I am curious, is anybody else here worried that certification will bring cumbersome formal process upon us? For example, minor disputes can currently be nimbly and informally resolved (we don't hear about many of these), whereas certification would move us toward slow weighty formalities over minor disputes, resulting in bad feeling and inefficiency. Can anybody speak to this?
Luis Goddyn, Mathematics
The following is sent on behalf of SFUFA President Neil Abramson.
----------------
Dear Colleagues;
Over the last 6 months, SFUFA has organized a series of 7 events seeking to inform members about the pro and con of certifying SFUFA as a union. This has been in response to a member resolution passed at our last Annual Meeting directing us to do so.
The SFUFA Executive now plans to introduce a motion at the November 6 General Meeting that SFUFA lead a formal study of this question over the next 12 months, with the intention of applying for certification.
So far we have had a debate, 2 coffee klatches, 3 pub gatherings, and 2 lunches at the DAC. I've also heard by email from about 80 members expressing both positive and negative views, and tried to answer all of them personally.
We have been keeping an informal poll of the 200-plus members we have talked to, or heard from. This is over 20% of our membership; probably more than has ever responded to any previous SFUFA initiative. The most responsive Faculty has been Communication where we have the opinions of 37.5% of members. On the other hand, we have only heard from 9% of members from Business.
So far, 132 members (roughly 61.5%) have expressed support for certification. Only 16 (about 7.5%) have said they are opposed. Another 66 (just under 31%) have asked for more information before they can come to a decision.
How many are enough? This is the question we are thinking about. Personally, I think we need two thirds to really recommend certification. So the Executive has decided to recommend formally studying the issue for up to the next 12 months. If most of those still undecided end up supporting certification, then that will be enough. If most of the undecided eventually decide against, then certification will not be appropriate.
Similarly, at the November 6 meeting, we should also ask how many should be enough for this motion. My own view is that if the motion passes but the vote is close, then we might bring the question back to a formal vote at another General Meeting after the study process is completed.
But suppose the motion is voted down but 45-50 (minus 1) do support it. Then, because so many do support it, we should still continue to discuss certification. We should aim for a decision, yes or no, that two thirds support - either way. That strikes me as our least divisive course of action.
There are good reasons both for and against certification. I would like to review a few of each.
Against Certification
First, against. Do we really need certification? It's true that 90% of Canadian faculty (and librarians, lab instructors, etc.) are unionized. It's true the UBCFA has been unionized almost 15 years. Royal Roads is unionized. UVic is in process. UNBC is apparently about to be in process. All the teaching universities' associations belong to the same union. We look to be the last non-unionized faculty association in BC.
Many universities, however, have quite conflictual relationships with their university administrations. We have a much stronger and more positive relationship with our administration. And I personally have found our administration responsive to issues of concern to SFUFA since I became president-elect and reached out to see what we might accomplish together this year.
For example, we stated that gender pay equity was an important issue for us. President Petter responded by making it a strategic priority for SFU. A committee has been struck to research pay inequity and propose solutions.
For example, I expressed concern about the situations of First Nation faculty at SFU. I have consulted on First Nation issues for over 30 years. I discovered President Petter shared the same concerns. AVP Jon Driver and I are now engaged in a joint endeavour.
For example, I approached the administration with the hope that SFUFA could have "interest arbitration" rather than "final offer" arbitration. This was because after UBCFA received a higher salary settlement using interest arbitration than we did with final offer, many SFUFA members felt that we were stuck with an unfair, inequitable, win/lose form of arbitration.
In my last email, I reported that the administration had refused us interest arbitration. Since then, the administration reached out for further discussion, and offered to re-consider the possibility of giving us interest arbitration for the next contract negotiation. I found their attitude very reasonable. They are concerned that they don't want a process that our members think is unfair or inequitable, and we are hopeful we might in fact be able to reach agreement on this important issue after all.
So the argument against certification is whether it is really necessary. If the administration is responsive to our issues, then do we need to unionize?
In Favour of Certification
On the other hand, there are arguments in favour of certification as a union. At our first lunch, we did a small questionnaire. We found that our members main issues were:
#1: Salaries and Benefits
#2: Working Conditions
#3: Governance Issues
On salaries, when I came to SFU about 21 years ago, salaries were top quartile for Canadian universities. Now they are bottom quartile. On average our salaries are about 30% less than at UBC. I have it on good authority that for our Business Faculty, our salaries are about 40% less.
And our salary scales are so low that I understand that in all 6 faculties, it is difficult to hire any new faculty without offering market differentials. These days we have terrible salary inversions. The highest paid faculty members are full professors and new hires. The lowest paid are associate profs who have been at SFU a few years. And we shouldn't forget lecturers and senior lecturers who are paid a lot less than research tenure tracks. And librarians needed a big jump in the latest contract but I think they may still be getting less than at many other universities.
The point is that we have little ability to influence our salaries and benefits as an association. We might have more influence as a union. Certainly that has been the experience of other unionized faculty associations in Canada. If a strike vote authorizes a strike - it needs 85-90% support - suddenly a more generous offer is received. This happened most recently at the University of Manitoba. The issue was not salary, but a strong strike vote did result in the university moving on the issues that we most important to faculty members.
Work load issues, and governance issues are similar in that as an association, SFUFA cannot negotiate them unless the administration is willing. If they are not willing, then nothing can be done. If SFUFA was a union, its bargaining rights would be recognized by the Labour Relations Board rather than voluntarily granted by the SFU administration. If the latter refused to discuss a governance issue, SFUFA would have the right to mediation. We have no such right presently. So, for example, with the recent Learning Goals issue, we asked to discuss it and were refused. Only Senate opposition by colleagues forced the current implementation delay.
Conclusion
Many members fear that if SFUFA was certified as a union, the entire Framework Agreement would be renegotiated, and we would lose rights we already have. This is actually very unlikely.
From the time we began a certification drive, the Labour Relations Board disallows any change to existing policies. No change is allowed for 4 months after certification succeeds. In the case of UBC, the existing framework agreement was simply rolled into the first contract. I understand that across Canada, in all sectors, no corporate management or administration ever required re-negotiation of existing working conditions after certification.
I am confident, given the excellent relationship between SFUFA and our SFU administration, that SFU would not be the first Canadian institution ever to demand renegotiation of all working conditions.
I encourage everyone to attend our General Meeting this Wednesday, November 6. It is at 2:30pm at IRMACS (ASB (10900). Members can also join the meeting electronically at both Surrey (SUR 5200) and downtown (HC 2250) campuses. Voting will be by secret ballot.
All the best
Neil R Abramson, President
SFUFA