Bargaining Membership Survey 2017 Presentation to YUFA Executive Committee
683 Responses (44.9% response rate)
Who Responded? Please select your stream Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Alternate Stream 6.8% 46 Librarian or Archivist 3.8% 26 Post-Doctoral Visitor 0.9% 6 Professorial Stream 88.5% 599 answered question 677 677 skipped question 6
Professorial and Alternate Stream Please describe your contract type Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Probationary 8.1% 52 Contractually Limited 2.3% 15 Special Renewable Contract 0.0% 0 Tenured 88.9% 569 Continuing 0.6% 4 answered question 640 640 skipped question 43 43
Librarians and Archivists Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Probationary 0.0% 0 Contractually Limited 17.2% 5 Continuing 82.8% 24 answered question 29 29 skipped question 654 654
Indicate the importance of improving the following areas of the collective agreement in the next round of bargaining Area Average Score* Salary 3.95 Benefits for Active YUFA Members 4.14 Equity, Diversity and Inclusivity 3.18 Maximum 2.0 FCE teaching load for 4.09 Professorial Stream Faculty Reduce Teaching Load for Alternate Stream 2.91 Faculty to Below 3.5 FCE Working Conditions 3.55 Retirement Benefits 4.35 Governance and Collegiality 4.22 Sabbatical Leave and Salary 3.55 Faculty, Librarian and Archivist 3.78 Complement * Based on the scale where 5=very important and 1= not at all important.
Indicate the importance of improving the following areas of the collective agreement in the next round of bargaining Area Average Score* Short Term Leave to Care for Family, 3.32 Spouse, Partner Grievance, Arbitration and Accommodation 3.74 Timelines Academic Freedom 3.4 Working Conditions and Benefits for 2.4 PDVs** *Based on a scale where 5=very important and 1=not at all important. ** Only Post-Doctoral Visitors answered this question.
Importance of Maximum 2.0 FCE Teaching Load by Faculty Faculty Average Score* Arts, Media, Performance and Design 4.0 Education 4.5 Lassonde School of Engineering 1.9 Environmental Studies 3.2 Glendon 4.4 Health 2.4 Liberal Arts and Professional Studies 4.1 Schulich 3.0 Science 2.4 Overall 3.5 * Based on a scale where 5=very important and 1=not at all important.
Importance of Retiree Benefits by Age Age Range Average Score* 28-40 2.1 40-50 3.0 50-60 3.7 60 plus 4.2 Overall 3.6 * Based on a scale where 5=very important and 1=not at all important.
Other Areas of Improvement in the C/A Benefits, especially extended health care, vision and dental Retiree benefits Teaching load Accommodations for disabilities Mental health issues (faculty and students) Conversions of sessional and CLA instructors to tenure-track Trans-Health fund increase Merit-based salary bonuses Conflict of interest language for Associate Deans, Deans and VPs PER and salary plus many more
What is the one thing YUFA should achieve in the next round of bargaining? Maximum 2.0 teaching load for Professorial stream – 1. automatic, no strings attached, no application required Salary increase (range of 2.5-3% per annum) 2. Increase in faculty, librarian and archivist complement 3. (including conversion program for CLAs) Improvements in retiree benefits 4. No strike/no strike vote 5.
Importance of Governance Issues Issue Average Score* Open Senior Administration personnel searches 3.75 Revision of current Presidential search procedures 3.57 Open searches for Deans, Principals and University Librarian 3.83 Require the Board of Governors to follow its own by-laws by 3.98 appointing members who are broadly representative of the community Removing a Dean’s/Principal’s/University Librarian’s power to 3.75 alter the shortlist in faculty, librarian and archivist searches Removing a Dean’s/Principal’s/University Librarian’s power with 3.71 respect to discretion to decline a search committee’s choice of a tenure-stream candidate *Based on a scale where 5=very important and 1=not at all important.
