workload

Workload Increases in the Faculty of Business

It has been brought to AUFA’s attention that approximately thirty tenure-track faculty and academic coordinators in the Faculty of Business have been asked to use a new formula for calculating their teaching workload that will require these individuals to take four to five times their current teaching load. 

AUFA has sent a letter to Provost Dr. Matthew Prineas and President Alex Clark requesting clarification on this new process for workload planning and the resulting workload increase. We have highlighted these important factors: 

This process violates Article 3.3.4 of the collective agreement, which requires workload to be equitable both within and between centres and equivalent academic units, as well as defining workload as no more than “what is reasonably possible for individuals to accomplish in a working year.” 

  • These workload changes are happening only in the Faculty of Business. 

  • While we don’t have good information about the current distribution of work across AU faculties, the average teaching load is roughly one block, or 32 undergraduate students, along with responsibility for coordinating 3 to 5 courses, in which the registration numbers for individual courses may vary.  

Accompanied by the threat of layoffs for non-compliance to the revised workload demands, Faculty of Business members are unable to negotiate the terms of their workload in accordance with Article 3 in the collective agreement. 

AUFA will support members who are under pressure to agree to unreasonable workloads including interventions on negotiations, grieving conditions of work, etc. 

Please feel free to reach out to AUFA if you have any questions or concerns and/or if your workload is changing significantly. 

Help us to understand teaching workload distribution by completing this form: https://forms.gle/yrcnqRoL2wYnnSjy8 

 

Dear Members of the Reappointment Committee for the Provost:

Our Position

We are writing on behalf of AUFA and its members to express our strong opposition to the renewal of Dr. Matthew Prineas’ term as Provost at Athabasca University. The Provost is a pivotal academic role in the university, and is central to providing space for an academic community to flourish, but also for building an equitable and supportive workplace enabling all employees to do excellent academic work. Under Matthew Prineas’ watch, AUFA has seen exponential growth in issues culminating in grievances that expose AU’s toxic workplace culture and a diminishment in our ability to be leaders of academic excellence.

The recent employee engagement survey report supports this position, in addition to what members are telling us directly. AUFA is extremely concerned about chronic low staff morale, deteriorating mental health of members, and the routine exclusion of staff from key decisions that impact the future of Athabasca University. The lack of engagement from the Provost with faculty and significant challenges faced by them has undermined their ability to be responsive to students, work collegially, or even maintain good health. 

Failures to Deliver on Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI)

AUFA is alarmed by the record number of serious grievances  reporting discrimination, harassment, and harm being experienced by our members. In response, instead of addressing these concerns in a collegial manner, they are ignored and consequently require being escalated to arbitration to attract any meaningful response from HR. Worse, the Collective Agreement, Article 7: Discipline, is being used to target and isolate members, particularly pre-tenure, equity-deserving members, in response to reported conflicts, all under the watch of Dr. Prineas acting as the primary executive officer responsible for overseeing affected members. The pattern can be named: it is systemic institutional racism.

After decades of institutional inaction, over the last year AUFA and its members have repeatedly raised concerns, naming serious equity issues. These concerns continue to remain unaddressed, or at best received vague and ill-defined responses. The incumbent Provost has refused to engage with AUFA members on the development of an equity office, signed on to the Scarborough Charter without meaningful commitment to supporting the flourishing of Black academics and staff members, and made empty promises on moving forward with conciliation with and active support of Indigenous Peoples, including with our own faculty and staff members.

AU needs a diverse faculty to engage with a diverse student population, including at the graduate level. The Provost has failed to attract and retain a diverse faculty, and members of equity deserving groups are grossly underrepresented at AU. As an academic institution that purports to support EDI and decolonization, AU is at odds with its Mission to reduce barriers to education. The lack of active engagement on issues of JEDI is jeopardizing AU’s responsibilities to the Tri Council policies on Equity, the Scarborough Charter, and the TRC Calls to Action, which now invites significant reputational harm to AU and its faculty. 

The ILE Debacle and Unsustainable Mismanagement

While the ILE promised much, under the management of the Provost, it has delivered little. The result to date is a general sense that the expertise and knowledge of staff members is irrelevant, and managerialism has been allowed to run amok, stifling true innovation. Massive financial investment in the ILE project has deprived faculties from maintaining their staff complements, and workloads for those who remain are increasingly unmanageable. While enrolments continue to drop, payouts to departing executives are up, and executive positions have ballooned.

The disproportionate emphasis on MSCHE accreditation, at the expense of reaching underserved Albertans, most notably Indigenous, single-parent students, and students seeking accommodations for learning differences is disappointing. This misuse of faculty time and resources is a demonstration of yet another ill-conceived project of the Provost. While AU employees have asked for an analysis of the benefit of this program, the Provost has provided nothing.

Our members collectively hold extensive institutional memory. From our perspective, the Provost has much to answer for in the lackluster performance of the entire executive team, particularly with the management of the Human Resources Department. We have watched HR extend its scope into affairs that normally function under the purview of the VP Academic, making decisions that used to be part of a functioning collegial governance model. Reliance on external legal investigations of our members based on specious allegations is particularly troubling. 

