Bargaining Bulletin #9

Reminder to fill out our paramedical benefits survey if you have not done so. We would like all responses by the end of the day (tonight, 10 May). Link to Survey

CFA bargaining updates, as of 3 May

Monetary proposals | Benefits survey | Employer has withdrawn anti–collegial model, anti-union proposals

Since our last update, on 6 April, your bargaining committee has been working to shift negotiations to the proposals we think are most important to you: restoring lost value of our benefits; equitable pay rates; funding for research and scholarship; and numerous “non-cost” proposals that will improve work for faculty. 

We are finally exploring the cost items at the table. Although we are still hamstrung by a lack of detailed financial information from the employer, we are working with what we have. 

This bulletin includes an explanation of the money the B.C. government is giving CapU for “cost items.” We have one time-sensitive request: please complete a survey on paramedical benefits by the end of Wednesday, 10 May.

Collegial model / union rights

At the beginning of this round of negotiations, the employer sought to replace the collegial model and union rights with top-down management. Your committee listened to the concerns the employer shared about the current model, and we attempted to address their concerns, but the employer responded with more changes that would muddle or erode the model. On 20 April, we told the employer we were not willing to spend more bargaining time on the concessions they were seeking. We asked to focus talks on proposals that would improve the University for everyone, not just senior administrators. 

On 1 May the employer agreed to withdraw all of its proposals, except for a few on which the parties have mutual interest. We believe this is the result of your unity of support for the collegial model. Thank you again for that support.

“Cost proposals”

Money from the government

As noted above, we are now starting to negotiate proposals that the University sees as “cost items”: changes that would require it to spend more than it currently spends. It is essential to understand one key point: the only money on the table is directly from the government, not the University administration.

General wage increase: In simplified terms, the B.C. government is increasing salaries for all college and University faculty and staff by 3.24% in year 1 (April 2022–March 2023); 6.75% in year 2; and 2-3% in year 3, depending on inflation. 

We asked the University administration whether it can exceed the mandated wage increase from the government. Their negotiator says the government has forbidden the University from exceeding the mandate, so we have asked for written confirmation from the government. If we get that confirmation, it will be clear that there is no room to negotiate on general salary increase.

Other cost items

We have proposed updates in benefits, a change in the calculation of the hourly rate for private music instructors, budget for research and scholarship, placement of non-regular faculty on scale without a cap, etc. These are all “cost items” that are separate from the general wage increase. We are now negotiating how much these will actually cost the University. That is critical, because the University is unwilling to increase its costs beyond the two “pots of money” that the B.C. government is providing to each college or university. We have to work with the funds provided by the government; the university has not committed any money from their surpluses. 

The government has allocated two pots of money. In 2020, we negotiated an ongoing “service improvement” fund of $283,000 per year for cost items. That money paid for two things from the 2020 round: increasing the cap on initial NREG scale placement from step 8 to step 5, and coordinator training. Those expenses do not use up all of the $283,000. Unused money rolls over, which gives us approximately $100,000 per year to pay for cost items in this round.

For this round, the government is also giving “flex funding” to locals. That is about $253,000 per year starting now. CapU receives this money only if it agrees to proposals (other than the general wage increase above) that would increase its expenses. 

This means we have about $353,000 to cover the annual cost of new proposals. Unlike the wage increase, the University administration can, apparently, exceed this amount. But that is all the money the government is giving for new proposals. Anything more would come from the University’s operational budget. 

The University has had an average annual surplus of $5,000,000 over the past decade, so it can afford to allocate money to cost items. So far, the employer’s committee has said it will only agree to items that fit within the two pots of new money from the government. We hope that they will agree to mutually beneficial changes even if they may cost more.

Benefits survey

To help us negotiate for improvements in benefits, we ask that you take a few minutes to do a survey about your use of paramedical services. Your answers will give us a rational basis to estimate the cost of our benefits proposals, to see how they fit within the pots of money. Please click here to do the survey. It will take a few minutes at most.

“Non-cost” proposals

The parties have reached agreement on some proposals. Once we have signed off on these, we will post them for you to read. They include sunset clauses for discipline documents, confirmation that faculty are appointed into functional areas, and equity and diversity in hiring. We have also agreed on changing the academic year to September through August, but have to address a transition issue HR is concerned about.

On regularization, we have failed to reach agreement. The employer said in January that they wanted to “simplify” the process, but did not table specific proposals. We tabled proposals that would simplify regularization, and initially there seemed to be potential for agreement. However, the employer’s counter-proposals either added more complication (adding a restriction that would likely reduce the number of regularizations) or required the elimination of a significant right of regular faculty (to have their commitment level met in two terms). We cannot agree to these concessions. The reality is that the things that complicate regularization are the restrictions the employer wants to keep or expand. Regrettably, the employer has indicated that there is no room to move.

There are four proposals related to decolonization and Indigenous faculty on the table. The employer initially refused to discuss the CFA proposals to support Indigenous faculty. They stated that the CFA proposing these on behalf of faculty violated the “principle of self-determination.” We have asked them to reconsider, and await a response. We are also working on a proposal for a committee to work on decolonization. The employer wants this committee to look only at our collective agreement while our Indigenous faculty guided us in the creation of a proposal for an inclusive committee that could address decolonization of the University as a whole.

We hope this information is helpful to you, and look forward to discussing it further at the CFA annual general meeting on 9 May.

In solidarity,

Michael Begg (Chief Bargainer), Douglas Alards-Tomalin, Tim Acton, Monica Staff (FPSE staff representative), Eduardo Azmitia: CFA President (ex officio)

P.S. 1: Click here for the latest updates on MoveUP negotiations (their update #8 is from 25 April)

P.S. 2: Note on “bulletins” from Kartik Bharadwa

On 15 & 16 April, Kartik Bharadwa, VP-People, Culture, and Diversity, sent another pair of bulletins to all employees. The bulletin about negotiations with the CFA was peculiar, referring to tangential topics and omitting most of what the parties have actually been discussing at the table. We regret that Mr Bharadwa has chosen to write directly to you and our MoveUP colleagues. We find his decision to write puzzling, especially given that he has not attended a single negotiations meeting with either union, and has almost no contact with the unions. (In all past rounds, the head of HR was the lead negotiator for the employer. This time, they have hired a lawyer from Hamilton, Ontario, to negotiate. Mr Bharadwa does not attend; he sends his executive assistant.) We recommend that you disregard these admin. bulletins. We are preparing a folder with all proposals tabled so far, for you to review if interested. In the meantime, if you have questions, please get in touch with us.