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

Open letter to Dr. Peter Scott and AU’s Executive Team

Dear Dr. Peter Scott and members of AU’s Executive Team,

As you are likely aware, collective bargaining between AU and AUFA has not been going well.

We fully respect that you are maintaining distance from the process to allow AU’s bargaining team to represent the employer’s interests at the table. However, the current context does suggest that some direction from the Executive Team may be necessary to bring this extended conflict to a mutually satisfactory conclusion.

Specifically, there are significant contextual factors that are important to highlight.

AUFA members want a fair deal

AUFA members recently rejected a mediator’s proposed settlement by 77%, with 91% of members voting. This sends a strong and clear message that the concessions AU has been seeking in this round of bargaining are simply not acceptable.

No one is looking forward to a strike or lockout that could entail significant disruptions for learners. But AUFA members have also demonstrated that they are not willing to accept significant concessions that would erode working conditions, collegiality, and student experiences over time. Despite previous framing of AUFA as the aggressive party in this dispute, AUFA members are fully aware that our true position is that of defending valued protections and benefits from an unnecessarily aggressive employer.

Not all our members agree on every issue—that is the nature of a democratic organization—but our ongoing engagement efforts have revealed some clear themes that provide important context for determining what a fair deal might look like in this context.

We want to be excited about the future of AU

Our members have told us they believe deeply in the mission of this university. The strongest consensus that has emerged from our consultations is that we care about students and about learning. We want to be excited about our work. We want to be innovative, creative, and rigorous. But we feel blocked by a combination of factors and forces.

The most common concern is that our members feel overwhelmed by work and stripped of agency. Professional members affected by reorganization and major change initiatives feel they are denied the chance to do their best work. Academic members worry about the erosion of collegial governance while pressure increases a sense of precarity, especially for those newer to AU. Our members tell us key decisions are made in ways that shut out our expertise, experience, and enthusiasm.

We don’t oppose change and transformation, but it matters how that change happens. We don’t want to feel bullied, belittled, or ignored. We want you to listen to our feedback—really listen—and meaningfully include us in decision-making processes.

AUFA members are realizing that the process of collective bargaining offers a rare chance to assert our own agency. We don’t have to passively accept negative changes to our working conditions. Instead, we can demand the respect we deserve. We have heard from many members who suggest that they don’t want to strike but they will if necessary.

It’s about more than the language on the table

We all know this round of bargaining doesn’t exist in isolation. Our collective agreement has a long history and context and is intertwined with other aspects of our work environment.

There are a wide range of management decisions that influence how we feel about what’s going on at the bargaining table. There are many examples of this, so we’ll only name a few.

• The IT Optimization project was a really negative experience for most of our affected members, many of whom continue to feel devalued and stripped of agency.

• Top-down decisions affecting members in the Faculty of Health Disciplines, in particular, have combined with the pressures of educating front-line workers throughout the pandemic to create significant stress and erode morale.

• Many members have experienced the Near-Virtual initiative as stressful and contradictory.

• Many members have expressed concern about the lack of consultation and transparency during the implementation of the Integrated Learning Environment.

• We routinely field calls from members looking for clarification and support with navigating AU’s own processes, including significant concerns about a lack of support from HR with basic employment needs and an unnecessarily adversarial approach to labour relations.

• Members continue to feel anxious about AU’s threat to de-designate them from the union.

These experiences illustrate why we see a clear signal in our surveys that our members have extremely low levels of trust in AU’s leadership. Trust was already low when we started the surveys during Dr. Neil Fassina’s tenure, and it has only dropped since. In November 2021, only 15% of members surveyed said they agreed with the statement, “I trust the executive team of the university,” while 58% said they did not. AUFA members are not alone in this. Many AUPE and CUPE members have shared similar frustrations.

This low level of trust affects how we interpret communications from AU. Many members describe feeling insulted or outraged when reading AU’s communications, even on topics unrelated to bargaining, and have described it as incomplete, misleading, or disingenuous.

To be clear, this is not a reflection of the way our members who facilitate AU communications do their work. Rather, this reflects frustration and even exasperation with the lack of meaningful, transparent, and timely communication shared by AU’s top leaders.

It’s important for you to understand that our members have learned over the years to be suspicious or skeptical of the information and spin offered by AU’s leadership. What this means is that platitudes and vague promises won’t win our trust back. We need concrete and tangible actions.

