BUFA Forum
October, 2006
NEGOTIATIONS??
Normally in this first issue of Forum for the academic year the President would be welcoming both new and continuing members of BUFA as another academic year gets underway, and by extending personal wishes that it be satisfying and productive. And of course I do - but as we move closer to October 25, the date that the membership overwhelmingly voted to authorize the Executive to conduct a strike vote, whether these wishes will come to pass grows more problematic.
As I was in the process of writing this message, on Thursday, October 12, I was astonished, and dismayed, to discover that on a day set aside for negotiations, bargaining lasted only 15 minutes! Negotiations began at 2:00 pm and were over at 2:15. According to the account of our Chief Negotiator, Terry Carroll, the administration's side hadn't done its homework and wasn't prepared to discuss anything. What kind of signal is this sending to the BUFA membership, especially when you consider what we are proposing for every outstanding issue involves equity and parity within the Ontario system? Is the administration not listening to what we are saying or taking BUFA's demonstrated solidarity seriously?
Well, BUFA at least is taking the situation seriously. The Strike Action Committee (Miriam Richards, chair) is in the process of planning for the eventuality of a strike, and the membership can expect some announcements from that Committee next week. We ran out of BUFA buttons at last week's Special General Meeting, but more were ordered; they have arrived and are now being distributed. BUFA armbands will also be distributed next week. I urge all members of BUFA to wear both buttons and armbands while you are on campus, including in class and especially at the numerous committee meetings we all attend as part of our normal duties. The administration needs to hear our message.
As a member of CAUT, BUFA would receive strike pay from the CAUT Defence Fund. The primary purpose of the Defence Fund is to provide strike benefits to member associations while their members are engaged in a strike or lockout and experiencing loss of salary. These benefits are paid as a grant to the association, to be used at the local union's discretion, usually as strike pay (which is non-taxable) for individual union members. Strike benefits are currently set at the rate of $75.00 per member per calendar day, and payments start on the 4th calendar day of a strike or lockout. CAUT will also provide "flying pickets" from other member associations. In addition, last year the BUFA membership voted in favour of joining NUCAUT, the national union of CAUT (not all faculty associations in CAUT are unionized), and they can provide some solid material support.
There was a story on the front page of this week's Brock Press about the contract negotiations and last week's Special General Meeting. Inevitably, students are talking about the possibility of a faculty strike at Brock. Of course they do not know the complexities of the issues involved and are concerned about what a strike might mean for them. I know some members already have begun talking to their classes about a possible strike, but it is important that we all take a few minutes in each of our classes for discussion on the topic, both to assuage their anxiety and to let them know that our goals are not simply about money, but about maintaining the academic quality of the institution and ensuring the level of educational experience they deserve. Explain to them that we have been working without a contract since the end of June. Explain that the administration wants to increase the number of courses taught by part-time instructors rather than full-time faculty who are also fully engaged in research. Explain that most faculty take on undergraduate and graduate directed reading and thesis courses voluntarily, in addition to a full teaching load, with no remuneration or course relief. Explain that BUFA is asking for its members to be paid salaries commensurate with the system average for Ontario universities. Explain that BUFA wants to maintain the standard practice of peer-review for promotion and tenure. Explain to them that at the end of a 30+ year career faculty are retiring without any medical or dental benefits and that Brock is one of the only university employers to allow such a travesty. And explain to them that BUFA is doing everything it can to try to reach an agreement and to avoid a strike. It is important that we talk to our students about what is happening at their university and how they might be affected.
All BUFA members will have already received the notice of and agenda for the General Meeting on Wednesday, October 18, from 10am-noon. I hope to see you all there, and that Terry Carroll and I will be able to report that on the day before, when the two sides are scheduled to meet next, that the discussion lasts longer than 15 minutes and that in fact some progress has been made.
Barry Keith Grant
President, BUFA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What We Can Learn from the Experience of Others
- The Experts Speak
Make the commitment. Back up your team. Send a strong message to Administration. Those were key messages delivered by Michael Piva, Assistant Executive Director, CAUT as he spoke to the more than 225 BUFA members gathered at the Four Points Sheraton in St. Catharines on October 4, 2006 to deliberate on a motion to hold a strike vote.
Piva went on to say that the experience of full time faculty having their profession degraded by successive University administrations throughout the country is a common one. He said that he had reviewed the outstanding issues on the negotiations table at Brock and concluded that BUFA was not being unreasonable in its objectives. He also said it was “especially not unreasonable” for BUFA members to expect to be paid ‘at the average’ of other Ontario university faculty salaries.
On the issue of the Administration’s claim of a ‘structural deficit’, Piva mentioned that the first time he heard those words was in the 1980’s in negotiations with the University of Ottawa. He said he still does not know what the term means, especially when surpluses were showing on U of O’s financial statements. He elaborated that any deficit was as a result of a university administration making priorities and their priorities do not include compensating faculty. Back in the 1980’s full time faculty salaries were about 35 per cent of a university budget. Today, full time faculty salaries make up only about 25 per cent. Administrations are redirecting money into special projects, institutes, centers, etc., because that is their priority. Yet, said Piva, “We know that the intellectual capital of the university is what faculty bring to the table.”
Piva said that on the issue of student support, most students will support a faculty association on strike. In fact he said there is not one example of students on Canadian campuses coming out against a strike. “As much as it is an inconvenience for the students, they understand the issues,” said Piva. “And there are ways and means that can be found to protect the students.”
