Landing : Athabascau University
  • Discussion
  • AUGSA
  • Consultation between AUGSA bargaining team and existing GRA workforce?

Consultation between AUGSA bargaining team and existing GRA workforce?

  • Public

Consultation between AUGSA bargaining team and existing GRA workforce?

Started by sarah beth April 27, 2012 - 1:00pm Replies (59)

Hi all,

This is a discussion of AUGSA's representation of existing research assistants and potential future TAs and RAs, migrated from where it popped up (in the copyright group), here: https://landing.athabascau.ca/pg/blog/read/113747/why-the-acdeal-is-bad-for-students-innovation-amp-academic-freedom-the-short-version. I'm moving it here because the copyright issue is a pressing one, and I don't want to hijack the group. :)

After a bit of discussion (please read the original thread), Amanda wrote:

Hi Sarah,

Yep - this is getting long! What's your email address? I'll email you offline. I'm at president@augsa.com.

We don't have a town hall planned for graduate student collective agreements, though again, you're welcome to send in some feedback if you have specific items or articles you'd like us to consider. We've reviewed a variety of agreements (University of Calgary, University of Alberta, University of Lethbridge, Waterloo, Dalhousie, University of British Columbia, etc) to help prepare; these agreements will all be quite similar to ours in nature. Our hope is to use the University of Calgary GSA agreement as a starting place for ours. We're tremendously fortunate to have outstanding support from our partner student organizations, volunteer legal counsel, and free training and support from AUPE (one of the largest unions in Alberta). 

Looking forward to chatting more over email! A phone or Skype conversation might also be great, if you'd like?

Warmly,

Amanda

And my reply:

Hi Amanda,

I'd love to Skype sometime, but I think we should have these conversations in ways that are open to as many other existing workers as possible, don't you? I'm so happy that the AUGSA is taking this on, of course, and I'm sure we'll find that everyone is glad to hear your updates, but you really must consult with the workers you're representing before you sign a contract on our behalf!

cheers,

Sarah

OK, we're up to speed. Thanks for the discussion, Amanda! I really am pleased that AUGSA is working on this and willing to talk on the Landing. Looking forward to more updates and public consultation (but in the AUGSA group and not the copyright group). :D

Replies

  • sarah beth May 7, 2012 - 11:07am

    Hi Amanda,

    Yes, I agree: one survey per member makes sense. 

    Very good news about security and privacy from the survey company!!

    cheers,

    Sarah

  • Amanda Nielsen May 7, 2012 - 11:16am

    Hi Sarah,

    Awesome. I have a formal inquiry in with both our elections software company (White Matter) and Athabasca University to see how they might be able to help us to administer the survey, and for what costs. I've asked that the survey ensure data is stored in a secure format (that can later be published), that the survey allows us to authenticate that someone is an AU graduate student before they answer (presumably through their student ID and password, just like with our elections), and that the software allows one response per student. We'll see who can do it more affordably while meeting our specs.

    A quick note on publishing the survey results. It will be easy to publish the ranked questions, but we won't want to publish people's names and contact information (for those that choose to provide this information). In addition, I think we'll want to closely comb through the 'comment' questions to ensure people aren't revealing comprimising information about themselves. I want to make sure we aren't violating individual privacy. I worry that some people could be identified based on 'writing style alone'; AU is ultimately a very small community.

    What are your thoughts on simply not publishing the data put in the comments section to ensure compromising information isn't published? We could opt to not publish this data, or comb through it heavily to remove any accidental personal data included there. 

    Amanda

  • sarah beth May 7, 2012 - 3:10pm

    Maybe it would be simpler (and less problematic, unless there are established guidelines for differentiating "identifying" from "non-identifying" comments) to decide in advance whether you want to publish comments (after removing names and emails) or only ranked questions, and note that at the beginning of the survey. Then folks can decide for themselves what to say.

  • Amanda Nielsen May 7, 2012 - 7:05pm

    Hmm. I think it would be safest to just omit the comments from the published results, and to add a note at the start of the survey letting people know what will and will not be published. From there, folks can decide individually what they would like to share.

    Amanda

  • Heather Clitheroe May 12, 2012 - 12:31pm

    It would be good to work in a clause to give a grad student the option to refuse salary or to accept a tuition waiver as salary in kind. As you say, Amanda, many of us are working - and while I'd love the chance to be a TA, the salary would screw my taxes up pretty badly. I wouldn't want to accept a paid TA position for that reason alone.

