Petition: Require COVID-19 preventative measures at FHSS Symposium

The Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences (FHSS) is hosting a symposium September 22-23, 2022. The Dean’s Office has promoted this event as an opportunity for FHSS to reconnect after a long hiatus, in order to build community and a sense of belonging. However, the lack of directives to make the event safer and more accessible to those who want to participate is at odds with this goal. 

Human Resources has provided no preventative measures related to COVID-19 to be implemented, other than asking those with symptoms to stay home. Preventative measures can include providing and requiring N95 masks, providing HEPA filtration in conference rooms, opening windows, and providing rapid tests to attendees. Requiring all attendees to wear masks and having rapid tests available is a small price to pay to facilitate broader participation.  

Although several members have repeatedly asked about additional preventative measures, the Office of the Dean of FHSS and HR have only agreed to meet the lowest bar possible, as required by Alberta Health Facilities and federal health authorities. Other academic conferences have shown leadership in this area and have taken measures to both ensure better accessibility and protect attendees. For example, last month the American Sociological Association required vaccination, masking, and provided rapid tests for attendees at their conference. Instead of providing these sensible and minimally intrusive requirements, the Office of the Dean has stated that those who “have concerns about large gatherings” should attend virtually.  

Despite the lack of public health measures at the provincial and federal level, COVID-19 continues to be a public health issue. In many places, COVID-related deaths this year have exceeded those from last year (for example, Ottawa). COVID continues to exact a high toll, causing hospitalizations, missed work, and deaths that disproportionately affect BIPOC, disabled, older, and low-income people who are more exposed and less protected. In Alberta, COVID deaths continue to rise, and health experts are predicting a fall surge in COVID cases. 

For reasons of equity and workplace safety, AUFA and the undersigned are now asking FHSS to voluntarily adopt preventative measures to both encourage wider accessibility, and to prioritize the health and wellbeing of our colleagues and their families who are immunocompromised, disabled, or caring for those who are not able to be vaccinated or who are at increased risk. These measures will allow greater participation for members, foster community, and protect everyone who will be attending or working at the event. To fail to provide these measures is to facilitate further exclusions.  

While this conference is for FHSS members, the symposium guidelines can set a precedent across faculties. We invite you to sign this AUFA petition to require preventative measures for the Symposium. 

Resources: 

A blog post by a well-known writer, educator and trainer for transformative justice and disability justice Mia Mingus about the difficulty for disabled people to navigate pandemic while preventative measures are made options (CW: death): https://leavingevidence.wordpress.com/2022/01/16/you-are-not-entitled-to-our-deaths-covid-abled-supremacy-interdependence/ 

A Twitter thread by Stephanie Tait (@StephTaitWrites), a disability inclusion specialist, about the downloading of risk onto high risk people: https://twitter.com/StephTaitWrites/status/1567593587109666816?s=20&t=diBYBIgz9kq15DAQmd_miQ 

An NPR article about the experiences of disabled people: https://www.npr.org/2022/07/14/1109874420/covid-safety-disabled-people-immunocompromised 

Spring survey results: Continued distrust in AU executive and strong strike threat

In June, volunteers with AUFA’s Membership Engagement Committee (MEC) completed the sixth membership engagement survey. This survey included the usual climate questions as well as explored issues related to the recently concluded round of bargaining, the jobs in Athabasca issue (which has since become a significant issue), and AU’s implementation of Netskope surveillance software on members’ computers. 

This iteration of the survey was delayed from the targeted April/May timing, which likely impacted response rates. Eighty-two randomly selected members (just under 20% of the membership) completed the call-based survey, with representation across departments and employee types. 

Climate Questions 

Survey callers asked four recurring questions on the general climate at AU. Overall, members report continued distrust in the AU executive, while AUFA’s work is broadly supported. There is an interesting discrepancy between the 39% of members who reported high morale compared to 77% who reported enjoying starting work in the morning. This likely reflects members’ appreciation for the work they do while also reflecting their frustration with their working conditions. 

Looking further at the question of trust in AU’s executive team, there was a slight increase since the last survey (in fall 2021), from 15% to 20% expressing trust, which is still far below the highest rate of 30% who agreed with this question in the very first survey (in fall 2019). There were no clear trends in terms of which member groups are more or less likely to agree or disagree. For example, when analyzing responses based on length of service, new hires reported around the same level of distrust in executive and trust in AUFA as longer-serving staff. 