You have the power to change course

The AUFA executive and volunteers will keep listening to AUFA members. In the past few weeks, we have heard that many members feel distracted and demoralized, and that most would very much appreciate an end to this lengthy battle. But our members are also focused on safeguarding and advancing valued protections and benefits.

It is clear that the university is the body with the power to change course. You have the opportunity to set a new tone that foregrounds respect for the workers of this university. You have the chance to open a new chapter of improved labour relations and increased collegiality. Give us all—our members, our colleagues, and our students—the chance to look to the future of AU with renewed optimism and energy.

We ask that you send a strong signal that you are ready to acknowledge, respect, and value the work we do. It’s time for you to demonstrate that you’re prepared to empower us to do our best work in service of our shared mission to remove barriers and increase equality of educational opportunity for adult learners worldwide.

Respectfully,

AUFA Executive and Members

This letter, with 130 AUFA members' signatures included, was delivered to Dr. Scott and the AU Executive on April 5, 2022. We are hopeful this will help to encourage the employer to take a different approach to bargaining than we've seen over the past several months.

Bargaining Update: Mediator Issues Report

After three days of mediation (March 11, 17 and 22), the mediator has issued a report to the parties with recommendations for a possible settlement. The AUFA bargaining committee has decided to forward the report directly to AUFA members for their consideration. A vote on whether to accept the report will be held on Tuesday, March 29 in lieu of the planned strike vote. There is a Town Hall on Friday, March 25 at 2 pm to discuss the report and next steps. 

Significantly, AUFA’s bargaining team is not making a recommendation to members on whether to accept or reject the report. Instead the bargaining team has elected to remain neutral during the voting process. The decision to hold a vote on the report is anchored in AUFA’s broader commitment to democracy, and to AUFA members’ right to make the decisions that will shape what is, ultimately, their collective agreement. 

This blog post outlines the key recommendations in the mediator’s report. The Town Hall will provide further analysis of the recommendations. Members can find a copy of the mediator’s report here.

Wages and Allowances 

The mediator is recommending the same cost-of-living (COLA) settlement seen at other universities: 

• July 1, 2020: 0% 

• July 1, 2021: 0% 

• July 1, 2022: 0%  

• April 1, 2023: 1.25% 

• December 1, 2023: 1.5% 

• An additional 0.5% retroactive to December 1, 2023, payable in February or March 2024 subject to a “Gain Sharing Formula” linked to provincial GDP growth 

AUFA members will also receive enhancements to their working-from-home allowances: 

• Members who have not received $2000 for home-office set-up will be paid the difference between what they were paid and $2000 (e.g., members who received $1000 will receive an additional $1000). This payment is taxable. 

• Academic staff members who previously received $2000 for office set up and have been employed for at least six years shall receive a one-time taxable $800 payment for home office expenses. 

• Going forward all members required to work from home will receive $35 biweekly for printer and internet expenses (up from $61/month for academics and $25/biweekly for professionals).  

Research and Study Leave (RSL) 

Professionals, except librarians, will no longer be eligible for RSL as of the date of ratification. Professional members who are currently on RSL or have RSL approved will have their leaves honoured.  

Going forward, professionals will be allowed to carryover their annual entitlement of 21 days of PD leave to a maximum of 84 days (i.e., the equivalent of 4 years of PD entitlement) and will be able to request leaves up to that maximum. 

Professionals will have two options for dealing with accrued Research and Study Leave entitlements: 

• Option One: Unused RSL leave can be surrendered in exchange for a one-time payment of $10,500. Any unused Professional Development days dating back to 2020 shall be returned to the member’s PD bank. 

• Option Two: Members convert accrued RSL leave to PD leave up to a maximum of 12 months at 100% salary (using the conversion calculation in the current collective agreement). They will be allowed to request leaves up to the amount in their PD leave account. Carryover of PD days will not begin until the member’s account drops below 84 days (i.e., members will continue to earn PD days, but cannot carry them over at the end of the year). 

Employer proposals regarding academic RSL are withdrawn and the status quo remains.  

Other Provisions 

Employer-sought concessions regarding discipline (Article 7), grievance procedure (Article 8), appeals (Article 9), position reduction for academics (Article 12), layoffs for professionals, and probation review for professionals are withdrawn. In all cases, existing language remains. Small changes are made to professional position evaluation review, but members retain the right to appeal decisions under Article 9. 

