID to staff members. You can review AU’s most recent COVID hazard assessment here.
AU General Hazard Assessment COVID-19 AU Main Feb. 2022.pdf
AU has implemented a series of controls designed to reduce the risk of workplace infection among staff. As noted above, the primary control being used is directing staff to work from home. This control eliminates work-related exposure to COVID for those who work from home.
This control does not protect staff members who must regularly or occasionally work on campus. The OHS Act and Code requires AU to implement additional controls to protect these staff members. AU’s on-campus controls presently include:
Vaccination: AU’s Vaccination Policy and Procedure requires workers prove they have received two doses of an approved vaccine to be onsite. The logic here is that a vaccinated worker is less likely to have COVID (and thus less likely bring it into the workplace) and is less likely to contract COVID during a workplace exposure.
Vaccination does not, however fully control the risk of COVID for those working onsite. The emerging evidence is that two doses of vaccine is not effective at preventing COVID inflection. Further, the effectiveness of vaccination appears to wane over time and AU does not require staff to have a booster shot. Essentially, vaccinated staff can still have, transmit, and acquire COVID in the workplace. This suggests the effectiveness of AU’s vaccination control is moderate and declining over time.
Cleaning: AU has implemented enhanced cleaning protocols in the workplace. This control is intended to remove the virus from surfaces and thus prevent surface transmission of the virus. Cleaning does not control the risk of droplet or aerosol transmission.
Social Distancing: AU recommends staff maintain a distance of six feet from one another in the workplace. Distancing reduces the risk of droplet transmission but does not control spread through aerosols. Aerosols can stay in the air for hours and spread throughout a workspace.
Symptom Exclusion: AU requires staff members who are exhibiting symptoms consistent with COVID to stay out of the workplace. Workplace exclusion is intended to reduce staff exposure to the virus. This control is of limited effectiveness because some COVID positive workers do not exhibit symptoms at all. COVID is also contagious prior to someone exhibiting symptoms.
To summarize, AU’s present control strategies and their effectiveness for workers who work on-site are as follows:
Working from home: Not applicable.
Vaccination: Moderate and diminishing
Cleaning: Low
Social Distancing: Low
Symptom Exclusion: Low
An effective control for staff who work onsite is wearing a mask. Wearing a mask dramatically reduces transmission of the virus.
Section 3(1) of the OHS Act requires “Every employer shall ensure, as far as it is reasonably practicable for the employer to do so, (a) the health, safety and welfare of (i) workers engaged in the work of that employer”.
Mandatory masking in the workplace is a control that is reasonably practicable for AU to implement, entailing little cost and having little to no operational impact.
In May, AUFA provided this analysis of the effectiveness of AU’s March 2022 COVID protocols to AU’s COVID Planning Committee and asked the committee to reinstitute mandatory masking. The committee declined this request:
The COVID-19 Planning Committee met to review yours and AUFA’s concerns and to discuss AU’s COVID-19 progress forward. The committee identified that throughout COVID-19 it is has always remained cautious toward the lessening of COVID-19 restrictions and therefore did not take the removal of it’s [sic] masking protocols lightly. The committee appreciates AUFA’s concern on this matter but continues to feel that the controls remaining in place were adequate to control the COVID-19 hazard for those working on site.
Moving forward, the committee will be continuing to recommend adjustment of AU’s controls based on continued assessment of the hazard and with continued guidance from Government Agencies as well as other resources as it works toward reopening its place-based work sites.
AUFA’s OHS representatives are seeking member input about how to proceed with this issue. Essentially there are two options:
Take no action: AUFA can decide not to pursue this matter any further. This means that staff members who regularly or periodically work onsite will experience an increased risk of contracting COVID. These staff members can, in part, reduce this risk by choosing to wear a mask.
File an OHS complaint: AU’s unwillingness to require mandatory masking appears to violate AU’s obligations to take all reasonably practicable steps to control the hazard posed by COVID 19 for AU employees who must be onsite.
The anonymous survey below gives you the opportunity to provide direction to AUFA’s OHS representatives.
Rhiannon Rutherford and Bob Barnetson
AUFA OHS Representatives
As AU and AUFA continue bargaining, language changes represent the biggest gulf between the two parties. The item that has gotten perhaps the most attention from members is the employer’s proposed removal of Research & Study Leave (RSL) for professional staff.
Previous posts have provided an analysis of the proposed changes and reflected members’ overwhelming rejection of them. Since the initial language was tabled in late January, AU’s team has signaled some minor movement by offering a small payout in exchange for the removal of the benefit for all professionals.
While it seems that a large majority of members are opposed to this particular rollback, some members and observers may be wondering what all the fuss is about. This post responds to common concerns and puts this proposal in context.
“Not everyone uses it”
It has been pointed out that not every professional makes use of the RSL benefit: this is certainly true. But it’s also true that not every member makes equal use of other benefits. If anything, this is an argument for maintaining the benefit because it doesn’t cost the university anything when members choose not to apply.
Professional members who take RSL usually find it enormously valuable, and they often return from their leave invigorated and more fully engaged in their work. Further, we’ve heard from numerous professional members who have said this benefit was a key reason they accepted employment at AU in the first place.
