Why a Strike Vote Now?
Jim Clark
Members of the University of Winnipeg Faculty Association
(UWFA) have voted overwhelmingly to hold a strike vote over the
next few days. This call comes as a surprise for many people, so
here is my impression about why a strike vote has been forced on
our membership at such short notice by the University of Winnipeg
Administration and Board of Regents (Admin/Board) and why I feel
we should vote in favour of a strike. I am speaking
unofficially, as just another member of UWFA, although I have
been involved as a member of the Executive. My memory is far
from infallible, so I hope any factual errors will be corrected
by others. Please pass this on to other members who may not
access the bulletin boards. Thanks.
1. Our last contract expired 31 March 1997. Its conditions hold
for one year from that day (i.e., until 31 March 1998, which is
only a few short weeks away). After that date, it is not clear
what a hostile Admin/Board might do.
2. Given the acrimony of previous negotiations, UWFA agreed to
try principle-based bargaining, in which both sides state and try
to meet one another's interests. This manner of bargaining
involved much time in communicating interests and, on the
insistence of the Admin/Board, a minimal of public communication
to members (i.e., no negotiating in public). Until recently,
UWFA and its negotiating team believed that the Admin/Board was
sincerely interested in accommodating UWFA's interests to the
extent reasonable within financial constraints, so we gave
interest-based bargaining every possible opportunity to work,
including delaying implementation of the more confrontational
tactics that would be required to effect a satisfactory
resolution if the Admin/Board were in fact _not_ interested in a
negotiated settlement that was fair to both sides' interests.
3. Speculatively, it now appears that the Admin/Board were
either never interested in a settlement that would accommodate
our members' legitimate interests, have decided that it is our
turn to learn the lesson that was attempted with the University
of Manitoba Faculty Association several years ago, or have for
some other reason decided to renege on the promise implied by
interest-based bargaining of giving due consideration to both
parties' needs. That this intransigence has come so late in
negotiations and after a long period of information blackout
forced by the Admin/Board at least permits the unfortunate
interpretation that they were actually using principle-based
bargaining as a ploy to place our members in a position that
would make it extremely difficulty to get a fair and reasonable
settlement. Such a charge may very well be unjustified, but fits
well with the way that events have unfolded.
4. The Admin/Board have had only good financial news lately:
(a) The province has increased funding to Post-Secondary
institutions and it appears likely that UofW will fare
better even than average.
(b) It seems that the province is responding to UofW's
long-standing concern about lower funding levels than
comparable units at UofM. Part of the rationale for
such funding, of course, would have to be that UofW
pays faculty the same salary scale as UofM. If UofW's
salary scale was only 85% of UofM, for example, then
UofW should only be funded 85% of UofM.
(c) Faculty and Staff have agreed to use _their_ surplus
pension funds to offer early retirements. Part of the
rationale given in those negotiations was that faculty
and staff would see the savings from those early
retirements returned as improved earnings.
(d) Both Federal and Provincial governments are trying to
alleviate student financial burdens. Although improved
loans and grants are not as desirable as better base
funding for institutions, they should nonetheless have
a positive impact on enrollments and improve tuition
revenues.
Given these positive signs, an Admin/Board that is competent
and respectful of its workers should be able to find some way to
repay its employees for the years of hardship that have been
forced on us by inadequate funding.
5. We took as one of our primary financial issues an elimination
of days without pay, which has considerably eroded our nominal
salaries over recent years. At least some people thought that
the Admin/Board appreciated the unjustness of these clawbacks and
that they would be eliminated as soon as possible. Days without
pay are certainly unjust for faculty, who see absolutely no
reduction in their workload. There are the same classes to
teach, the same papers and exams to mark, the same research to
do, and so on. That is, the workload does not change one iota,
only our salaries decrease.
6. Our second primary financial issue is a return to equity with
the UofM salary scale. As Scott Forbes noted in a message last
week, UofW had parity with UofM at the beginning of this decade.
Here are Scott's figures for salary floors from 1991/92 in a
revised format.
Brandon Manitoba Winnipeg UofW as % UofM
Assistant Profs
91/92 Floors $33,440 $33,221 $33,221 100%
Present Floors $37,798 $40,868 $34,948 86%
%age increase 23% 5%
Associate Profs
91/92 Floors $43,890 $42,856 $42,391 99%
Present Floors $50,117 $52,718 $44,595 85%
%age increase 23% 5%
Full Profs
91/92 Floors $54,862 $55,385 $54,310 98%
Present Floors $63,156 $68,123 $57,134 84%
%age increase 23% 5%
We have dropped from approximate parity to about 85% of UofM
because their floors have increased by 23% while ours have
increased by only 5% (much less even than inflation over that
time period). Such an inadequate salary structure is ludicrous
if UofW wants to compete seriously with other universities
(without fudging salaries by hiring at higher steps) and to pay
its current faculty a respectable wage at _all_ ranks.
It is more difficult to arrive at similar figures for other
ranks, but it appears that things are not much better there and
might actually be worse. For example, our Instructor III floor
of $37,424 is only 88% of the average floor for UofM's Senior
Instructor and Instructor II ranks (i.e., $42,512). Our
Librarian IV floor of $47,166 is only 75% of the $62,509 floor
for UofM's Librarian rank. Although caution may be required in
comparisons across institutions for the non-professor ranks, such
differences as do exist are disturbing.
Scott also observed that floors at the other institutions
will undoubtedly rise in new rounds of negotiations (UofM has
just begun to negotiate). This is an important point! We are
actually asking for parity with a salary scale that is already
several years old and will soon be outdated.