The mediator recommends establishing a joint committee to review the current academic tenure and promotion process (in Article 3) to make recommendations for the next round of bargaining.  

Some recommendations address AUFA concerns in bargaining, including: 

• Enhancing occupational health and safety language (Article 25). 

• Reforming the Joint Benefits Committee to make it more effective in addressing AUFA members’ benefits concerns. 

• Extending unpaid compassionate care leave to 27 weeks and expanding eligibility to include circumstances of “grave illness”. 

• Inserting language in Article 3 to allow Indigenous Elders and knowledge holders to be recognized as eligible external reviewers for promotion applications from Indigenous academic members. 

• Including a new letter of understanding that involves the joint employment equity committee in an advisory capacity in the development of AU’s equity, diversity, and inclusion action plan and in an employment equity review process. 

• Both parties agreeing to abide by the Labour Relations Board decision regarding the status of Deans in the bargaining unit.  

Vote Results and Next Steps 

The results of the March 29 ratification vote will determine the next steps of the process.  

If members vote to accept the mediator’s report, then it will be considered a ratification of a new collective agreement, bargaining will come to an end, and the provisions in the report take effect as part of the collective agreement.  

If members vote to reject the report, then the parties will return to the bargaining table. The parties are free to bargain directly or continue to use the services of the mediator. Each party will revert to their previous positions before mediation. The mediator’s recommendations may or may not be considered in future bargaining.  

On behalf of the bargaining committee, 

Jason Foster 

Bargaining Update: AUFA Presents Counter-Proposals

AU and AUFA met for a part day of bargaining on March 2, as AU representatives were unable to make themselves available for much of the afternoon. AUFA used the limited time to present its own package of counter-proposals in an effort to move toward a fair deal. This update provides highlights of AUFA’s proposals. An analysis of where things stand as we move into formal mediation next week will come in the following days.

AUFA continues to reject the list of concessions demanded by AU, including reductions to professionals’ rights, cuts to research and study leave, the removal of Deans from the bargaining unit, and negative changes to grievance and appeals processes. Our new package reflects this stand.

AUFA made a counter-offer on the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). AU’s proposal on Monday offered the settlement given to AUPE (2.75% to 3.25% provided late in the contract).

AUFA’s new COLA offer is:

• July 1, 2020: 0%

• July 1, 2021: 0%

• July 1, 2022: An average of 2.5% increase to base salary awarded as flat dollar amount per-member, pro-rated for FTE.

• July 1, 2023: An average of 2.5% increase to base salary awarded as flat dollar amount per-member, pro-rated for FTE.

AUFA’s COLA proposal is designed to increase equity among all AUFA members. If COLA is distributed as a percentage, as it has been for years, then members higher up on the wage scale receive a larger wage increase in real dollar terms than do those lower on the wage scale. For example, a 2.5% COLA for someone earning $75,000 equals $1,875. For someone earning $150,000, that same percentage increase equals $3,750. In contrast, AUFA’s proposal ensures that each AUFA member receives a COLA of approximately $2,600 in each of the last two years, based on AUFA members’ current average salary. AUFA’s proposal is meant to correct the inequities inherent in AU’s tendency in recent years to lowball new hires on starting salary.

AUFA’s latest proposals maintain our existing requests expanding appeals rights to disputes over workload and performance, securing fair work-from-home allowances and improvements to equity language, creating four floating vacation days, and ensuring protections against the de-designation of AUFA members. We also renewed our call for a joint pay equity review process.

Finally, AUFA amended its proposals for stronger occupational health and safety language and new contracting out language. Both remain on the table for discussion.

AUFA’s package did not include a counter-offer to the employer’s proposal on tenure and promotion processes (Article 3). AUFA is still deliberating on its response to that item.

AU has not yet responded to the package. The parties enter formal mediation on March 8.

On behalf of the bargaining committee,

Jason Foster

Chair

Staff report ergo problems and frustrations

In early March, AUFA asked for feedback from AU staff about ergonomic issues. This request followed an increase in queries and complaints about ergonomic and accommodations over the past several months. Approximate 120 staff members provided feedback (the survey was open to AUPE and CUPE members as well) and this blog post summarizes the feedback. 