We’ve also heard from many professional members who would like to access this benefit but are discouraged by the multiple barriers that often make it difficult to take this leave, including a lack of support from upper management. That professional RSLs are often shorter or part time speaks less to the value professional members place on the benefit and more to the flexible arrangements that are often the only way professional members can access this leave.
“It’s hard to manage”
A few members have raised concerns about operational impacts when staff take RSL. It is up to the employer to effectively manage the impact of leaves. Unfortunately, some areas do not manage this well, leading to leave denials or delays and associated stress and uncertainty. On the other hand, some teams do enjoy a healthy distribution of RSL and manage to balance workloads and impacts.
With effective planning and support, RSL can be a net positive for individual staff members, their teams, and the university as a whole.
“No one else has it”
AU’s bargaining team co-chair recently highlighted that this benefit is uncommon within the sector. But there are a lot of things that make AU unique and difficult to compare to other universities in the province. Several members have shared that this benefit was specifically highlighted in their hiring process as a positive feature of employment at AU, and that it was a key factor in deciding to accept the relatively lower salary.
Many members have even indicated they would support extending this benefit to all staff at AU, not just AUFA members. Rather than seeing collective bargaining as a race to the bottom, these members believe that we can and should be advocating for more respect and benefits to accrue to all members of the university community. Maintaining this valuable benefit for our members may also encourage other workers and employers to initiate something similar.
“It should only be for academics”
Another argument AU’s bargaining team is making seems to be that only academics take RSL as it is intended: to publish and disseminate research. Setting aside the fact that some professionals do indeed use the leave to research and publish (and the problems with the “publish or perish” culture in the academy), this is an extremely narrow view of the value of this benefit. Providing staff with dedicated time to focus on scholarly and professional pursuits is a way of demonstrating the respect and value that AU claims to have.
The recent communication from AU’s bargaining team highlighted that AU’s offer of a one-time payout is time limited. Leaving aside the details of exactly how much this benefit might be worth in purely financial terms, there are a number of issues to highlight with this approach.
First, the timing is very curious. AU only tabled its full proposal in late January, after more than six months of active bargaining. If this RSL issue was such a priority for the employer, why was it not included with the in-going (incomplete) proposal tabled nearly one year ago? Why the rush now?
The explanation for this current “take it or leave it” approach is that the one-time payout is only possible because of an “unexpected one-time forecasted favorable operating budget variance.” Previous communications from the provost have highlighted an approximately 12% drop in enrolments as a cause for concern. However, this drop likely represents a levelling out of longer-term enrolment trends after a large COVID-related increase. As well, AU is not facing the same deep cuts to operating grants as most other universities in this province. That is, AU seems to be in good financial health and can afford to maintain or improve AUFA members’ current benefits.
Second, RSL is only one of several significant rollbacks included in the employer’s offer. It would also weaken protections against discipline, increase managerial control over academic promotion and tenure processes, remove workload protections, and reduce job security for professionals, among other changes. AU is now putting pressure on members to agree to these sweeping changes by offering a one-time payment that only relates to one item.
Finally, many members have pointed out similarities between AU’s approach to bargaining and the attempt by the employer to remove professionals (as well as other academic staff!) from the AUFA bargaining unit in 2019-20. The implication that professionals don’t deserve the same benefits and protections as academics are especially reminiscent of that distressing time.
Given these factors, it is difficult to see AU’s proposal and pressure tactics as anything other than a divide and conquer strategy. AU’s communications have consistently painted AUFA as aggressively preparing for a strike, when the reality is that AUFA members have been forced to defend our valued benefits and protections from an employer seeking sweeping and negative changes in our contract.
AUFA members came together to prevent the de-designation of hundreds of colleagues, and we can come together in solidarity again. In polls, surveys, town hall meetings, and other forums, AUFA members have overwhelmingly signaled that they do not support the employer’s attempts to sow division and discord.
A strike is a last resort if the employer refuses to back down from the deep, insulting, and unnecessary rollbacks it is seeking. While a strike would be distressing and disruptive for members, our colleagues, and our students, the alternative could be much worse in the longer term. Being forced to accept these rollbacks would lead to burnout, turnover, and extremely low morale – at a time when faculty and staff would much rather feel respected, valued, and positive about the future of this university.
Rhiannon Rutherford
Chair, AUFA Membership Engagement Committee
The Membership Engagement Committee is coordinating member-to-member calls to chat about how folks are feeling about bargaining. If you would appreciate a personal contact from another member, please leave your name below.
You may also use this space to share feedback about the bargaining process or anything else that’s on your mind.
Early in 2021, AUFA’s Executive prioritized making meaningful progress toward building a more inclusive union. As an initial step, AUFA President David Powell reported to the May 2021 General Membership Meeting in this way:
AUFA has begun an Indigenous Audit by hiring Dr. La Royce Batchelor who is examining AUFA’s documents and culture to create a series of recommendations towards a more inclusive and decolonized construct by shifts in language, inclusion, equity, diversity, and community. What that has meant is to look at what is written and what is said, and what that means. To question what power relationships are enforced through how our contract and other documents are written, and to whose advantage.