  • sarah beth May 12, 2012 - 5:16pm

    Some staff do have access to a Research Grant in Lieu of Salary, but it sounds like it's a bit complicated -- probably to make sure nobody gets out of paying income tax that reflects their real income. 

    But U Calgary's collective agreement did include a stipend and tuition waiver instead of a flat wage. That might only affect our tuition tax credits. 

    For the many of us who are working, but still not making ends meet, and who don't have access to the awards AU offers for Alberta residents only, maybe Heather brings up a good reason for hiring preference to reflect first merit, and then financial need. If we're already fighting for the advantage of having jobs that others (namely CUPE) are better qualified for, then it's already not exactly a meritocracy.

    I wonder if someone working full time and studying, who is already underqualified for a teaching position normally held by a professor with a PhD whose only job is teaching, could even do as time-consuming and difficult a job as tutoring. There are only so many hours in a day. (AU has super grad students, of course, but I can't imagine it'd benefit our reputation to advertise as the only school in Canada where undergrad classes are taught by grad student volunteers...)

    Would there be a way for students who don't need the money, but take positions for the experience, to donate their wages to AUGSA as charitable donations? Then they wouldn't have to worry about paying more income tax, and more bursaries could be made available for students struggling to pay their tuition. 

  • Heather Clitheroe May 12, 2012 - 5:44pm

    Personally, I would not want to have wages donated to AUGSA. And the idea of hiring based on financial need seems a bit ludicrous. Is that the way TA and RA gigs work? Merit then need?

     

    Realistically, too...how would a TAship for a distance Ed course even work?

  • sarah beth May 12, 2012 - 6:14pm

    Around here, most contracts seem to give preference first to meeting the job qualifications, then to current grad students, then to members with seniority. 

    I think need is a very good idea, in keeping with AU's mission. It would especially benefit working students with families who have much higher costs of living than single students, as well as students who aren't Alberta residents and so are arbtrarily (i.e., not based on merit) disqualified from awards. 

    What AUGSA is asking currently working RAs to do here is to leverage our jobs (in essence, to be allowed to say "these positions can't be filled, these workers can't work, unless...") for the benefit of all AUGSA members who want jobs. I don't think it's "ludicrous" to recognize that those of us who applied for the RA jobs advertised up until now actually do need them. 

  • sarah beth May 12, 2012 - 6:33pm

    Oh, but Ryerson University does have RA positions through a work-study program that's open only to current students and based in part on financial need. Their TA positions are as described above.

    It looks like there is internal funding faculty can apply for to create the RA positions.

    So I guess it wouldn't be unique to AU or to the school's mission to reduce barriers to education, but it still seems especially well-suited to consider financial need.

  • Diane Meyia Mengue May 19, 2012 - 5:04pm

    Hi Heather,

    That sounds like a great idea, we just have to be careful in how we draft the clause to meet the needs of all grad students. This is because reading the past discussions, there are two groups of grad. students: the working poor, who needs an extra income as (RA or TA) to make ends means, and the those who only need the position for working experience, and do not really need the money (but will prefer a tuition waiver or have thieir salary donated to charities.

    Olivia

  • Diane Meyia Mengue May 19, 2012 - 6:23pm

    Hi Sarah,

    I think that if graduate students whose main objective to be hired as TA or RA is just for the working experience and not the money, they could make the choice to donate their money to AUGSA or any other charitable organizations.

    Thanks,

     

    Olivia

  • Diane Meyia Mengue May 19, 2012 - 6:30pm

    Hi Heather,

     

    As I say again, if a TA or RA is not interested in the money but the work experience, they have a choice to donate to AUGSA or any other organizations. In other words, it is a matter of choice for the grad. student.

    For the sake of fairness, and equality in the collective agreement, I do not think the hiring process of TA and RA's should only be based on financial needs but also of merit or qualification to act as a TA or RA at AU. We want to make sure that we have the best TA's and RA at AU, and not the other side.

     

    Thanks,

     

    Olivia

  • Diane Meyia Mengue May 19, 2012 - 6:44pm

    Hi Heather,

     

    In response to your question:

    Realistically, too...how would a TAship for a distance Ed course even work?

