AUFA statement on Alberta's proposed anti-trans legislation

The Athabasca University Faculty Association condemns the recent policy proposals by the Alberta government which is a direct attack on the rights of Two-Spirit, transgender, non-binary, and gender non-confirming (2STNBGC) youths. As a union, our duty is a commitment to equity for all members, which includes fairness and justice in the way they are treated. As a faculty association, we are dedicated to the intellectual pursuit and the protection of academic freedom.

The recent policy proposals use the guise of parental rights to rob youths of their own right to live their lives peacefully and safely. It seeks to out people without their permission, deny proven medical treatments like puberty blockers, and exclude youths from engaging in healthy community activities like sports and athletics. It is also anti-intellectual, erasing decades of academic work to instead embrace a current moral panic, and hide this attempted social erasure behind a false veneer of concern. The creation and enforcement of these laws has encouraged violence against 2STNBGC youths, most recently in the death of Nex Benedict, who died at the hands of classmates after similar laws were proposed in Oklahoma.   

The Alberta government is our employer, and it is attacking our children.

AUFA calls upon all interested members to sign the Trans Action Alberta petition, write their political leaders to express their condemnation of these policies, and to attend rallies in their communities. In addition, please watch our provincial organization CAFA, for their forthcoming statement.

Additional links:

Trans Rights Yeg for attending rallies in Edmonton.

Queer Citizens United for attending rallies in Calgary.

Alberta Federation Labour statement.

Write your Members of the Legislative Assembly:

Danielle Smith, Premier of Alberta

Demetrios Nicolaides, Minister of Education

Glenn Van Dijken, Member of the Legislative Assembly for Athabasca-Westlock-Barrhead

AUFA Condemns Employer Disruption and Mismanagement; Calls for Concrete Action

AUFA condemns the Board of Governors’ callous firing of Dr. Scott who lost his wife only weeks ago. The surprise announcement of the termination of former AU President Dr. Peter Scott and the appointment of Dr. Alex Clark to fill this role has left faculty and staff at Athabasca University reeling.  AUFA members have been experiencing callousness and disruption beyond the recent upheavals and actions of the BOG and are growing weary of the cycle of crises facing this institution – a cycle that is taking its toll on staff morale and student enrolment alike. Yet we also remain committed to the university’s open mission and hopeful for some stability and calm so we can focus on our work in service of this mission.  

This blog post will analyze how we got here and outline a path forward. Our core message to the university administration and the Board of Governors is that, to right this ship, faculty and staff need to lead the way.  

Problematic Process 

The sudden announcement of a change in presidents left many wondering, how did this happen? While the full story likely won’t ever be revealed, it is clear from multiple (and in some cases, conflicting) media reports that the process by which this decision was made was extremely problematic, including the callous way in which Dr. Scott was “released.” It is difficult not to see the roots of this decision in the heavy-handed approach to AU overhauling board membership and issuing institutional directives adopted by the Minister of Advanced Education Demetrios Nicolaides since last March.  

AUFA is aligned with the Confederation of Alberta Faculty Associations (CAFA) and the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) in calling for all presidential searches at post-secondary institutions to be as open and transparent as possible. Instead of being surprised by the announcement of a new leader selected through a completely closed and secretive process, faculty, staff, students, and the broader community should have meaningful exposure to potential candidates and an opportunity to provide input to the selection process.  

While we remain critical of the process that got us to this point, AUFA calls on Dr. Clark to provide very different leadership than what we’ve experienced over the last several years – one that is more responsive and prioritizes stability and employee well-being over unproductive disruption.  

“Disharmony”  

The Board Chair referenced “staff strife and disharmony” as a key factor motivating this decision. We might characterize the situation slightly differently, but it does point to the worsening of both morale and working conditions over the past several years. AUFA members have weathered blatant union-busting, aggressive bargaining, continuous and cumulative breaches of our rights under the collective agreement, and a generally callous disregard for our well-being. AUFA staff and volunteers can scarcely keep up with the onslaught of contract violations, disciplines, and other issues facing our colleagues.  

While AUFA as a union is occasionally vilified by university leaders or painted as the source of problems, the reality is that we simply would not have to fight so much if university leadership, particularly decision makers within Human Resources, demonstrated even the slightest bit more care and regard for employee well-being. Well-intentioned, good faith efforts to raise concerns about employee wellness are routinely ignored or rejected.  