Comments about governance There must be a mechanism to evaluate the performance of deans, vice presidents, presidents and other important administrators. This evaluation should be done by students, faculty and staff. It should be made public and open to the community. Students are evaluated by their performance in courses, faculty members are evaluated by students. Administrators only answer to the board, yet the people that they serve, namely, faculty, students and staff have no way to evaluate them. I think it is important that a check and balances mechanism is created so that our administrators have a better understanding of our community and collegiality could prevail. The libraries are more precariously situated in matters of collegial governance. We do not have a Faculty Council, despite best efforts, and communication and decision making on matters of academic policy continue to reside with the University Librarian's Office. Individual and collective dealings with the ULO are continuously stalled by cancelled and postponed meetings, and despite a constant stated commitment to clear communication, we have seen nothing. Workload issues continue to go unresolved and collegial processes are bypassed. One department in the Libraries has not had a chair since January, and reports to an AUL who is largely unresponsive. The erosion of collegial governance is a serious matter for the whole campus, but is particularly acute in the Libraries.
In your experience, how has the influence of administrators such as Deans, Principals, the University Librarian and Vice Presidents over academic governance and collegiality changed in the past five years? Answer Choices Number and Percentage Has decreased 48 (8.11) Has remained the same 199 (33.61) Has increased 345 (58.28)
How would you assess the current level of influence and control that administrators (at the decanal level and above) have over academic governance and recruitment? Answer Number and Percentage Too little 14 (2.37) The right amount 182 (30.80) Too much 395 (66.84)
Please prioritize the following improvements to advance equity, diversity and inclusivity where 5=very important and 1=not at all important. Issue Average Score* Reducing the timelines for providing 4.13 accommodations to persons with disabilities The national external availability figure for 3.35 racialized faculty should be replaced by a Toronto census metropolitan area (CMA) external availability figure Equal pay exercise be mandated for all equity- 3.45 seeking groups 30% unit threshold for hiring racialized persons 3.17 Include LGBTQ2 persons as an additional 2.83 affirmative action category Collecting and reporting the disaggregated 3.57 numbers of equity-seeking groups *Based on a scale where 5=very important and 1=not at all important
Request accommodation for a disability? Treated fairly? Answer Number and Answer Number and Percentage Percentage Yes 95 (16.1) Yes 55 (55.56) No 495 (83.9) No 44 (44.44)
Accommodation adequate to your needs? Answer Number and Percentage Yes 45 (44.12) Partially adequate 16 (15.69) No 6 (5.88)
Tell us why the accommodation provided was only partially or not at all adequate Slow, slow, and slow. The system is broken. Meanwhile, my work suffered. I'm still waiting for some of my accommodation needs to be met after more than a year and half. Time delays to often appear willful and punitive. The wellbeing office over the years has moved from [some] advocacy to [significantly] adversarial. When I asked about having a classroom that was near to my office I was told this would take years to get. This doesn't sound like accommodation to me. I was required to provide an updated medical opinion as "proof" of my disability, even though it is congenital and will never change. The HR personnel in my Dean's Office was rude, condescending, cruel. I was in an accident and two areas of my body were broken (ie, broken bones) and sprains were in several areas. She said she had a friend "with similar injuries who healed in a few weeks" and she asked whether I was "trying to get better?" !!!
Was the accommodation provided to you in a timely fashion? Answer Number and Percentage Yes 48 (49.48%) There was some delay 24 (24.74) There was considerable delay 25 (25.77)
Please indicate the importance of the following benefits improvements where 5=very important and 1=not at all important. Issue Average Score Overall retirees’ benefit coverage 4.5 PER parity for all retired members with the rate 3.2 negotiated for current members Retired members’ access to Conference Travel 3.1 Funds on the same basis as active members assuming a proportional increase in the total amount of funding Incentives for early retirement 3.4 Improve dental benefits 3.5 Improvements in out-of-country coverage without 3.5 additional cost Improve coverage for eyeglasses 3.7
Several bargaining frameworks can be used to address concerns about salaries. Rate the proposals below by how strongly you support them where 5=very strongly support and 1=do not support. Issue Average Score Increase the annual PTR increment 3.91 A base salary increase reflecting the annual 4.35 cost of living in the GTA Raise the salary floors which set minimums 3.22 for various ranks
Recommend
More recommend