In the comments provided by members regarding AU’s executive, most expressed strongly negative feelings, with the following emerging as themes: 

• feelings of being mistreated, belittled, or disrespected by the employer  

• dissatisfaction with the communication and information provided to faculty and staff 

• perceptions of mismanagement, ineptitude, or hidden agendas 

• perceptions of a lack of understanding of the university’s culture and values 

• desire for following through with a vote of non-confidence in the current executive 

In terms of factors contributing to these feelings, the employer’s opening position in bargaining featured prominently. Members also spoke about how the various reorganizations at AU—including the IT reorganization and the near-virtual transition—have been and continue to be handled poorly, which is negatively affecting morale.  

Contract Negotiations 

Having narrowly avoided a strike this spring, MEC queried members’ willingness to have withdrawn their labour. The vast majority of members (88%) indicated were likely to have withdrawn their labour during a strike or lockout, with just 6% saying they were unlikely. This reponse suggests AUFA’s strike threat was a credible one. A credible strike threat enhances the bargaining power of the union. 

Members had mixed views about the final contract that was ratified. The largest chunk of repondents (44%) indicated they were “somewhat satisfied”; neutral and “somewhat dissatisfied” responses each received 22%. Very few members indicated they were either very satisfied (5%) or very dissatisfied (about 7%). This distribution of responses suggests that members are feeling rather ambivalent about the settlement.  

Survey respondents provided a wide variety of comments on the contract language, but the issue most members identified as concerning was (unsurprisingly) the loss of Research and Study Leave for professional members. Comments were broadly aligned with the discussion among members during bargaining, which includes broad, but certainly not unanimous, support for this benefit.  

In addition to the RSL issue, cost of living, inflation, and wages were frequently mentioned. Members broadly felt the cost-of-living adjustment was inadequate. Cost of home office was identified as needing to be addressed. 

Jobs in Athabasca 

As previously reported, a majority of respondents (73%) supported AUFA’s current position that, while no current AUFA member should be forced to re-locate, AU should make an effort to hire a portion of new staff to the Athabasca area. MEC also asked if AUFA should take a position on this issue at all, and a majority (67%) agreed that it should. 

Understanding that, as a union, we are often dealing with multiple priorities, MEC also asked about the relative importance of this issue. There was more disagreement on this question, with only 51% of respondents suggesting it was important that AUFA take a position. That is, there seems to be a portion of members (about 15–25%) who think AUFA should take a position and who agree with AUFA’s current position, but who don’t see this issue as a top concern. There were some identifiable differences when analyzing this question in more detail, so it’s worth taking a look at where some of this discrepancy comes from.  

There were some notable differences here when comparing new employees with those who have been at AU for longer. This issue is important to just 31% of employees who have been at AU fewer than 10 years, while 81% of those who have been at AU more than 20 years said this issue was important to them. 

It is also worth noting that support for AUFA’s position on this issue varies widely between faculties and departments, with the strongest support in FB, FHSS, and the IT department, and weakest support in FHD, FST, and other departments. 

Member comments were diverse. Some members noted that requiring candidates live in Athabasca may narrow the applicant pool unacceptably. Other suggested that candidates could be enticed to live in Athabasca through meaningful incentives.  

Some members felt AU’s primary role is to educate students, not contribute to the economy of Athabasca. Other members note that AU’s location was chosen for economic development purposes and there is no necessary conflict between providing online education while having a portion of jobs located in the Athabasca area. 

Other members were concerned that successive Boards and executives had mishandled this issue (primarily by ignoring it) and that the government was intervening due to political pressure. Some members suggested that the university executive should be expected to model a commitment to Athabasca by living in the Athabasca area, at least part of the time. Others suggested rethinking this issue in order to take advantage of the possibilities a rural campus offers.  

While a lot has happened since this survey was conducted in June, the AUFA executive’s open letter points to several ways in which this issue might be resolved in a constructive and mutually beneficial way.  

Netskope and Privacy 

Members were strongly in favour of AUFA taking steps to protect their privacy after AU installed surveillance software called Netskope on member computers without forewarning or data governance. 