AUFA is committed to doing its part to meet in good faith and attempt to resolve current, long-standing, and emergent issues directly with the employer and to reduce the number of cases that are escalated to arbitration at the labour board. We call on the university administration to come to the table with the same good faith.  

Words and Actions  

One of the most common complaints we have heard from AUFA members over several years of regular surveys and other engagement efforts is the disconnect between the rhetoric of university leadership and their concrete actions. This has been experienced most acutely in the university’s so-called commitment to Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI).  

Despite proclamations about intentions to champion EDI, including signing the Scarborough Charter, previous initiatives left much to be desired. We still are waiting for a university-wide plan and policy, supported by appropriate personnel and overseen by a body independent from HR, for fostering an equitable, diverse, and inclusive work environment and articulating institutional accountabilities. While we wait, faculty, staff, and students who are experiencing systematic forms of gender, sex, racial, anti-Indigenous, and anti-Black harassment are left with little recourse.  

AU’s actions and rhetoric on EDI need to come into closer alignment – urgently, not pushed to some distant future. AUFA calls on the university administration to prioritize the establishment of an independent Equity Office that has both an appropriate mandate and sufficient resources to be effective.  

Mismanagement 

Over at least the past year AUFA members and our colleagues have been grappling with increasingly unsustainable workloads and worsening working conditions, making it more and more difficult to maintain the services and quality of courses that students deserve and expect.  

There are many contributing factors, but topping the list are the many ways in which IT functions have been extremely poorly managed by top leaders while also being increasingly severed from academic oversight and governance. From the poorly handled reorganization of the IT department to the incessant pushing forward with ill-fitting and costly technological changes, staff within IT have been working within an increasingly corrosive working environment, and negative impacts are being felt across nearly all university departments.  

We want a chance to be excited about change, to exercise our professional judgment, and to actually use the skills for which we were hired in the service of the university’s open mission. We want to break out of unproductive siloes and to understand how our individual work contributes to achievable, shared goals. AUFA calls on the university administration to pause the implementation of the Integrated Learning Environment and prioritize staff agency and input in an honest and transparent reassessment of technological change initiatives.  

Time to Start Listening 

Of course, there are forces at play that are larger than AU alone. The post-secondary sector across the province and beyond is strained by many of the same issues, and the current provincial government has contributed to many crises and challenges across institutions. But AU is not simply a victim of circumstances. There are many things that are fully within the university’s power to change.  

The top-down, managerial, corporate-style leadership adopted over the past several years is not working, nor is the increased reliance on external vendors. Our strength as a university comes from within – the dedication and commitment of those who do the real work in the service of students is the reason AU has survived despite abysmal failures of leadership.  

As a faculty association, we have frequently engaged our membership in order to gather meaningful feedback and input on both internal union decisions and broader university questions. Our understanding of the current situation is grounded in countless hours of respectful listening, reading, writing, and discussions with colleagues. Yet we have been consistently ignored, sidelined, or belittled by successive university leaders. We expect that our colleagues in our sibling unions have had a similar experience.  

We believe that, for the university to achieve stability and grow in its mandate as an open public institution, senior administrators and the board of governors need to hear, respect, and meaningfully respond to the concerns and suggestions raised by faculty, staff, and students. Better yet, AU needs to move beyond listening and empower faculty and staff to actively and meaningfully participate in decision making processes, including those at the highest level.  

AUFA calls on the Board of Governors and the university administration to refocus on core, mission-driven work; to prioritize stability and faculty and staff well-being; to empower employees to exercise meaningful agency; and to strengthen collegial governance by increasing transparency and participation.  

Rhiannon Rutherford, AUFA President 

Your Turn 

The AUFA executive will be identifying more specific priorities to present to the new university leadership. Use this space to share your priorities or any other thoughts about the recent announcement and how AUFA should respond.  

Open letter: Grounding AU in Athabasca

After receiving many excellent and thoughtful contributions to our last blog post and through a townhall meeting last week, we have developed an open letter that presents an alternative path forward for the current stalemate. This open letter was sent to both the Minister of Advanced Education and the Board of Governors of Athabasca University on August 24.

