Bargaining Bulletin #14
Slight movement on monetary negotiations— Hindered by employer’s fear of standing out in our sector
Your bargaining committee met with the employer today, 15 September. We have the following updates for you, and will provide more details in the coming week, including at the general meeting on 19 September. (We don’t think there is a need for an extraordinary meeting on Monday evening, an idea we discussed this past Tuesday.)
Progress (sort of) on monetary items
We began by retabling the CFA’s monetary proposals. We rejected the employer’s single “cost item” proposal so far: the “wellness sending account” that they tabled on 5 September.
Our message to the employer was to work with us on the specific proposals that the CFA has tabled since the start of negotiations for
Restoring the lost value of our benefits plan,
Addressing inequitable pay for non-regular faculty and those with secondary pay rates, and
Research
These are the priorities members have identified for using the new money B.C. is providing in this round–and for using the surpluses that CapU has been generating annually (now more than $5,000,000 per year averaged over the past decade).
The employer dropped its WSA proposal, and expressed willingness to work on improvements within our existing benefits plan. But they weren’t able to make specific counter-proposals that begin to meet us on our proposals.
The employer's stated reason for hesitancy to improve paramedical and other existing benefits (which have not changed since 1995) was a reluctance to stand out in the sector. They do not want to set a high-water mark that might make other universities or colleges feel pressure to improve.
They offered similar hesitancy about removing the cap on non-reg scale placement, suggesting that CapU already pays non-regular faculty better than others in our sector. (The evidence we have seen is to the contrary.)
Negotiator Geoff Tierney also spoke of having “multiple principals.” But when we asked him whether the B.C. government–one of those principals–has directed the University not to improve benefits or to change scale placement rules, he sidestepped, merely speaking of “sectoral pressures.”
From what the CFA has seen in other negotiations, it is apparent that there is room to improve benefits For example, three locals have obtained coverage in the range of $2,000 to $2,500/year for psychotherapy, counselling, and social work. (The CapU administration has so far resisted our proposal to increase psychotherapy/clinical counselling coverage above the current $1,000.) In short, other colleges and universities are negotiating changes to their benefits plans that already set new “high-water marks.” That is what negotiations are for, especially in a round in which the government is providing free money to the university.
To repeat: there is an annual amount of $253,000 from the government for changes negotiated now, as long as the money does not go towards a general wage increase. On top of that, we obtained funding from the government last round that gives us an extra $100,000 a year to work with. And the employer’s negotiator has repeatedly acknowledged that CapU can spend more than these new amounts. In fact, the administration is free to use its own operational budget for cost items, which is also what negotiations are for: deciding what changes to make, using the University’s revenues for cost items. Again, CapU’s average annual surplus for the past decade is more than $5,000,000. They just choose not to use their revenue: they are (so far) expressly refusing to spend more than the new money from the government.
Non-cost items: how do you feel about a monthly pay cut in 2024/25?
During the meeting, we signed off on several of the CFA proposals we had been negotiating in the spring. (These are all CFA proposals, since the employer withdrew its proposals in April, most of which were about deleting the collegial decision-making model and union support.) We also discussed four “non-cost” proposals that are still unresolved.
One of these is about Elder and union steward support for Indigenous faculty. On this, the employer is resisting a right for Indigenous faculty to have a union steward present during meetings with administrators, though they are willing to agree to our proposal for an Elder or knowledge keeper at such meetings.
The most contentious non-cost item is one that we thought the employer would welcome: changing the academic year to September-August, replacing the current August-July. Among other things, this would avoid the complications caused by the last month of the summer term being in the next academic year.
To our surprise last spring, the employer had raised an undefined “transition” concern with this proposal. In June they proposed referring the question to committee rather than changing the academic year. Today we asked them for an actual counter-proposal.
Their response was surprising: in the view of the HR department, changing the academic year would cost the University administration $3,000,000. This is because they see it as giving regular faculty an extra month of pay, over the course of their careers at CapU.
The employer’s solution? To reduce regular faculty members’ monthly income in the first academic year of the new agreement. They suggested spreading regular faculty income in that year over 13 months, to save the administration from paying a (theoretical) extra month of pay in the future, when the member retires or resigns. For an RFT at step 1, this would reduce their monthly income by more than $650/month for 13 months.
We see this “solution” as unnecessary: we see it as penalizing faculty now to pay for a theoretical future cost. We explained this perspective to the employer. We hope the University will withdraw is “transition” concern. Your committee will continue to argue that embracing this change to the academic year is beneficial for the University as a whole, and that making regulars pay for the theoretical future cost is not reasonable.
We will update you on progress on monetary proposals and the academic year as soon as we can.
In solidarity,
Bargaining Committee members Tim Acton, Doug Alards-Tomalin, Eduardo Azmitia, Michael Begg, and FPSE representative Monica Staff