Latest Posts

Writing compelling commentary – A workshop for academic women

| By | Be the first to leave a comment
OCUFA’s Status of Women Committee is pleased to host the “Writing Compelling Commentary” workshop, hosted by Shari Graydon. This highly interactive workshop seeks to build women’s leadership capacity and enhances their influence by providing participants with the confidence and tools to contribute their expertise to the public discourse through compelling, short form written commentary.

Presented by columnist, TV producer, pundit, and former press secretary Shari Graydon, this workshop will be of particular interest to women scholars. Individuals who have taken this training have subsequently published in national and major market newspapers across Canada.

Registration is $75 for tenured/tenure-stream faculty association members, and $25 for contract faculty association members.

Attendance is limited, so register early. Participants are responsible for travel, accommodation, and other costs. Register today!

Unpacking the misconceptions around Ontario’s university funding formula

| By | 1 comment

In anticipation of a government-led review of Ontario’s university funding formula, OCUFA Report is hosting a special series of articles examining the issues around the funding formula. This is part six of six. You can also read parts one, two, three, four and five on OCUFA’s website.

Last week, we looked at the strengths and weaknesses of Ontario’s university funding formula.  As Ontario approaches a government review of the university funding formula, we need to know what works – and what doesn’t – about our current distribution mechanism. We also need to critically examine some of the misconceptions about the current funding formula to make sure we approach the review with a clear understanding of the real issues.

This article looks at the two most common misconceptions about the current funding formula: that enrolment-based funding formulas encourage unsustainable growth in the university sector; and that the current funding formula does not promote educational quality.

The current funding formula – on its own – does not encourage unsustainable university growth
Ontario’s university funding formula is sensitive to enrolment. That is, it distributes a certain amount of funding based on the number of students attending a particular institution, and the programs in which those students are enrolled. Some have suggested that this enrolment sensitivity creates an incentive for institutions to ramp up enrolment in order to generate more revenue. The more students through the door, the more money received by the university.

If no checks were imposed on enrolment increases, this might well be true. However, the current formula also contains a “corridor model” which prevents against institutions taking advantage of the funding regime by expanding enrolments to receive additional funds at the expense of other institutions. Any increase beyond three per cent of the university’s five-year moving enrolment average will not be automatically funded, so there is little reason for an institution to admit huge numbers of new students.

Nevertheless, enrolment has increased substantially over the past decade. Since 2005, the number of students enrolled at Ontario universities has increased by 24 per cent, or nearly 100,000 students. So what’s the reason for the increase, if not incentives created by the funding formula?

Simple: enrolment increased because it was explicit government policy to increase enrolment. In 2011, the Liberal government committed to adding 60,000 new spaces at Ontario’s colleges and universities, on top of the growth permitted by the funding formula. This had the effect of removing the brakes on enrolment, which was already trending up due to the need to accommodate the Double Cohort (the large bubble of applicants created by the elimination of the OAC year), the “echo boom” increase in university-aged individuals, and rising participation rates. There was money to increase enrolment, so universities dutifully enrolled more students. After years of under-funding (Ontario currently has the lowest level of per-student public funding for universities in Canada), universities have become very good at chasing revenue.

What this demonstrates is that the current funding formula, on its own, does not encourage unsustainable or unwise enrolment growth. Growth has occurred because of government policies that encourage growth, often created for largely political reasons. This is not to say that expanding enrolment is a bad idea; quite the contrary, increasing access to higher education is a desirable thing. But governments that complain about growth in the university sector should examine the effect of their own policies, and then work with universities and university stakeholders to develop a multi-year enrolment plan free from short-term political considerations.

In OCUFA’s principles for the funding formula, we highlight the need for funding to remain student centred. That is, it should be responsive to the number of students in the system and the true cost of educating those students. Enrolment sensitivity should be preserved and improved in any new formula, alongside increases to the per-student funding amount.

Resources, not funding formulae, determine educational quality
Some observers have suggested that the current funding formula does not promote educational quality. For these critics, the lack of systematic performance measurement and reporting in the formula means that money is not spent effectively.