Along with a set of constructive ideas that could actually help to resolve this long-standing issue, we have emphasized the need to take forced relocations off the table, the need to back up rhetoric with real action, and the need to involve faculty and staff more meaningfully in decision making.

Access the full letter through the link below:

https://aufacultyassociation.squarespace.com/s/Open_letter_Athabasca.pdf

Thanks!!

Rhiannon

University should consult on response to Ministry on jobs in Athabasca

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

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

Recent developments 

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

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

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

Near-virtual woes 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AUFA’s position 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rhiannon Rutherford, AUFA President 

Myra Tait, AUFA Vice President 

Your turn

AUFA and jobs in Athabasca

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

The campaign

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

The jobs mandate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• There is no interest in forced relocation of AUFA members

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

• This approach will likely take time

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

AU’s Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Autonomy

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

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

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

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

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

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

AUFA’s Position

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

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

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

Why AUFA holds this position

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happens next?

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

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

Dave Powell

President

Athabasca University Faculty Association

Bargaining Update

The AUFA bargaining team met with AU on December 8 for a round of negotiations. Bargaining had also been scheduled for November 30, but was cancelled at the last minute due to a family emergency for one of the AU team members.

Once again, AU refused to provide their monetary proposals. Instead, the parties discussed two employer counter-proposals and one new employer proposal, which took half a day. When AUFA suggested using the afternoon to discuss the employer’s monetary proposals, the employer refused. The employer offered no explanation for withholding its monetary proposal. The day ended early as a result.

The parties did sign off on one proposal. The employer presented a proposal on Article 16 (Other Leaves) to remove gender-based language regarding eligibility for maternity and parental leave. AUFA agrees this is a positive step and agreed to the new language. The parties had earlier agreed in principle to make the entire collective agreement gender neutral and to address that issue later in the process. Due to that prior agreement, this proposal was unnecessary and duplicative. AUFA’s bargaining team suspects this proposal was just a stalling tactic to further delay the employer providing its monetary offer.

AU presented a counteroffer to AUFA’s proposal on Article 25 (Occupational Health and Safety). Essentially, AU is offering to abide by the OHS Act (which it already must do by law). AU’s counter proposal falls far short of what AUFA is looking for. AUFA is seeking to ensure our members’ safety rights are codified in the collective agreement so they cannot be eroded by changes in legislation. (The UCP recently made changes to OHS legislation that has reduced members’ safety rights.)

AU also amended its original proposal on Article 4, which deals with appointment, probation, performance of duties, and promotion for professionals. The new proposal makes a few tweaks to their first offer, but leaves intact its core trade-off of reducing the probationary period to one year in exchange for a series of concessions, including removing the probation review process and the right to appeal position classification decisions through the collective agreement and giving the employer the right to dismiss anyone on probation at any time for any reason. A shorter probationary period benefits AUFA members but AU’s changes would make the probationary process unfair.

AUFA had offered 11 dates that it was available to bargain in January, but AU only agreed to January 21 and 31. In addition to growing frustration at the lack of AU’s full opening offer (after 8 months of bargaining), AUFA is concerned that the employer’s unwillingness to provide bargaining dates is a further effort by AU to avoid concluding bargaining in a timely manner.

If bargaining reaches impasse, the next step will be formal mediation. If mediation is unsuccessful, then AUFA will need to hold a strike vote by the membership. The exact timing of any strike vote is contingent upon too many factors to provide a firmer date than the spring, but the Job Action Committee has been instructed to be ready to strike as early as March 15.

Jason Foster

Chair, AUFA Bargaining Committee

Solidarity picket and shifting offers at U of A

On Friday, 20 AUFA members joined about 200 academic and non-academic staff at a lunch-hour picket at the University of Alberta. The academic and non-academic staff associations have been frustrated by threats of rollbacks and a lack of progress at the table. Thanks to these AUFA members, who spent their lunch hour showing solidarity. Faculty members from MacEwan and NAIT were also in attendance.

The U of A denied staff permission to picket on campus, so an initial rally was held on the sidewalk on 87th Avenue. U of A workers then proceeded to lead a march though campus, chanting “Whose campus? Our campus!” before rallying in the quad.

On the same day, the U of A’s admin posted a surprise new offer to its faculty association. The nub of the U of A’s proposed settlement is:

• A four-year salary freeze, ending in June of 2024.