Satisfaction with current office set-up 

We asked respondents to rate their current home office set up using a 5-star rating system. The following chart suggests that most respondents consider their current set up as more or less adequate.  

Nevertheless, the comments indicated that many staff members do not have ideal working conditions and are simply making do given the circumstances. Many respondents indicated their desks, chairs, and computer equipment is inadequate for their needs. Some indicated that their living space is inadequate for a home office set-up. 

Concerningly, many respondents indicated they are experiencing discomfort because (1) they do not have adequate office set-ups and (2) their computer work has become more intensive. This has caused or is leading to workplace injuries. Here is a sample of the comments received: 

Back pain, arm pain, eye strain - need to have better equipment but I don't know if I'll need to move back after the pandemic so I'm reluctant to spend a lot of money getting better equipment (e.g. new ergonomic desk & chair) when I won't be able to bring those to a new place if required to move 

Working on a lap top means that either my hands are too high or my neck is straining down. I'm suffering from several resulting problems. I've requested an ergonomic assessment from AU, but haven't heard back. 

I have neck pain from work days in front of screen. There have been many longer days and more on-screen meetings in the pandemic, and I am also being asked to do a lot of service work [personal details redacted]. 

No sit and stand desk (like I had at the University), home computer chair not suited for long hours. I have been experiencing terrible lower back pain the past 3 weeks. I need to investigate proper ergonomic seating, but don't know where to begin and what sort of financial support is available. A medical note is required to acquire any ergonomic equipment (eg. sit/stand desk) 

Satisfaction with ergonomic support by AU 

We also asked for input regarding staff members’ experiences with the current support provided by AU. Here, 50% of respondents provided a one- or two-star rating, suggesting that many have not had satisfactory experiences.  

The comments reveal some common concerns about employees’ experiences seeking support from the university:  

• Unresponsive: Some respondents flagged that HR does not promptly or effectively respond to ergo requests.  

• Intrusive and slow: Some respondents indicated that the process is overly bureaucratic, cumbersome, very slow, and potentially intrusive.   

• Inconsistent or lacking information: There appears to be confusion about the requirement for medical notes to seek ergonomic support or accommodations, or perhaps inconsistencies in the application of this requirement. Some respondents indicated they are not aware of current information or processes.  

• Unqualified and uncomfortable: Some respondents questioned the qualifications of AU’s ergo assessor. Others expressed distrust in the assessor or HR more generally.  

• Inadequate funding: The $1000 payment to new home office workers is widely viewed as inadequate to acquire proper equipment for workers newly moved home. Long-term teleworkers (who may have received $2000 upon hire) have not received any funding to replace worn out equipment or address new needs (e.g., due to aging or greater intensity of use). 

While some comments and ratings do indicate satisfaction with AU’s current processes, negative ratings and concerned comments were far more numerous. This may point to inconsistencies in application or, more seriously, some systemic inequities. Here is a sampling of the comments that were received: 

I tried to be in touch with ergonomic support several times. They often did not reply to my emails. I am in the process of trying to get a doctor's note so I can get better accommodations. I have mostly been getting responses through AUFA, as ergonomic support has not been answering my emails. 

I haven't engaged with AU on some ergonomic issues I've had since before the pandemic. The requirement for a doctor's note to get a standing desk is kind of silly though. you'd think that for people who sit at their desk all day long it would just be standard. 

Need ergo assessment and new desk; AU gave me $2k 15 years ago to set up an office and nothing since. The stuff I bought has all fallen apart and my needs have changed as I've aged. I am choosing not to engage with AU because everything about HR is untrustworthy and I doubt they'll do anything even if I ask. 

The funding provided by AU allowed me to upgrade my phone and internet package and purchase a wi-fi range booster so that I could do my job from home. But after taxes, it was not nearly enough upgrade my desk (with existing back issues-I had a sit stand - which are very expensive). 

I filed a ergonomic request before or around Dec 2020, nothing happened, no email /response 

I have never received any funding for work space. I have paid out of pocket for all my office set up and when ever I have asked for funding, I have typically gotten run around. So, I stopped. 