Iris Shegda
Administrative Researcher
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Experts Speak (continued)
At the Special General Meeting for BUFA members held on October 4, 2006, Donna Gray, OCUFA Research Director, provided the following observations on the state of faculty negotiations in Ontario and submitted them for this issue of Forum. - There are eight rounds of bargaining occurring in Ontario for renewal agreements that expired in the Spring of 2006 -- Algoma, Brock, Carleton, Nipissing, tenure stream, Nipissing contract faculty, OCAD, Western and York. Only one association has reached agreement with its administration – Algoma. There is also one association, Guelph, negotiating its first contract.
- This is extremely late in the process for so few settlements; generally-speaking, renewal agreements are reached by the Labour Day weekend or the parties are on their way to conciliation. The foot-dragging and lack of availability seen at Brock seems to be endemic to this round of bargaining.
- To a lesser extent, similar delaying tactics were seen last Fall as well, with several associations requiring the aid of mediators and conciliators to reach agreement. To some degree, the blame can be laid with the Ontario government's multi-year funding negotiations with the universities. This is the second year in a row that the academic year began without universities receiving confirmation from the provincial government on their operating grants for the year.
- However, we should also remember that operating grants rose 11.9% for 2005-06. They will rise by another 7% for 2006-07. In addition, tuition revenue will rise substantially this year - universities may increase their tuition overall by 5%. Even without precise allocations, it is clear that the universities have the resources to reach agreements with the faculty.
- BUFA is not alone in deciding that it is time to signal to the employer that the end is nigh. Carleton University Academic Staff Association held a strike vote October 2 and 3, 2006; 96% voted in favour of strike action. CUASA is in conciliation October 13 and 14, 2006. The teaching assistants and sessional lecturers at Carleton met with a conciliator on October 4, 2006 and are holding a strike vote October 18 and 19, 2006.
- The issues at stake around the province are the same as at BUFA -- salaries and benefits in line with comparable types of universities in the province; workload issues, and in particular, reaching parity in teaching loads with comparable universities; increasing the faculty complement to bring down the student-faculty ratio; ensuring new faculty have appointments which include the full range of duties (teaching, research and service); fairness for those faculty who wish to remain on staff past the age of 65; new retirement options to give faculty more flexibility in how they approach retirement, and governance and decision-making issues related to sabbaticals, tenure and promotion, discipline and dismissal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On The Concept of a Structural Deficit
I understand that the Brock University administration claims that this University now has a “structural deficit.” What follows is a brief guide to what economists mean when they use the concept of a structural deficit.
It is now quite fashionable to speak of, and to have a structural deficit. The U.S. Federal Government has one, and so do many of the states within the U.S., such as Alabama, Illinois, and Wisconsin. Even the provincial government of BC has one.
In Canada, the federal government eliminated the deficit and has had budget surpluses for many years now. In the U.S., as you might know, when Mr. Clinton completed his two terms, he eliminated the budget deficit and the federal U.S. government had in fact a budget surplus. But when Mr. George Bush was elected, he chose to give major tax cuts, and he embarked on two military adventures which increased the budget deficit even more. So now the U.S. government has a large actual budget deficit and can be said to have a structural deficit. At the national level the definition of a structural deficit is easy to understand: a deficit that occurs at the peak of a business cycle, indicating that the government prefers to add to the national debt rather than raise taxes to finance the expenditures (for details see reference below).
The counterpart to the structural deficit in federal-provincial relations is called “fiscal imbalance.” This concept has been roundly debunked by Geoffrey Simpson in a series of articles in the Globe and Mail; he clearly demonstrated that it is nothing more than a bargaining ploy to try to get more money out of the federal government.
In the case of Brock University, about 44 percent of the revenue comes from the provincial government, and about 40 percent from student tuition fees. In addition, the Faculty do their best to bring in research grants that can range from paying graduate students to paying for research equipment and even buildings, such as the recent CFI grant. I understand that the University also claimed that Brock has a structural deficit, although the actual accounts for last year show a surplus to about $4 million. So how do we get a structural deficit? It can be argued that revenues from government are not rising as fast we need them, or that we hired a large number of new faculty to equalize the teaching load in the Faculty of Humanities. This addition of professors was a much needed infusion of human capital to the institution. However, there were other expenditure items, such as the gym in the Walker complex, and renovations of the showers, and so on. A structural deficit was obviously not “foreseen” when we (Brock University) successfully floated a bond issue earlier this year (or end of last year) and we received a very good rating from bond rating agencies. Was some information deliberately withheld when the bond was floated? If so, that could be potentially embarrassing to the University. Secondly, when the new hiring was carried out, was a proper and credible HR budget prepared, which would have assumed a planned and phased hiring process, consistent with our revenue stream? Did the structural deficit exist when the administrators received an average of over 8 percent increase in salaries? Or was the structural deficit “discovered” suddenly close to the time of collective bargaining with the Faculty Association?
It seems to me that if a structural deficit exits, it might reflect poorly on our administration, in that they did not reveal this information when the bond was issued last year or that there was inadequate phased planning for the new human capital. It is this human capital (including the older vintage hired earlier) that now needs nurturing, and given adequate space and a competitive package of salaries and benefits, so that they can fulfill the expectations of the University.
The key question is that once Brock faculty salaries were brought up to the system average, indicating that the Brock administration had accepted the principle that Brock salaries should remain competitive - so what has changed? Is it because of the structural deficit? But we know that in Ontario all universities are under-funded. If they all have a structural deficit, is the case being made that Brock has an even greater structural deficit? How did that happen?
It seems to be that the administration could embarrass itself if it continues to propagate the idea of a structural deficit at Brock. It seems to be used like some force majeur. But I am sure that the administration does not have that in mind. While there is no secondary market in university bonds, it is not a card that we should be playing.
Mohammed Dore
Economics
|
