I originally intended to crunch some numbers here and look at what the Employer’s offer really means for the financial life of its intended audience. But then I started trying to summarize the negotiations so far (from what I can interpret, based on the parties’ public statements), and, well, I got a bit carried away.
So today will be that background/summary; soon I’ll try to get into the weeds.
For those of you just tuning in, you may recall the that College Faculty (OPSEU CAAT-A) bargaining team was charged with negotiating a list of demands that originated from Local demand-setting meetings that were held at each of the 24 Colleges.
Probably the best summation of the demands presented to the bargaining team can be found on pages 3 and 4 of the Negotiations Bulletin #3 (located here for those reading on phones and here for those who like the graphics).
Those demands include workload measurements for all faculty, so that all of our work — including the work of partial-load faculty, counsellors, and librarians — is actually measured and so that we have sufficient time to properly help our students. They also include improved job security for all faculty, plus language that limits outsourcing, and language to limit the erosion of Full-Time jobs within the bargaining unit. They also include demands that would give faculty meaningful authority to make the academic decisions that their expertise as educators uniquely qualifies them to make.
[I]t only took 24 hours from the union’s presentation of their first set of proposals . . . for management to declare their lack of belief in the need to discuss issues ranging from faculty’s top issue of academic freedom / collegial governance to the grievance process.
The College Employer Council’s bargaining team’s refusal to consider demands at the, er, bargaining (or is that “bargaining”?) table resulted in the faculty bargaining team’s requesting an OLRB-appointed conciliator, and, later, requesting that a strike authorization vote be held in September.
That, in turn, inspired management to broadcast an offer directly to faculty, seemingly in an effort to bypass negotiating with a democratically-elected bargaining team.
And the offer? Well, nothing about workload; nothing about Partial-Load; nothing about counsellors; nothing about librarians; nothing about job security; nothing about decision-making authority.
Let’s just say that the College management is clearly contented with the status quo, and the offer is clearly designed to maintain that status quo — of an overreliance on contract faculty who are treated as fungible; of a decision-making authority that rests exclusively in the hands of those who may lack teaching experience; of college credits literally being obtainable at McDonalds.
The offer does, however, offer money. Not much else — maybe even a new expense — but it does offer money.
And evidently, the College Employer Council believes that that offer of money is so important, that it had to be shared directly with the union membership. In fact, the Employer’s Offer FAQ included the following:
4. Why are you putting out the terms of the offer? Isn’t that bargaining in public?
OPSEU . . . did not provide any information to its members about the 7.5% increase, the new maximum of $115,094, and other benefits with no concessions. We felt it very important to get the information out to faculty.
Well… mission accomplished?
So let’s start (and, for today’s purposes, finish) with some reasonably self-evident conclusions.
- The employer would rather offer money than negotiate any meaningful changes to the work that we do, and how we do it.
- The employer is counting that college faculty care about salary, to the exclusion of every other issue.
- The employer would rather hold up dollar bills to the members than negotiate the members’ demands through the bargaining process to which they apparently have committed themselves.
- The employer feels no compulsion to negotiate serious issues, when they have the option instead of trying to get Union members to hold votes on the employer’s offer(s)
All of which leads me to my final, tentative conclusion (which is obviously subject to change in the face of new information and events):
The employer will feel no compulsion to negotiate serious issues when they are given any alternative, whatsover.
And, by logical extension:
The College Employer Council bargaining team will negotiate serious issues only when given no alternative.
And, by logical extension:
If Ontario College faculty truly wish to see fairness for Partial-Load faculty, authority over any educational decisions, control over our own students’ grades, ownership of the material we produce as teachers (to protect our own jobs), or a workload formula that truly measures all of the work that we do, there is only one route by which to make any possible gains in any of those areas, at the bargaining table.
[Are my conclusions based upon an error in reasoning? Are they premature, given the data? Are they consistent the experience or previous rounds, or your experience at your college? Hit “Leave a comment”, below, to let me know.]