My home is not set up to accommodate an actual office, so have been working at a dining table. I haven't reached out for support because I don't think AU is willing to build an addition onto my home to accommodate an office. If I would have known we were to have home offices I would have purchased a home with the extra room to set up an office. The only solution is for me to fix the problem by moving to a larger home, building an addition on to my home, or asking one of my children to move out so I can convert their bedroom to an office. With my current setup (and many other staff, as well), ergonomics is not going to solve a bigger problem. If I ever have an appropriate work/office space for a desk and computer, I will then worry about appropriate ergonomics. 

This issue was raised early in the pandemic by frontline supervisors from what my boss told me, and raised at various meetings but didn't seem to go anywhere with AU until the holidays. $1000 isn't enough and doesn't go far enough (after taxes) and with the availability of some items scarce and prices seemingly going up as everyone is still trying to equip home offices. Why do profs received double this amount when my home office needs are the same, if not greater due to the processing work I do? Now I'm expected to buy a cell phone case and screen protector for my AU phone out of this money as well (when this stuff should have been issued with the phones).... 

A one-time payment of 1K helps, but my variable height desk was close to that, my chair was more than that, and other accommodations also added to the office cost. In my opinion, too much of the ergonomic financial burden falls on the employee. Anyone working at AU over an extended period of time is faced with the decision of upgrading their workspace at their own expense or with settling for a workplace that is progressively less safe. Given that the employer has substantial savings over maintaining offices for staff annually, I think a better office infrastructure stipend should be considered. 

These responses suggest there are significant flaws or gaps in AU’s current processes for providing ergonomic support to employees. Concerns or negative perceptions about the process negatively affects workers’ willingness to engage in it, which could lead to increases in injuries as issues are left unresolved.    

Satisfaction with medical accommodations 

Finally, we asked about experiences seeking medical accommodations. The number of responses on this question was far lower, but a one-star rating was the most common at nearly 39% percent.  

The comments indicate that similar issues are present with seeking medical accommodations as noted above in relation to broader ergonomic supports. Here are a sample of the comments: 

AU's support has been poor. My medical note from my doctor stating my need for a sit-stand desk was dismissed by HR. 

It was several months from first submission of my ergonomic request until my assessments were conducted. First assessment was by an inexperienced assessor, 2nd assessment by an experienced assessor. Once dr. form and medical accommodation was established, next interaction took some time for AU HR Ergonomics lead to contact me (no responses to emails sent to ergonomics email queue). Once AU HR Ergonomics responded, AU Ergonomics lead required recompletion of a new ergonomic form to self-assess me in my home. However, the past ergonomic assessments already indicated what was required - felt like I was going backwards and having to repeat completing forms and describing my requirements/medical accommodation. Lastly, when the meeting was held by AU Ergonomics lead to discuss next steps, it seemed that prior ergonomic assessments and recommendations made were not reviewed - again, felt like I was going backwards to restate what had already been decided by AU's ergonomic assessor some time ago.  

I was medically supposed to have a stand up desk and had it at the office, but now the process has stalled. I would really like it here but I am unsure what is happening. Secondly, it seems unfair when some already have the perfect set up at home and I am supposed to use that money for a desk that will be nearly all of that $1000 and they don't. Maybe it's just me. 

pre-COVID; I requested ergonomic assessment due to concerns on a repetitive strain injury and the delays were ridiculous. I was informed that if I needed a certain chair, I would be waiting months to a year to get that chair. Because injuries of this nature do not resolve on their own, nor will they wait for the proper ergonomic equipment to be available, I simply purchased the appropriate equipment needed to reduce further injury. 

When I needed to obtain ergonomic support and contacted AU about it, I was given a very long form to fill in and I was instructed to provide 80 hours of videos showing me while working in my current set up! The whole process seemed to have been designed to incriminate the professor (e.g. bad posture) rather than providing ergonomic support. Besides, I had more important things to do than learning how to become a movie director and produce that movie as I had to catch up with [personal details redacted]. Finally, the process was presented to me as it was going to take months to a year before the problem is addressed. My neck and lower back could not wait that long. I therefore used my savings and purchased an ergonomic chair myself to deal with the emergency, at least partly as I still do not have a proper desk. 

Recommendations 

AUFA’s executive has provided this information to Human Resources. AUFA has made some general recommendations to HR based upon these results: 

• AU should improve the processes for supporting employees in setting up and maintaining ergonomic work stations in their home offices. These processes should be proactive and supportive, not potentially punitive or stressful.  

• AU should streamline the ways in which employees can purchase or acquire ergonomic equipment for their home offices. The funding framework should be clear and designed to address inequities.  

