Bargaining Membership Survey 2017 Presentation to YUFA Executive - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Presentation to YUFA Executive Committee Bargaining Membership Survey 2017

683 Responses (44.9% response rate)

Who Responded?

Response Percent Response Count 6.8% 46 3.8% 26 0.9% 6 88.5% 599 677 677 6 Please select your stream Professorial Stream Alternate Stream skipped question Post-Doctoral Visitor Answer Options answered question Librarian or Archivist

Professorial and Alternate Stream

Response Percent Response Count 8.1% 52 2.3% 15 0.0% 88.9% 569 0.6% 4 640 640 43 43 skipped question Please describe your contract type Tenured Probationary answered question Special Renewable Contract Answer Options Continuing Contractually Limited

Librarians and Archivists

Response Percent Response Count 0.0% 17.2% 5 82.8% 24 29 29 654 654 skipped question Contractually Limited answered question Probationary Continuing Answer Options

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 Professorial Stream Faculty 4.09 Reduce Teaching Load for Alternate Stream Faculty to Below 3.5 FCE 2.91 Working Conditions 3.55 Retirement Benefits 4.35 Governance and Collegiality 4.22 Sabbatical Leave and Salary 3.55 Faculty, Librarian and Archivist Complement 3.78 * 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, Spouse, Partner 3.32 Grievance, Arbitration and Accommodation Timelines 3.74 Academic Freedom 3.4 Working Conditions and Benefits for PDVs** 2.4 *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?

1.

Maximum 2.0 teaching load for Professorial stream – automatic, no strings attached, no application required

2.

Salary increase (range of 2.5-3% per annum)

3.

Increase in faculty, librarian and archivist complement (including conversion program for CLAs)

4.

Improvements in retiree benefits

5.

No strike/no strike vote

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 appointing members who are broadly representative of the community 3.98 Removing a Dean’s/Principal’s/University Librarian’s power to alter the shortlist in faculty, librarian and archivist searches 3.75 Removing a Dean’s/Principal’s/University Librarian’s power with respect to discretion to decline a search committee’s choice of a tenure-stream candidate 3.71

*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

• ther 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 accommodations to persons with disabilities 4.13 The national external availability figure for racialized faculty should be replaced by a Toronto census metropolitan area (CMA) external availability figure 3.35 Equal pay exercise be mandated for all equity- seeking groups 3.45 30% unit threshold for hiring racialized persons 3.17 Include LGBTQ2 persons as an additional affirmative action category 2.83 Collecting and reporting the disaggregated numbers of equity-seeking groups 3.57

*Based on a scale where 5=very important and 1=not at all important

Request accommodation for a disability? Treated fairly?

Answer Number and Percentage Yes 95 (16.1) No 495 (83.9)

Answer Number and Percentage Yes 55 (55.56) 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 negotiated for current members 3.2 Retired members’ access to Conference Travel Funds on the same basis as active members assuming a proportional increase in the total amount of funding 3.1 Incentives for early retirement 3.4 Improve dental benefits 3.5 Improvements in out-of-country coverage without additional cost 3.5 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 cost of living in the GTA 4.35 Raise the salary floors which set minimums for various ranks 3.22

Comments regarding salary

 We should, like McMaster, impose an across the board

gender equity salary adjustment.

 It is absurd that the PTR has been frozen for 8+ years!

When factoring in inflation, this amounts to "regression through the ranks"! And indeed, the base salary increase should reflect the exploding cost of living in the GTA.

The York University Pension Plan is now running a surplus in large part due to a 50% increase in employee contributions that was phased in from 2014-16. On a scale where 5=very important and 1=not at all important, please indicate the importance of negotiating a "salary offset" to compensate for the lost take-home pay (approximately 3% of salary) caused by the increased employee pension contributions?

Average score 4.5

Please indicate the importance of the following benefits improvements where 5=very important and 1=not at all important.

Issue Average Score Increase compassionate care leave/leave for urgent personal reasons 3.78 Increase pregnancy, primary care giver and parental leaves 3.35 Increase caps in paramedical coverage 4.04 Increase maximums for lifetime orthodontia and major restorative dental services 4.30 Increase coverage for dental implants 3.91 Increase vision care coverage 4.14 Add social workers and occupational therapists in paramedical coverage not covered by the global cap 3.59

Please indicate the importance of the following benefits improvements where 5=very important and 1=not at all important.

Issue Average Score Improved coverage for prostheses 3.30 Sabbatical leave and pay 4.00 Extend reciprocal tuition to additional universities 3.38

Comments about benefits

 The topic of Fee waivers, reciprocal or not, at other Ontarian or

Canadian universities is of great interest to me. Student debt issues in Canada continue to really concern me.