The Provost has managed an embarrassing and harmful EDI and decolonization response, and led us toward the current unsustainable financial trajectory. While attention has been devoted to failing projects, the lack of institution-wide strategic and academic planning itself is a cause for alarm. We therefore implore the Provostial Review Committee to weigh these concerns, and rather than acquiesce to Dr Prineas’ appointment renewal, to put the needs of AU’s faculty and students first and foremost. We deserve better. 

A Call to Members to Respond

The reappointment of a Provost is subject to AU’s Appointment and Reappointment of Academic Vice-Presidents Policy, and related procedure. Under this Policy, a call out and election are required for appointment of committee members (Section 4.10). This process is part of required collegial governance and provides an important opportunity to hear from each faculty. 

The President has further invited each of us as valued community members to provide written contributions to the renewal committee. We encourage members to write individual submissions, which are impactful in ways an Open Letter may not be. Feel free to elaborate what’s most important to you, and why.

Signed, written contributions should be submitted in confidence to the committee at provostrenewalsubmissions@athabascau.ca by Monday, April 17, 2023 at 4:30 p.m. (Mountain).

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.  

RSL for Professionals: Testimonials

The item that has gotten a lot of attention from members is the employer’s proposed removal of Research & Study Leave (RSL) for professional staff.  While we know that not all professional staff are able to take this leave (for many reasons including lack of staffing to cover for their leave, a workload that is too heavy, and that it wouldn’t be approved by their manager), the minor payout that AU has offered is not a fair compensation for this benefit. 

In a recent survey of professional staff (with 140 respondents and just under 200 professional members of AUFA): 

  • 65.9% of respondents said that RSL was important to them 

  • 66.67% said that it was likely that they would take professional RSL in the future 

  • 19.9% thought it was acceptable to trade RSL for a one-time flat payout of around $10,000 (which is the current offer) 

As many members have pointed out, the push to remove this benefit from professional members relies on the assumption that AU professional members are not important members of our research community and that their continuing studies are not important to the work they do for the university. 

Here are testimonials from members about why RSL leave is important for them: 

Testimonial 1: 

I left a PhD program to work for AU, so I was thrilled to have the opportunity to return to some of my graduate research once I accumulated enough Research and Study Leave (RSL). Following that first RSL in 2012, I published three articles in top-tier peer-reviewed ecology and entomology journals. In my most recent RSL, in 2018, I edited websites, tested and edited educational board games, and edited books of poetry, a fiction novel, and an academic monograph. Diversifying and broadening my experience has made me a better editor and has been hugely valuable to my work in FHSS, with its wide range of courses and styles—from statistics to creative writing, from psychology to political science. 

Professional Development leave is certainly very useful for attending a webinar or a three-day conference. Even if I took all of my PD time at once, however, I could not write research articles or edit a manuscript. RSL provides me with something PD or an extra 9% compensation would not: time. The time to pursue education or research or service not only improves the work that I do for AU, it also reinforces the university’s credibility as an employer and as a provider of high-quality educational materials. 

Testimonial 2: 

As a senior software developer with over 15 years of experience, I took a significant pay cut to come work at AU two and a half years ago. With the ever-increasing costs of everything while trying to raise a young family, taking this pay cut has not been easy. However, I wanted to come work here because I would be able to pursue graduate studies and I would be allowed to take R&S leave to complete my research. I am currently enrolled in the MScIS program and the intended focus of my research will be around learning analytics and the application of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in learning management systems. 

AU's proposals to eliminate R&S leave for professionals are incredibly shortsighted for several reasons. First, the outcomes of my research are likely to be beneficial to AU as they will be focused on using emerging technologies in distance education. This research is directly applicable to my day-to-day work and will provide me with a foundation that will allow me to identify innovations and efficiencies to improve our services. 

Likewise, by being able to take R&S leave, I will be able to research my chosen topics in-depth and focus on delivering meaningful and novel findings, rather than just trying to complete my thesis so I can be done with it. As I am sure that many academics would agree, meaningful research requires time, effort, dedication, and perseverance. R&S leave allows professionals to focus solely on their studies rather than having to balance them against many other priorities. 

Furthermore, R&S leave for professionals is a significant competitive advantage for AU when it comes to hiring new IT staff. Every other institution can offer you more money, but few other companies have the framework and the capabilities to offer you something like R&S leave. There is a significant shortage of IT professionals in every field right now. If anything, AU should be looking to boost R&S benefits to use them to hire talented, skilled, and hardworking individuals who are passionate about their career. 

Finally, professional R&S leave is a benefit that is likely to cause strong debate. It is not a coincidence that AU is using it to create division amongst AUFA union members. For those that are reluctant to support this benefit because they do not understand its value or do not believe that professionals should have it, I urge you to think about what AU will try to eliminate in the next round of bargaining and who will be willing to stand with you in solidarity. 