    In my understanding, a TA position for distance education will be similar to that of a traditional university, but the only difference is that the TA will not be attending the class or forum in person or live. The course coordinator can create a forum or a "student cafe" with facilitators or TA who will assist the student in whatever difficulties they are facing in the course. I belief a TA position is very much plausible in a distance education, and will be of benefit to students, as well as reduce the work load of the professor. A TA can also assist the professor by reading students's email, and responding to them daily. Also in the event that a professor has to be absent from the course due to life emmergency, a TA can fill up that gap, and ensure that  students do not suffer from the professor's absence.

     

    I hope I have been able to answer your question.

    Have a good day,

     

    Olivia

  • Diane Meyia Mengue May 19, 2012 - 6:57pm

    Hi Sarah,

     

    In response to your last post, do you want the RA and TA position to be funded by the AU Awards and Scholarship department through a work-study program? In so doing this program will approve students' application only based on their financial needs and not experience or qualifications. It will only be beneficial to current graduate students, and not previous grad. students who had worked as RA or TA. In that case it completely changes the way the survey questions had been drafted.

    I think that if we want AU to reduce barriers based on the university's mission, another plausible way will be to create a work study program, and also hire students based on their qualifications. In this way, the needs of AUGSA members' found in the two groups will be met.

    I think we will need a clear definition of a work-study program, if that is what members will be considering.

    Have a nice weekend,

    Olivia

  • Eric von Stackelberg May 19, 2012 - 7:14pm

    If interaction and dialogue increases learning opportunities then integrating TA's into class interactions effectively as part of a teaching team could generate benefits to the students (more discussion), professor (decreased workload) and TA (work experience). TA's as teachers I expect would seriously hurt AU's reputation.

    You may want to consider the impact if the "collective agreement" destroys the availability of TA and RA positions. I am not sure of the funding distribution but I understand the amount of government funding AU recieves is less that institutions like U of A, which suggests to me that UofC is also in a similar position. This means faculty or admin have to generate the applications for additional project funding to pay for the TA and RA positions. If the professor is spending the time on grant paperwork, they are not teaching...effectively producing less value for the students who have already paid. Just something to consider.

    Best

    Eric

  • Steven Harris May 19, 2012 - 9:33pm

    I disagree on a couple of your points, Eric.  First off every other University that I'm aware of has TAs teaching at least significant parts of a classroom course, and often acting as the sole tutors for online courses - and you don't see UBC, SFU, UC Irvine, or TRU hurting for it - and those are just Universities I have personal experience with.

    Secondly, in my Department anyway, many RA positions are created under a prominent Research Chair held by one of the Professors.  Not only is the research conducted by the teams of Professors and RAs under the Chair of world class quality, but it lends credibility to the notion of AU as an authentic research-based degree granting institution.  In fact I would argue, that rather than a drain on resources, this process is a huge boon to the reputation of the University, and adds value to all of our degrees.

    Finally, I would caution about making assumptions as to how AU is funded for these positions, as opposed to UC or U of A.  Much of this money - especially in the case of RAs - can come from a number of levels of government and industry sources, and I fully expect the negotiating team will take this into consideration going forward.  Personally, I believe RA and TA positions - along with the expanded teaching and research capacity - are going to be the lifeblood of the University moving forward, as AU continues its attempts to be a world leading institution in the area of online education.

    Steve

  • sarah beth May 19, 2012 - 10:15pm

    Olivia: I really like the idea of a work-study program where faculty are funded to hire RAs with financial need. Sounds like a program that would benefit everyone involved. That's probably outside the scope of the bargaining discussion, but if you were to start a thread on how AUGSA would advocate for such a program, I would be very interested in following its developments.

     

    Otherwise, I want to ask for more information. Obviously, I have opinions on what would make for an equitable collective agreement, and I am not in favour of any suggestions that AUGSA should purposely bargain away my income or other benefits and good working conditions.

    But the point of starting this conversation wasn't to get into those debates, but to find out how many positions there are, what current workers want out of negotiations, and how the negotiations will affect grad students making their livings as RAs right now, in order to better inform those debates. I'd also like to know what the expected benefits of these negotiations will be -- has AU committed to funding faculty to create more positions? How will the positions currently being filled improve?

    Amanda and Olivia, any ETA on a survey, or more information from AUGSA and AU about negotiations? I know you are already putting 110% into this, and I think we'd all love an update! (And it seems especially important that currently working RAs be able to communicate with AUGSA and with each other -- any non-Landing users might still need to be notified that bargaining is happening at all...) :-)

     

    [I edited this comment almost a day after posting it, since I noticed that a comment in my inbox, which I cited, has been slightly edited, and I want to respect the writer's right to change their mind about what they put out there.]