• Further negotiations to slow the growth of faculty salaries over their career. Absent success (i.e., revenue neutral solution) by February, the whole offer becomes void.

• Hard salary caps for lecturers (i.e., teaching-only faculty).

• All other demands for rollbacks would be withdrawn.

This shift away from the U of A’s early threats of massive rollbacks tell us a couple of things:

• Mandates have likely changed: The government has altered its secret mandate to the U of A’s administration (requiring salary rollbacks). Rumours suggest this mandate change is sector-wide, although we cannot yet confirm this. These same rumours suggest the new mandate is a series of wage freezes to spring of 2023 (cynically right before the next election), when there would be a small cost-of-living bump. This increase likely tracks the 1.25% increase AUPE accepted for government workers.

• Mandates change with pressure: What this tells us is that government interference in the collective bargaining process is not set in stone. Widespread UCP unpopularity and growing labour unrest likely means the UCP is hoping to avoid public-sector strikes by offering workers tiny increases. Additional pressure on public sector employers and the government may well result in further mandate changes.

• Progress is modest: The U of A’s new offer (four zeros) is better than its most recent offer (-3% and then three zeros). But, in the context of inflation of 4% or more per year, this still entails a large loss of purchasing power.

• Bad offers are a framing strategy: Proposing a series of harsh rollbacks only to walk away from most of them is a clear employer strategy. Its purpose is to frame a lousy offer as some kind of victory of workers (because we avoided an even worse offer), even though the actual offer is still lousy. The countermove to this employer strategy is maintaining a credible strike threat, forcing employers to move off their slightly-less-lousy offer to one that actually benefits workers.

The Association of Academic Staff: University of Alberta (AASUA) has filed an unfair labour practices complaint against the U of A regarding this offer. The crux of the complaint is that the U of A allegedly launched an end-run around the faculty association and is attempting to negotiate directly with the membership. The facts, according to the faculty association are:

• The last bargaining date was November 10, with no dates expected until the new year.

• The employer phoned the AAUSA bargaining chair late in the day on November 25 (as the chair was getting on a plane) and verbally explained a new offer would be coming by email. The union arranged a meeting of its bargaining team for today (November 29) to review the offer.

• Without notice to the union or any further discussion with the AASUA bargaining chair, the employer then posted the offer publicly on November 26, claiming that the offered had been ”tabled”.

This behaviour, according to the union, is not bargaining in good faith. The offer was never presented at the bargaining table and the union was not given sufficient opportunity to review and understand the offer and communicate it to its members. In effect, the employer is interfering with the union’s ability to represent its members. The sequence of events suggests that this was an intentional effort to undermine the union.

While the AASUA does not speculate about what the U of A hopes to achieve through this behaviour, one possibility is that the U of A is laying the groundwork for a proposal vote. Alberta’s Labour Relations Code allows each side one opportunity per round of bargaining to present an offer directly to the other side for a vote. If accepted, the offer becomes the new contract.

The subtext of the U of A’s November 26 communication is “this deal will let you avoid a strike.” What gets lost in that message is that the deal requires the faculty to take (another) wage freeze, slow salary growth, and throw teaching-only faculty under the bus. Making members aware of these important trade-offs and the corrosive effect of the employer’s wedge tactics is one of the roles of the union and, in part, why unions get so shirty when employers communicate directly with members.

Meanwhile, back on the ranch, AUFA’s bargaining team returns to the table on November 30th. AUFA continues to wait for AU to table the 14 articles that it withheld from its opening offer, including its monetary position. Progress is unlikely until AUFA can see and evaluate AU’s full offer. AUFA also continues to wait for the Alberta Labour Relations Board to hear the unfair labour practice complaint AUFA filed in September about AU’s unwilling to present a full offer.

Bob Barnetson, Chair

Job Action Committee

Letter to Premier Kenney Regarding Dr. Melanee Thomas

“Alberta Legislature 2” by is licensed by daryl_mitchell under CC BY 2.0

This past Monday, Premier Jason Kenney made disparaging remarks about University of Calgary professor Dr. Melanee Thomas on the floor of the legislature, questioning her objectivity in her academic work. AUFA views this attack on the independence of Albertan academics and the right of academic freedom. Below is a letter from AUFA President Dr. Jolene Armstrong to Premier Kenney on this issue.