 Coverage of psychotherapy and hypnotherapy.  Increase limits for massage therapy and physiotherapy.  I have heard from too many female faculty members that

maternity leave is complicated and unfair. Rather than increasing these benefits, per se, improving them in terms of clarity and accommodation is important. For example, if someone gives birth in March the accommodation should reasonably account for that person working most of the term.

Indi dicat ate if the followi wing ng statem ements ents fit t your experience rience at York rk

Statement Average Score* In the last 3 years, my teaching-related work has increased due to downloading of various types of support 3.96 TA or marker/grader support is inadequate 3.22 With my current teaching load, it is difficult to achieve a balance among teaching, research and service 4.52 With my current professional responsibilities, it is difficult to achieve a balance among professional performance, research and service** 1.80 My workload has increased due to the lack

• f course releases

3.73 I don’t have the space or equipment that I need to do my work effectively 2.19

*Based on a scale where 5=strongly agree and 1=strongly disagree. ** Librarians and Archivists

Indicat dicate e if th the e fol

• llo

lowing wing st statements ements fit t your ur exp xperience erience at t York rk

Statement Average Score* Other aspects of workload are so heavy that few members in my unit want to do committee work or fill Chair and Program Director positions 4.70 Clerical and admin staff (YUSA members) are overburdened to the point that I don’t have adequate support 4.14 In the last 3 years, my workload has increased due to the Employer’s academic and budgetary review and associated restructuring 3.91 * Based on a scale where 5=strongly agree and 1=strongly disagree.

Appendix P: Increase Stipends and Course Releases

Answer Number and Percentage

Very important 158 (27.77) Somewhat important 273 (47.98) Not important 138 (24.25

Answer Number and Percentage

Very important 249 (43.84) Somewhat important 208 (36.62) Not important 111 (19.54)

Downloading of work and effects on ability to conduct research

Downloading Secretarial Support Number and Percentage Significantly 166 (28.57) Somewhat 269 (46.30) Not at all 148 (25.13) Lack of Payroll and Expense Forms Support Number and Percentage Significantly 216 (36.24%) Somewhat 216 (36.24) Not at all 164 (27.52)

Various funds are provided to support research and dissemination of results. In your view, are these research funds adequate?

Issue Fully adequate Somewhat adequate Not adequate Don’t Know PER 10.66% 49.02% 18.36% 1.97% Faculty/Librarian and Archivist Research Grant Fund 6.87% 24.74% 15.46% 52.92% Junior Faculty/Librarian and Archivist Fund 10.61% 19.65% 8.52% 61.22% Conference Travel Fund 6.67% 33.67% 49.00 10.67% Leave Fellowship Fund 7.85% 27.65% 19.62% 44.88% Educational Leave Fund 11.32% 25.90% 10.81% 51.97%

Comments on research support

 We need to expand funding for GAs. GAs are a fundamental support for our research

and a valuable opportunity to mentor and train grad students.

 Concur should be abolished, Faculty should be provided with adequate personnel and

methods for seeking financial reimbursements for research expenses.

 This does not directly address your question BUT I have consistently had external

research funding and over the years the degree of support I have received from Research Accounting and Finance has diminished greatly. Staff are rude and uninformed. At times people like me actually contemplate not applying for external funding so we don't have to deal with these people.

 Conference travel support on an annual basis rather than the current once in two year

• provision. The living nightmare of the AAPR and the obscurities of the new budgetary

model have dramatically increased the workload of those faculty members who serve as chair and some of those who serve on committees. This is bad for morale. I don't know how YUFA could possibly negotiate a less top-heavy York, but in my experience the problems at the top (and I mean above the decanal level) hurt York.

Please indicate the importance of the following improvements in sabbatical leave where 5=very important and 1=not at all important. Issue Average Score Option to extend the current 6 year interval between sabbaticals by 1 or 2 years in order to be able to earn full pay during a full-year sabbatical 3.50 Increase in sabbatical pay for the second and subsequent sabbaticals 4.46 The option to take a half sabbatical after 3 years rather than a full sabbatical leave after 6 years 4.49

Comments sabbatical leave

 It is very difficult for those of us who live on one income to live on 82% of our salary

during sabbatical and also do the research and travel related research that we need to do during sabbatical - this sabbatical salary HAS to be increased.

 The ability to claim parental/spousal/partnership leave while on sabbatical. My mother

was ill, as was my partner, during my last sabbatical. Such crises should be officially recognized and taken into account.

 More flexibility in the timing of sabbatical leave, especially in smaller programs where

several faculty members are scheduled to take sabbaticals at the same time.

 Sabbatical research funding for librarians. The current agreement is very

faculty/professor focused and doesn't consider librarians/archivists. Librarians/archivists are not aware of ways to fund their sabbatical research in the same way as faculty.

