Negotiations Update – March 14
After a brief hiatus, last week your SAFA Negotiating Team presented to SAIT a substantial revision to Section 36 (Workload) of the Collective Agreement and a proposal for a new section in the Collective Agreement for casual faculty hiring and benefits. Both teams agreed to proceed with informal facilitation and have set April 4 – 6 as the dates to work with a facilitator on complex issues such as workload, contingent faculty positions, and compensation. For the next three weeks, the teams will continue to meet to discuss other outstanding sections in the hopes of reaching agreement on these smaller issues. The SAFA Negotiating Team will also continue sharing information on the bargaining issues through weekly emails and Town Hall meetings.
This week’s discussion:
The Current Workload Model is Broken
Over the last 18 months, SAFA has used various methods to gather member feedback on negotiation topics. Through multiple surveys, town hall sessions, and interviews, SAFA has heard from hundreds of members from all roles and schools and the message is always the same: Workload doesn’t work.
The Current Model
The workload model has not been substantially revised since 2007 when the CCH table was created. Over the last 14 years, however, there have been significant changes in educational technology, pedagogical practices, institutional processes, and administrative supports that have increased faculty workload. As well, the only quantified work in the Workload Section is Class Contact Hours (CCH), while Class Management Activities (CMA) and other Assignable Work are vague and can change with little notice. While the Workload Letter of Understanding from 2017 attempted to address this issue with an expediated grievance process, the changes did not address the underlying issues.
The Issues
Class Contact Hours do not happen in isolation; rather, they are entwined with Class Management Activities (course prep, marking, and working with students outside of class). As leadership changes different aspects of teaching – increasing class size, changing instructional modality, decreasing admin and ed tech supports, etc. – instructors tell us that the amount of their CMA increases even as CCH stays the same. These changes in work should be reflected in the CCH assignment, along with a clearer assignment of associated CMA hours, so that an instructor can determine if sufficient CMA time is allocated to support the work being performed in the classroom.
The third part of the workload formula is Assignable Work, a general catch-all category that is used for a wide range of activities. Instructors report being overwhelmed with, among other things, attending committee and staff meetings, developing new programs and courses, planning and documenting program reviews and accreditation, organizing special events and speakers, locating student placements and practicums, liaising with industry or professional associations, and being appointed into leadership roles such as mentor, course lead, or technology champion. They then struggle to find time for CMA work, as well as scholarly activity and professional development work that they want to pursue. For most contingent instructors, Assignable Work does not appear in their contracts, so they are unpaid if they attend program meetings, participate in special projects, or complete professional development to enhance their teaching practices.
Improving Working Conditions at SAIT
The Negotiating Team believes that the current workload model is broken, in that it does not account for the many variables that impact faculty workloads. SAIT’s stated intent to increase the use of educational technology is understandable, but the Negotiating Team expects SAIT to also recognize that these practices increase faculty workload. As well, SAIT’s practices of increasing class-size and shifting accommodation and student support practices onto instructors also increase faculty workload and must be acknowledged. For this reason, the SAFA proposal includes an expanded list of impacts on CCH.
One of the most egregious issues with the current model is the lack of documentation for CMA and Assignable Work time. Currently, hours are not assigned to these categories which makes it difficult to create long-term work plans. Therefore, the SAFA proposal includes the requirement for CMA and Assignable Work hours to be delineated, so that both the faculty and leadership are clear on what work can realistically be completed in the upcoming year.
The Negotiating Team is also embracing the ~Faculty is Faculty~ model, in which we recognize that the work contingent faculty perform (both CCH and CMA) is equivalent to permanent colleagues’ work and should be documented in equivalent ways. As well, contingent faculty should be able to participate in assignable work, as long as they are compensated. The SAFA proposal includes expanded Casual faculty language that includes that documentation.
The SAFA Negotiating Team is waiting on SAIT’s response to this proposal.
In Solidarity,
Al Brown