  • Eric von Stackelberg May 20, 2012 - 12:20pm

    It is my understanding that in Canada there is a general agreement that Grad students may only supervise labs, individuals with Master's may teach junior courses. As for money, in a number of cases the compensation is set by the funder and it takes significant resources to secure funding if you negotiate minimums in excess of that you will effectively be eliminating those roles.

    In my opinion it is more productive to have negotitations focused on factors AU controls, one example might be tutition credits, and also consider the circumstances of the organization. The environment of AU and how it is funded is different recognizing that increases the potential for a better result.

    A couple of years ago there was an internship program (+$1m / year). Part of the reason for not pursuing it was most of the AU student body was percieved to have full and satisfactory employment. I thought Sarah made a good point in that it is a poor assumption that employment is sufficient. I would add it may also not be satisfactory. My point here is that you may want to consider other initiatives as part of the negotiation package.    

    I believe TA and RA roles have excellent potential and could make a significant difference for AU in the future. I learned alot about academica in my stint as an RA and I would have considered time as a TA in a teaching team as valuable.

    Best

    Eric

  • sarah beth May 20, 2012 - 1:02pm

    Eric, I agree that things like tuition waivers and other non-cash benefits, like job security, could be as important as flat income. Tuition, for me, is about half my annual cost of living; I'd still be way below the poverty line without having to pay it, but my life would be a heck of a lot easier. Long term, job security, not flat income, is my #1 priority.

    My worry with a purposefully deflated wage is that it might not come with other compensation to make up for it. RA pay is already regulated at AU, and it's already pretty low. I don't know about industry funding, but Tri-Council and internal funding both ask the professor to refer to the institution's regulated rates of pay for RAs, so the positions aren't eliminated by regulation. 

    My other worry with a purposefully deflated wage, specifically for TAs, is that it encourages the institution to hire graduate students for jobs currently filled by much more qualified workers, just because we're cheaper. TA positions could be great training and experience and I think most grad students are well qualified to be assistants (and to be paid about the same as TAs at other institutions), but only if we're properly trained and supervised, subject to fair disciplinary procedures if we don't do our jobs well, have the ability to grieve working conditions that prevent us from doing our jobs well, and have adequate time and resources to do our jobs (which really might mean that a student working full-time and taking courses cannot also be a TA). That can't be done with volunteers, and won't be done with TAs hired just because they're cheap. 

    Fortunately, AU grad students have tons of skills and talents to market that don't involve just being cheap labour.

  • Eric von Stackelberg May 20, 2012 - 6:53pm

    Sarah, I agree with your concerns and I am not suggesting deflated compensation. I would not, and have not accepted it in the past and so I would not ask others to accept it. I am suggesting a mixed compensation package that is based on market value.

    I believe that focusing on monetary compensation may be self-defeating given the current funding climate and trends in post-secondary education. If the focus is on $, and only X dollars are available then it becomes either accept less (disadvantages the workers) or do less (disadvantages the organizations and workers who did not obtain the position). Instead, shifting focus to a market compensation package that includes monetary and non-monetary components can be made in the best interests of everyone. While not ranked, if you look at the incremental costs to AU of tuition, library access, job security and conference expenses are likely the top four non-monetary benefits that cost a university less than the actual cost to an individual. Of course this does not figure in the accounting costs or how the taxable benefits would be calculated.

    Last comment before I get back to work. I agree with the same total compensation (monetary and non-monetary) for the same job, however that assumes these are actually going to be the same. I doubt that is the case because the comparisons are against bricks & mortar versus distance. It would likely be better to compare against NKI tutors rather than U of C TA's. It is also in AU's interest to lead in distance education, rather than be the same which also suggests differences in the job tasks.

  • Amanda Nielsen May 21, 2012 - 8:06pm

    Hi everyone,

    My apologies for the delay in responding to folks on this thread - I've been swamped in the world of AUGSA Executive transition.

    A couple of updates: During our transition, our new Executive team had the opportunity to meet with Werner Bongers, a seasoned collective agreement negotiator from AUPE Local 038, and gain some valuable advice from him in terms of how to negotiate effectively. We also had the opportunity to meet with representatives from AUFA, CUPE, and AUPE, and discussed negotiations and strategies for all four unions.  The GSA will be arranging bi-monthly telephone conversations to facilitate the unions staying in touch in the upcoming year.