 Why are we not able to collect sabbatical credits past our "normal retirement date" if we

are still actively employed fulltime?

How important is it that YUFA negotiate a universal maximum 2.0 FCE teaching load for all members of the professorial stream? Answers Percentage Very important 61.58 Somewhat important 20.40 Not important 18.01

How important is it that YUFA negotiate a universal maximum 3.0 FCE teaching load for all members of the alternate stream?

Answered by Alternate Stream faculty only

Answer Percentage Very important 80.00 Somewhat important 11.1 Not important 8.89

Please indicate the importance of the following potential improvements to workload.

Improvement Average Score* Increase the support from teaching assistants, markers and graders 4.6 Universal maximum 2.0 FCE teaching load for all members of the Professorial stream 3.6 Universal maximum 3.0 FCE teaching load for all members of the Alternate stream 1.5 Reduce class sizes 4.0 Restore credit given for graduate supervision under the former Appendix O 4.0 Improve secretarial support for teaching and service 3.8 Increase university research and service support from Graduate Assistants (GAs) 3.7

*Based on a scale where 5=very important and 1=not at all important

York has deferred millions of dollars in required maintenance. Have physical conditions in your on-campus work environment deteriorated to the extent that it affects your: Issue Yes (%) No (%) Health and Safety 41.58 58.42 Research 27.88 72.12 Teaching 57.59 42.41

Should YUFA negotiate a significant increase in faculty, librarian and archivist complement?

Answer Percentage Yes 45.02 No 13.38 No opinion 41.60

In what Faculty is your primary appointment?

Faculty Number and Percentage Arts, Media, Performance and Design 39 (6.36) Education 16 (2.61) Engineering 27 (4.40) Environmental Studies 11 (1.79) Glendon 39 (6.36) Health 71 (11.58) Liberal Arts and Professional Studies 293 (47.80) Libraries 23 (3.75) Science 70 (11.42) Schulich 24 (3.92)

Age of Respondents

Age Range Number and Percentage Under 30 years of age 1 (0.2%) 30 to 39 years of age 39 (7.9%) 40 to 49 years of age 143 (29.1%) 50 to 59 years of age 142 (28.9) 60 to 69 years of age 132 (26.8) 70 years of age and older 35 (7.1%) Total 492 (100%)

Sex/Gender

Sex/Gender Number and Percentage Female 211 (42.3%) Male 276 (55.3%) Female – Other 1 (0.2%) Female Cis-gendered 1 (0.2%) Woman 3 (0.6%) Trans 2 (0.4%) Ze 1 (0.2%) GenderQueer 1 (0.2%) Queer Male 1 (0.2%) Male Fluid 1 (0.2%) Masculine 1 (0.2%) Total 499 (100%)

Membership in Equity-Seeking Groups

Category Number and Percentage Indigenous person: North American Indian 4 (0.81) Indigenous Person: Métis 4 (0.81) Indigenous Person: Inuit 0 (0) Indigenous Person: Treaty Indian 1 (0.2) Indigenous Person: Registered Indian and/or member of an Indian Band/First Nation 2 (0.4) Total: 11 or 2.22% of respondents

Membership in Equity-Seeking Groups

Category Number and Percentage LGBTQ2 Person: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Queer, Two-Spirited 29 (5.86) LGBTQ2 Person: Gay 27 (5.45) LGBTQ2 Person: Bisexual 9 (1.82) LGBTQ2 Person: Transgender 3 (0.61) LGBTQ2 Person: Two-Spirit 1 (0.20) LGBTQ2 Person: Genderqueer 7 (1.41) LGBTQ2 Person: Gender Questioning 1 (0.20) Total: 77 or 15.52% of respondents

Membership in Equity-Seeking Groups

Category Number and Percentage Person with a Visible Disability 13 (2.63%) Person with an Invisible Disability 59 (11.92%) Total: 72 or 14.52% of respondents

Membership in Equity-Seeking Groups

Category Number and Percentage Racialized minority person: Arab 11 (2.22) Racialized minority person: Black 16 (3.23) Racialized minority person: Chinese 20 (4.04) Racialized minority person: Japanese 2 (0.40) Racialized minority person: Korean 3 (0.61) Racialized minority person: Non-White Latin American 5 (1.01) Racialized minority person: Non-White West Asian 4 (0.81) Racialized minority person: South Asian/West Indian 19 (3.84) Racialized minority person: South East Asian 3 (0.61)

Membership in Equity-Seeking Groups

Category Number and Percentage Woman 199 (40.20) I am a member but prefer not to specify 43 (8.69) I am not a member of any of these groups 135 (27.27) Other 31 (6.26)