• AU should ensure that ergonomics and wellness supports are sufficiently resourced and carried out by qualified, responsive professionals.  

AUFA is hopeful that AU will listen to and act upon these concerns about the current processes and supports, and move toward providing exemplary, rather than merely adequate, support for staff in home offices.  

Rhiannon Rutherford and Bob Barnetson 

AUFA OHS Representatives 

Main Campus Joint Health and Safety Committee 

Working from home survey starts this week

As was previously announced, the Membership Engagement Committee (MEC) will be conducting a short telephone survey of 100 members (about 25% of AUFA) starting late this week. This survey seeks to document and understand the challenges faced by AUFA members’ with working from home.

This telephone survey will take about 15 minutes and includes three sets of questions. We will be repeating three of the climate questions we piloted in November. These questions are designed to take the temperature of the membership. We will also be asking two questions about the employer’s proposal to carve 67% of AUFA members out of the bargaining unit.

The majority of the questions will focus on our experiences of working from home and identifying what supports are necessary for AUFA members to be successful working at home. These questions are a mixture of yes/no questions and open-ended responses. Their development was informed by the many helpful responses MEC received to last week’s blog asking for feedback.

The survey will once again be administered by a group of volunteer callers drawn from the AUFA membership. We hope you will feel safe to speak frankly and honestly. We’re taking all the measures we can to protect your privacy and confidentiality.

Responses from the survey are confidential and will only be sent to the Membership Engagement Committee. The data from the surveys will be held by the AUFA Office.

The aggregated numerical responses will shared with the AUFA membership in early May. Summarized comments will be shared to prevent identifying individual AUFA members.

The Membership Engagement Committee wishes to thank the many volunteer callers who will be helping us conduct these surveys. When your name is randomly drawn to participate, we ask that you assist the caller who reaches out to you in finding a mutually agreeable time to conduct the call. As an AUFA member, your voice matters.

If you have any questions about the survey or wish to share some thoughts about bargaining, the employer, or anything else, contact us at engagement@aufa.ca.

Rhiannon Rutherford

Chair, Membership Engagement Committee

Working from home: What are your needs?

Moving almost all AUFA members to home offices during the COVID-19 pandemic has raised a number of issues for both long-term and new home-office workers. AUFA’s executive has tasked the Membership Engagement Committee (MEC) to identify and prioritize these issues.

MEC will be adopting a two-step process: an open-ended question (below) followed by a telephone survey.

At the bottom of this blog post is an open-ended textbox where we would like you to tell us about the challenges or issues that you are facing while working in your home office and what, if anything, AU could do to help you address these issues.

The challenges we've heard about so far include the following:

• Equipment and ergonomics: Some AUFA members do not have functional and ergonomically appropriate home-office equipment. This is leading to discomfort and limiting working time.

• Caregiving demands: The disruption of child- and elder-care arrangements is impeding some AUFA members’ ability to work full-time. President Fassina asserted last week that AU will no longer be able to accommodate caregiving that impedes work and HR is now identifying such staff members.

• Scheduling demands: Some staff members are concerned about a lack of autonomy and flexibility in establishing a work schedule that accommodates additional demands.

• Connectivity: Some AUFA members have limited or unreliable internet access at home.

• Workload: COVID-related changes have resulted in significant and unsustainable workload increases.

• Stress: Stress associated with the disruption of work and home routines as well as ill health and financial hardship has increased.

• Cost: Many AUFA members are bearing additional costs associated with working from home. The set-up and monthly stipends outlined in the Teleworking policy are only available to academic staff who work from home.

• Surveillance: Some staff members are concerned that AU is monitoring them while they work from home. This represents a lack of trust and an intrusion into their privacy.

MEC is interested in hearing the specific experiences of AUFA members with working from home. This will ensure that we fully understand the range of issues. Any information provided will be completely anonymous. Responses will be collected until April 9.

MEC will use the data gathered from the open-ended question to structure a telephone survey of 100 randomly AUFA members (25% of the membership). The survey will start the week of April 22. This survey will attempt to quantify (and thus help prioritize) these issues so that AUFA can recommend solutions.

Thank you for your assistance as we help AUFA members navigate this change in our working conditions.

Rhiannon Rutherford, Chair

AUFA Membership Engagement Committee