While it is true that quality is strained at Ontario’s universities, blaming it on the funding formula is somewhat of a red herring. The quality of education provided by Ontario’s universities is, first and foremost, a function of the resources that are put in to support teaching and learning. By this measure, Ontario is not doing well. We currently have the lowest level of per-student funding in Canada, lagging 34 per cent behind the national average. This has predictable results: class sizes go up (Ontario has the worst student-to-faculty ratio in Canada); tuition fees rise (we also have the highest fees in Canada); and infrastructure crumbles (the Council of Ontario Universities estimates deferred maintenance at Ontario’s universities now amounts to $2.49 billion).

The university funding formula is a mechanism for distributing financial resources. If the amount of money to be distributed is inadequate, then quality will suffer. This is not a question of inadequate oversight or performance measurement. There are already a variety of accountability and reporting systems in place. Ontario universities are not, for the most part, spending money in an ineffective way. They simply do not have the resources they need to improve quality.

It is true that the Government of Ontario made significant investments in higher educations as part of the Reaching Higher plan, which ran from 2005 to 2010. However, these investments were not large enough to fill the funding gap created by deep cuts in the mid-1990s, and creeping underfunding throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s. Much of the new funding was also eaten up by rising enrolment driven by changing demographics, an increasing university participation rate, and government policies. The lack of clear quality dividends from Reaching Higher was not the fault of the funding formula. It occurred because of a variety of longstanding financial, political, and social factors.

Some observers claim that a move to outcomes or performance-based funding – where a portion of funding is distributed according to how universities perform against particular targets – will help improve quality. There is virtually no evidence to support this claim. Moreover, any system that allocates or withholds funding on the basis of institutional performance or output measures will result in the creation of “winners” and “losers” and will penalize students at institutions that fail to reach their targets. OCUFA believes that university funding should be equitable and aimed at improving educational quality, not punishing institutions that under-perform on simplistic metrics.

As we enter the funding formula review, it is important that government and all stakeholders recognize that policies do not exist in a vacuum. They interact with other policies in often unforeseen ways, sometimes producing undesirable or negative consequences. The funding formula alone did not promote rapid growth in university sector, nor did it undermine quality improvements. As we examine new options for distributing funding to universities, we must recognize the role government policy plays in driving university behavior, often in unpredictable ways. We must also recognize that even a perfect funding formula cannot make a positive impact on educational quality if the overall level of resources remains inadequate.

Only a few spaces left for the first ever Worldviews Lecture

| By | Be the first to leave a comment

Space is running out for the first annual Worldviews Lecture on Media and Higher Education. This free event will look at how universities fit into a world increasingly divided between the rich and everyone else.

The first lecture will feature Simon Marginson, Professor of International Education at the Institute of Education, University of London. Professor Marginson will deliver a lecture titled, “Universities, the plutocracy and the 99%: Is high participation in higher education the problem or the solution, in societies that are becoming more unequal?”

The lecture will take place on Tuesday, April 21, 2015 from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m in the Ground Floor of the OISE Library, University of Toronto.

There is no cost to attend, but registration is limited. To register, please click on this link.

The lecture will also be webcast. For details on how to access the online lecture, please visit the OISE website.

The Worldviews annual lecture is a spinoff of the popular Worldviews Conferences on Media and Higher Education, which have been organized by OCUFA, OISE-University of Toronto, the Washington-based Inside Higher Ed and the London-based University World News.

As a full time prof, here’s why I stand with my contract colleagues

| By | Be the first to leave a comment

This Op-Ed, by OCUFA President Kate Lawson, originally appeared in the Huffington Post.

The ongoing strikes at York University and the University of Toronto have prompted a variety of thoughtful and insightful examinations of the state of university education in Ontario. In particular, the conversation around the changing nature of academic work and the plight of contract faculty is essential to the future of our universities. Unfortunately, an incorrect – and harmful – idea has crept into some of the recent coverage: that the strikes are at least partly caused by conflict between full-time professors and the growing ranks of contract faculty. The suggestion is that the relatively good working conditions of full-timers are to blame for the frankly awful conditions of those working on contract.

The truth is that full-time and contract faculty are working together as never before on issues of common concern. Many faculty associations across Ontario represent both full-time and contract members, and my own organization, OCUFA, represents full-time and contract professors province-wide. We recently launched the We Teach Ontario campaign, which highlights the impressive contributions made by contract faculty in the face of difficult working conditions. This campaign has received support from locals of the Canadian Union of Public Employees and Public Service Alliance of Canada, who also represent many contract educators.