7. In order to correct our salary scales and to alleviate the
underpayment at the low ends of each rank, UWFA Members have
agreed to move onto the new scale in a graduated fashion (first
assistants, then associates, then fulls). Moreover, many members
above the new scale, and especially those at the upper ends, have
expressed a willingness (undoubtedly reluctant) to accept only
Career Development Increments for the three years of this
contract and to see most of the additional money go to those who
are below the new salary scale. This is a _major_ sacrifice for
a large number of our members, one perhaps justified by the
substantial increases that they have enjoyed historically due to
the collective action of our association.
Despite this sacrifice by our members, despite our best
efforts to make principle-based bargaining work, and despite the
promise of improved revenues, the Admin/Board have steadfastly
refused to move anywhere close to parity with even the already
outdated floors of UofM. Here are the figures provided at the
general meeting for the Admin/Board's offer. I have included
several figures from above for comparison purposes.
Manitoba Winnipeg UofW as % UofM
Assistant Profs
91/92 Floors $33,221 $33,221 100%
Present Floors $40,868 $34,948 86%
%age increase 23% 5%
Admin/Board Offer $38,290 94% vs. old UofM
%inc 91/92 15%
Associate Profs
91/92 Floors $42,856 $42,391 99%
Present Floors $52,718 $44,595 85%
%age increase 23% 5%
Admin/Board Offer $48,847 93% vs. old UofM
%inc 91/92 15%
Full Profs
91/92 Floors $55,385 $54,310 98%
Present Floors $68,123 $57,134 84%
%age increase 23% 5%
Admin/Board Offer $61,310 90% vs. old UofM
%inc 91/92 13%
First, note that the Board's current offer is much less of
an increase relative to 91/92 than that already received by UofM.
They had increased by 23% several years ago, and we are only now
being offered much smaller 13%-15% increases. Second, we remain
far behind UofM's _current_ floors, which are bound to move in
the near future. Third, the Admin/Board is being most miserly
with the Full Professors, which is probably the salary that
counts most for the professor ranks as it is the terminal rank
for a majority of people. We already have a number of junior
Fulls who require redressment and it is the point to which
Associates and eventually even Assistants aspire. The
Admin/Board is trying to maintain the damaging and only recent
repression of salaries at that rank relative to UofM.
Remember that % increases above refer to the increase in the
floors and do _not_ represent the amount that most or even an
average of our members will receive. Because of the unselfish
way in which we have agreed to go onto the new scale (i.e., not
asking for everyone to receive the same % increase), the average
amount of increase will be _much_ less.
8. Perhaps in recognition of its minimalist offer to our
members, the Admin/Board has recently proposed a 5-year
settlement, but without any improvement in the first few years.
In three or four years down the road, they promise us a few
percentage points increase and parity with the current (i.e.,
circa 1996-1997) floors. It seems highly likely that the
Admin/Board knows that their financial situation will be quite
healthy at that time and they want to buy us off cheaply now
before those economic benefits manifest themselves. At the same
time they hope to get us cheaply now with the promise of
something in the future. Of course, many faculty hired in the
last decade have concerns about promised future benefits from the
Admin/Board, even minimalist ones like this (again far below
inflation). We came here with promises and expectations for
present and future salaries that have simply not been met. The
Admin/Board jumped on the days with no pay bandwagon to claw back
our salaries. They have given us partial or delayed CDIs in
recent years. We have seen no real growth in our salaries and
indeed much erosion relative to UofM, as noted above.
It is also unfortunate for perception's sake, if the
Admin/Board were sincere about an improved long-term offer, that
it has waited to this late date to introduce it and that it did
so without any notable improvement in its immediate offer. [It is
similarly unfortunate for perception's sake that today's Senate
Meeting was cancelled, since Senate is one of the few remaining
public forums in which faculty can express concerns about
institutional matters, such as the state of negotiations and the
academic impact of an impending strike.]
9. So here we are having to resort to classic bargaining
tactics, almost at the final expiry of the force of our contract,
and in the final stages of unsatisfactory and deeply
disappointing interest-based bargaining. We plan to continue
negotiations in good faith and despite widely-held frustrations,
have initiated conciliation, hope for mediation if acceptable to
the Admin/Board, and generally will do everything in our power to
reach a negotiated settlement without harm to the university and
its students. UofM enrollments suffered greatly from its strike
and that, I suspect, is part of the reason that it is so
aggressively recruiting undergraduates at present (e.g.,
University I, flooding the media). The last thing UofW needs in
this very competitive climate is a strike or acrimonious
relationships between the Admin/Board and its employees.
But sadly we may have to at least threaten to exercise our
right to strike in order to get the Admin/Board to move on their
inadequate offer and to create a fairer and more equitable salary
structure at UofW. The willingness of the Admin/Board to force
us into this position is also a good indicator of how sincere was
their commitment to interest-based bargaining and is a good sign
of whether we should try to negotiate in this seemingly
ineffectual manner in the future.
Mistakes have certainly been made on our side (e.g.,
agreeing to the Admin/Board's demand for an information blackout,
allowing so much time to pass without realizing that interest-
based bargaining was not working, the Instructor and Librarian
issue). We regret those errors and are trying sincerely to
correct them and cope with their consequences. But it is
ultimately the Admin/Board that appears willing to capitalize on
our mistakes and force a return to confrontational bargaining,
rather than help us to make interest-based bargaining work
despite our errors. Even if we do not plan to go on strike, we
should use this opportunity to communicate clearly to the
Admin/Board our deep disappointment (yet again) in the way in
which negotiations occur at this institution and in the low value
that the Admin/Board places on our teaching and research
services.