Members’ comments provide many insights about their concerns with this program being used on their work computers, with some common themes: 

• It constitutes a breach of privacy. Members feel concerned about this being a breach to their right to privacy, confidentiality, and security in the workplace. 

• It creates a culture of mistrust between workers and the employer, as they feel not trusted and feel spied and surveilled by the employer. 

• Lack of transparency. Members manifested being concerned about not being properly informed on the reasons why this program is being used, about the data that is being collected, and about the implications that this may have for their privacy in the workplace. 

• It jeopardizes research participants’ right to security, anonymity, and confidentiality. Members who manage and storage research data collected among vulnerable populations (including Indigenous, racialized, and those with precarious legal status) think that the tracking of this information jeopardizes the security of research participants and their right to confidentiality and privacy, making researchers to incur in violations of research protocols. 

• Lack of informed consent. Members feel concerned about the fact that the decision to install a program to collects information was made on a top-down manner, without previous consultation, proper notice, or consent. 

• Insecurity in the workplace. Members fear that the information that is being collected can be used to punish those engaged in disputes with the employer. 

• Threat to safety. Members feel unsafe in the workplace, as they have no clear understanding of what type of information is being tracked and collected, and as they have no clear understanding if this information includes family/personal information. 

• It affects productivity and morale, as the feelings of being spied “all the time” discourages engagement with the job. It also discourages the search of information that can be seen as “suspicious” from the point of view of the employer. 

• There are no clear policies and rules governing the use of this software in the workplace. 

The AUFA executive is following up with the employer about the use of this software and the timelines for a privacy impact assessment, but have so far received no new information.  

The survey also asked members about their use of the AUFA website. This feedback has been shared with the communications committee and will help inform future work to improve the website for members.  

MEC extends its thanks to its volunteer callers as well as the members who took the time to answer the survey. The next MEC survey is planned for this fall. If you would like to be volunteer to help with survey calls, please email engagement@aufa.ca. 

Rhiannon Rutherford 

AUFA President

AU’s COVID protocols may not comply with OHS Act

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.

Background

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’s COVID Control Strategy

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. 

Analysis

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.

Next steps

AUFA’s OHS representatives are seeking member input about how to proceed with this issue. Essentially there are two options:

1. 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.

2. 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

Your Turn

Air-quality testing, cold weather travel, and OHS committee changes

Air-Quality Testing, Cold Weather Travel, and OHS committee changes

The Athabasca-location joint workplace health and safety committee (JWHSC) met on January 16 in Athabasca. The committee discussed air-quality testing, cold weather travel, and upcoming changes to AU’s OHS committee structure.

Air-Quality Testing

Inspections of the main building in Athabasca identified staff concerns about air quality. Staff reported sore throats, stuffy noses, and feeling fatigued by the end of the day. The carpets in at least two places are old and obviously dirty.

The JWHSC recommended to the employer that AU conduct air-quality tests (including testing for mold). The last air-quality tests were in 2014.

Cold Weather Travel

Concerns about travelling to and for work during last week’s frigid temperatures were discussed. Workers and supervisors are expected to assess the risks of such travel and take steps to mitigate risks (e.g., delaying travel, working from home).

The committee also discussed how the low level of trust at AU might make some staff reluctant to raise concerns like this with their supervisors. The committee suggested that an email from HR clarifying the process for addressing weather-related travel hazards would be worthwhile. This might include directions for supervisors who receive staff requests to work remotely to avoid unsafe travel.

While the committee expects that most workers and supervisors can sort out ways to address travel-related hazards, the committee also discussed that workers can refuse work that is unsafe or work that endangers their coworkers.

OHS Committee Changes

Presently, AU has four site-specific JWHSCs (Athabasca, Trail, Peace Hills and Calgary).  The government has changed the OHS Act to no longer require site-specific committees. Consequently, AU is considering combining the four committees into a single committee.

The JWHSC discussed the membership of the proposed new committee. AU indicated that it was considering a committee with six employer members and six union members. Presently, there are about 12 union members spread across the four committees.

The JWHSC recommended to the employer that AU retain 12 worker members. This number is required to meet the quarterly worksite inspection requirements. Expecting six union reps to do the work currently done by 12 was viewed as unrealistic.

Rhiannon Rutherford and Bob Barnetson

AUFA Representatives, Athabasca location Joint Workplace Safety Committee