University of Manitoba Faculty Association ratifies deal, Concordia University of Edmonton passes strike vote

AUFA members in a solidarity picket with nurses

University of Manitoba Strike Ends

Significant news continues in the faculty association sector. The University of Manitoba Faculty Association has won their strike, and ratified a deal with University of Manitoba. This victory pushes the university to binding arbitration, where although outcomes are not certain, they will likely result in better wage increases than the employer was mandated to offer. This comes at the end of a 35 day winter strike, which is an extraordinary task for any union.

Concordia University of Edmonton Passes Strike Vote

Concordia University of Edmonton Faculty Association (CUEFA) has passed a 95% in favour strike vote, with CUE’s administration responding by gaining rights to lockout. This means that while CUEFA have a strike mandate, the CUE administration may choose to define the timing and duration of the strike. CUEFA are considering striking over workload, as the CUE administration’s desire to become a research institution has meant dramatically increasing research requirements from faculty without appropriately changing course load.

AUFA stands in solidarity with CUE and should the strike vote materialize into work stoppage it will be the first Faculty Association strike in Alberta history. We have sent an offer of support and solidarity to CUEFA and stand with them in their struggle for a fair contract.

You can read more about the strike here, which includes an interview with AUFA’s Bob Barnetson.


Solidarity,

David Powell

President

New Member Preliminary Survey Results

In November, AUFA’s Membership Engagement Committee (MEC) sought feedback from new AUFA members about their experiences of joining AU. This short survey was the first step in what will be a deeper look at the needs of new AUFA members.

Thirty-three AUFA members who were hired after January 1, 2019 responded, with an even split between new academic and new professional members. With one exception, the results were similar for academic and professional members. Key themes include:

  • New AUFA members did not have enough information to effectively negotiate an offer.

  • AU provided inadequate orientation to their jobs and to the organization.

  • New AUFA members struggled to self-orient because of inadequate and incorrect documentation and the absence of mentors.

  • Social isolation has intensified the challenges faced by new AUFA members.

In the spring, MEC members will be undertaking more in-depth interviews with AUFA members about their onboarding experiences.

Negotiations at Hire

Q1. During your hiring, did you have enough info to negotiate an offer effectively with AU?

The vast majority of members identified that they lacked information during the hiring process, and this affected their ability to negotiate. Negotiations are important because starting salaries are the pivotal factor in life-time earnings.

In their comments, respondents reported that AU would not answer questions, was unwilling to meaningfully negotiate, and refused to provide support to members having to relocate. Members also flagged that, when they became aware that their starting salaries were inequitable, there was no meaningful remedy available to them.

Orientation to Job

Q2. During your first two weeks on the job, were your job specific duties adequately explained to you?

Q3. Do you know the criteria against which your performance will be judged at the end of your probationary period?

In their comments, many respondents emphasized that their orientation to their jobs was inadequate. This included tasks, duties and how their work fit into the organization which was not explained or shifting as time went on. What information was provided was provided in an overwhelming volume without adequate context. Respondents also repeatedly emphasized that organizational documentation was often out of date, they often had no one to ask questions of, and the answers to questions often conflicted (depending upon who one asked).

Orientation to Organization

Q4. Do you know what you need to do to take a few days of sick leave?

Q5. Do you know what your PD account can and cannot be spent on?

Q6. Do you know how to book a vacation?

Q7. Do you know how to get help with IT problems?

In their comments, respondents also identified that their orientation to the organization was inadequate or non-existent. Many struggled to understand their entitlements, actual processes almost never matched written policies and procedures, how different parts of the university worked and interacted were unclear, and they struggled to find anyone who could answer their questions. Over time, new AUFA members navigated processes by trial and error.

Isolation and Workload

In their comments, new professional and academic members noted that the isolation created by COVID and the near-virtual model intensified their difficulties understanding their jobs and the organization. There have been few opportunities to develop informal connections and social networks and AU has made no effort to address this issue.

Staff (mostly professional) also identified rising workloads as a significant problem. These comments are, in part, related to AU’s disastrous IT Optimization process, but workload concerns are not restricted to only IT and course production staff. Enrollment growth, additional job responsibilities or workload volume (often associated with the move to working from home), and delays in staffing were factors contributing to workload problems.

Next Steps

In the spring, the New Member Research Committee will be conducting more in-depth interviews with new AUFA members. A final report is due in June. This report will include identifying areas for improvement for AU (which is primarily responsible for orienting new staff) as well as for AUFA.

As interim measures:

  • In June, AUFA posted a new member handbook providing a basic overview of rights, entitlements and processes. Based upon member feedback, AUFA will be reframing this as simply a member handbook in the near future.

  • In September, AUFA began phoning all new members on a go forward basis and providing an orientation to the union and the collective bargaining agreement. New or long-serving members who wish to receive such an orientation can email engagement@aufa.ca to set up a call.

  • In December, AUFA will be developing a 2022 calendar of important dates for AUFA members.

Your Turn

The New Member Experience Committee would appreciate any further feedback you have on this topic as it prepares to commence interviews.

Corina Dransutavicius, Eloy Rivas Sanchez, Susan Cake, and Bob Barnetson

AUFA New Member Experience Committee