Since then, Dr. Batchelor has provided AUFA with several reports and recommendations. As an example, in a recent email to the AUFA Executive, Dr. Batchelor explained the link between union practices and the broader culture at AU:
It is a common misperception that it is the employer that determines corporate culture. However, repeated studies have demonstrated that it is the largest mass of participants that shapes corporate culture, or functional operations. If members of AUFA decide to function or operate in a different way the administration must shift.
In November, the Executive struck a committee to examine and respond to Dr. Batchelor’s observations. At present, the committee includes Myra Tait, Gail Leicht, Rhiannon Rutherford, and David Powell. Following both the letter and the spirit of Dr. Batchelor’s suggestion that the ‘largest mass of participants shapes corporate culture,’ however, many others will be needed in different capacities at different points throughout the process. The work is complex and requires us to examine biases, assumptions, structures, and long-standing practices. It’s also essential, especially if we, as a collective of over 400 individuals, are serious about addressing inequities and promoting inclusion both within our union and within the university.
To that end, while this project was initially conceived of as an Indigenous Audit, we think a better way to conceptualize it is as an Equity Audit. This more expansive and inclusive process title, we think, better reflects the audit’s broad scope and many different perspectives on power structures and relationships within AUFA and AU.
As an AUFA member, you are encouraged to review AUFA’s Equity Statement, and to consider adding your name as a signatory or offering feedback.
The Equity Committee appreciates all member feedback on the Equity Statement. We are an active committee, meeting on a monthly basis to consider a wide range of equity issues at AU. As we consider your comments, our hope is to revise the Statement on an annual basis, for presentation at the AUFA Annual General Meeting.
For the initial stages of the audit, Dr. Batchelor conducted detailed analyses of AUFA’s foundational documents, including our constitution, bylaws, and collective agreements, in addition to the Post-Secondary Learning Act, as well as the more dynamic content on the AUFA blog and website. Current and future stages will see Dr. Batchelor conduct a series of surveys designed to probe organizational culture.
Dr. Batchelor is especially attentive to how language is used – both in foundational documents as well as in our daily work and interactions. Language, of course, is powerful, and it can either reinforce inequitable power relations or promote an inclusive and welcoming organizational culture.
In the first report, Dr. Batchelor wrote,
It is difficult to focus on a dramatic organizational shift at the same time society is struggling with health and welfare as well as AUFA fighting for the jobs of its constituents. However, it is highly recommended that AUFA 1) establish a clear list of goals both current and aspirational, 2) examine definitions both connotative and denotative to ensure future clarity, and 3) question ALL language but especially language of an obvious power distance or punitive nature.
This emphasis on language is the focus of the first survey tool. The “Concepts and Definitions” survey invites participants to identify different definitions of key terms. For example, a particular term may have a different operational function than does its dictionary definition. It may also have other meanings and connotations within our organizational culture. These different definitions can sometimes stand in stark conflict with one another, and potentially contribute to inequitable power relations. Dr. Batchelor further explains:
The goal is to determine if the definitional and functional differences in words commonly used in AUFA foundational documents are also used in functional operations. If the words do not appear to have the same definitional drift in functional operations then the redress can be focused on the documents themselves. However, I am already finding that the definitions drift further in functional operations. This means that not only are there profound differences in the definitions across foundational documents, the definitions are also different in functional operations. We cannot conduct any meaningful shift in Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Accessibility if everyone is using a different functional definition.
The differences in definitions doesn't only exist in documents. Research reveals that less than 17% of employees actually read foundational documents. They rely instead on the functional operations definitions. Therefore it is necessary to understand not only the differences in document language, but also the understanding of those that rely on those documents for their livelihood. We can have amazing policies, but if the functional operation understanding does not match then we still have exclusion, homogeneity, favoritism, and inaccessible systems.
Some of the AUFA Executive piloted this first survey tool. For the next pilot group, we will draw from a representative sample of approximately 30 AUFA members. Responses are, of course, entirely voluntary, and will be sent to Dr. Batchelor directly, kept confidential, and analyzed for content only.
A request for participation will be sent to a random and representative sample of members, but any interested members are also welcome to submit responses. Download this file and send it to Dr. Batchelor.
In the coming months, Dr. Batchelor will use a series of additional survey tools to further compile member demographics, identify challenges or barriers members face, and propose solutions. We will share more details about these surveys as they are available.
We will also seek to increase ways members can engage in this process more directly as it unfolds. There will be a townhall meeting on Tuesday, February 1, at 1:00pm MST.
Dr. Batchelor has already provided some concrete recommendations, including a full bylaw review and changes to AUFA’s organizational structure. The committee and the AUFA Executive will be seeking to make progress on these tasks over the next several months. Our hope is to have language and structure changes ready to present to the full membership for discussion at the May 2022 General Membership Meeting.
We are grateful for Dr. Batchelor’s efforts and insights so far and look forward to learning and sharing more information with AUFA members in the coming months. This is an exciting opportunity for AUFA to re-invent itself to better meet the needs of all members towards inclusive solidarity.
Myra Tait and Rhiannon Rutherford
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.
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.
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:
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