    Our new Executive team also got to meet with Dr. Margaret Haughey (AU VP Academic), Dr. Pamela Hawranik (AU Dean of Graduate Studies), Dr. Frits Pannekoek (AU President) and members of the AU Board of Governors. Our transition is still in progress, but I'm more confident than ever than our new Executive team will represent AU graduate students well at the bargaining table. In our meeting with Dr. Haughey, she indicated that AU is ready to begin negotiations with us 'shortly'. 

    We're still working on getting the survey up and running. Our current options are to use the AUGSA Fluid Survey account (free, since we already have a subscription), or use the AUGSA elections software provider (Whyte Matter).  The Fluid Survey account would allow us to poll folks at no charge, but would not ensure that only AU graduate students respond, and would not prevent multiple responses per student. A Whyte Matter survey would allow us to restrict responses to current graduate students with one response per student, but would come with a steep fee ($3000+). I have an inquiry in with Jasper Buys, Director in the AU President's Office, to see if AU has a software that we might be able to use with our desired specs for free. I anticipate that he will get back to me sometime in the next few weeks. If AU doesn't have a survey software that we can use, I'll be suggesting to the Executive team that we proceed with Fluid Survey to save on costs. If we end up going this route, we will just ask that only AU graduate students respond, and that folks limit their responses to one submission.

    In terms of publishing the survey, I will be recommending that we only publish the 'multiple choice' responses, and not the long-form written responses. This will ensure student privacy is protected in our survey process.

    I've been reading the dialogue about the desire to not to be paid for work with great interest. Unfortunately, I do not believe that refusing salary will be an option. However, one option might be to donate salary money back to the university (or AUGSA, if you prefer) with the possibility of getting a tax receipt (which may offset tax penalties) in return. The GSA itself does not have charitable status, but we've been contemplating the idea of starting an endowment fund with the university for some time now... This could be a good time to actually get that started. We have arranged a meeting with the AU Advancement office in early June to discuss this possibility, and will keep you posted. As another option, we will also discuss the idea of 'tuition waivers in lieu'; I suspect this proposal could get complicated, and don't know how willing AU will be to discuss this, but worth a try. 

    Olivia Meyia (our new VP Academic) has emailed the Human Resources folks at AU to inquire how many AU graduate students are currently working as Research Assistants or Teaching Assistants, and to ask what union currently represents them. We hope to begin a dialogue with AU and the other unions shortly about how to transition currently working graduate students to our union, and what processes are most appropriate. 

    Work-study programs are outside the scope of our collective agreements, but are something we can look into, and perhaps ask for in the future. Can anyone send Olivia and I some links to university websites with information on these programs?

    I'll echo some of the excellent comments already made by folks; I believe that RA and TA work for AU graduate students will benefit not only our members, but the wider university community as well. Naturally, this needs to be done in a way that respects process, with appropriate agreements, etc, but in the long-run, I'm sure that the AUGSA collective agreeements will be a win-win for everyone.

    Hope everyone had a lovely long weekend!

    Warmly,

    Amanda :) 

  • sarah beth May 21, 2012 - 10:30pm

    Hi Amanda -- this all looks like great news. Just wanted to say thanks for the hard work and for the update. :)

  • Heather Clitheroe July 6, 2012 - 9:54am

    Any updates on this?

  • Amanda Nielsen July 24, 2012 - 11:44am

    Strong chance that negotiations will begin this Saturday! Fingers crossed. ;)

    Amanda

  • Steven Harris August 1, 2012 - 11:37am

    Hi everyone,

    I have been asked by a number of people in my Faculty whether it is possible to attend an AUGSA Council meeting, and possibly discuss this issue with the Executive and the Negotiating Team (which are largely the same folks anyway). In general, any student can sit in and listen on an AUGSA Council meeting (it’s a virtual meeting via GoToMeeting); though if you plan on attending – or making a presentation or comments of some sort - it would be ideal if you contact the main office (augsa@augsa.com) and let them know, so they can plan for it and let you know how to get connected.

    It would also help if you contact the Council Rep(s) for your own Faculty or Centre to make sure they know how your feel, because ultimately AUGSA Council has the final vote on whether to accept or reject the agreement. Their names and contact info are listed on the site here:  http://www.augsa.com/index.php/about/council-members/228-faculty-a-centre-representatives.html

    Regards,

    Steve Harris

    AUGSA Faculty of Science and Technology Representative

AUGSA

AUGSA

A group for the Athabasca University Graduate Students' Association (AUGSA).