Why do we work together? Because we share a common, indispensable goal: that every academic job should be a good job. That means that everyone in our universities – from TAs to full-time professors to contract faculty to librarians – should receive fair pay and have reasonable job security. This isn’t just about jobs, either. The working conditions of faculty are the learning conditions of students. When the people teaching university courses are paid adequately and are in stable, long-term positions, they are better able to engage with students and foster their academic success. Students, contract professors, and full-time faculty are united by the call for good academic jobs in our universities.

Those who want to insinuate discord between full-time and contract professors are trying to create division. It’s an old tactic, one frequently used to defend a certain kind of agenda. Here, it’s an attempt to obscure or minimize the poor state of university funding in Ontario. Our universities have the lowest per-student public funding in Canada. We’re 34 per cent behind the Canadian average. This chronic underfunding means that we can’t hire the full-time faculty we need. Since 2000, enrolment has increased by 68 per cent, while the number of full-time faculty has only increased by 31 per cent. As a result, Ontario has the worst student-to-faculty ratio in Canada.

The lack of public investment is one of the key reasons why universities have turned to greater and greater use of contract faculty. This trend has trapped thousands of skilled teachers and researchers in low-paying jobs with no job security and little opportunity for advancement. From year to year, and often from course to course, contract professors don’t know if they will have a job. Full-time faculty know this isn’t fair, and are working with their contract colleagues to improve working conditions in the short term, and to ensure adequate levels of full-time employment going forward.

Curiously, some have suggested that the answer to the contract faculty problem is for full-time faculty to sacrifice their existing working conditions. “Teach more!” say the critics, ignoring the fact that Ontario’s professors are actually teaching more students than ever before. In any case, having full-time professors teach more doesn’t improve the situation for contract faculty. More teaching by full-time faculty simply allows universities to accommodate more students within an under-funded environment, and lets the government off the hook for making needed additional investments to protect quality education. This approach could potentially throw many contract faculty members out of work, not improve their working conditions. The truth is that the “teach more” crowd seems far more interested in making excuses for government austerity than lifting contract faculty out of precarious employment.

Yes, full-time faculty have, for the most part, good jobs. But we are living in the midst of a dramatic shift towards precarious work in the labour market generally, a time when the solution to the “some people have good jobs, while many more have bad jobs” problem is too often transforming what good positions are left into precarious ones. A reasonable prospect of good employment is an essential part of a fair society, and it is a principle to which full-time and contract faculty are deeply committed.

Those who criticize full-time faculty seem to want a levelling down of academic employment. We want to lift people up. We want everyone who teaches, researches, and supports students in our universities to have secure jobs and fair pay. We also support our neighbours, friends, and family in their fight for good jobs in every sector of our economy, and in the spirit of this commitment we are ready to do what it takes to ensure that every academic position is a good job. Commentators should take caution in trying to pit faculty members against one another while defending the short-term logic of austerity at the expense of good employment and quality education. They will find that this message doesn’t resonate widely in the face of our shared commitment to ensuring high quality, affordable higher education in Ontario.

Overwhelming support for strike mandate at Nipissing

| By | Be the first to leave a comment

On Wednesday, March 25th, the members of the Nipissing University Faculty Association (NUFA) voted overwhelmingly in favour of a strike mandate. Over 90 per cent of NUFA members cast their ballot, and 97 per cent voted to authorize NUFA to strike should one become necessary.

NUFA held its strike vote less than a week after receiving proposals from the employer. While this is a departure from normal practice in the university sector, it was done for a good reason. In an increasingly hostile bargaining environment, an early strike vote helps protect faculty associations from emerging administration tactics. Over the past few months, several associations have experienced heavy-handed bargaining behavior from employers, some of it intended to circumvent the normal bargaining process. As a result, faculty across the province are working to develop new strategies to protect themselves from imposed concessions and aggressive tactics.

An early strike vote sends a clear message that the association is prepared to take strong action to protect their members. The big lesson of the past eighteen months is simple: no association should let their agreement expire without holding a strike vote.

For more information on NUFA’s strike vote and bargaining, please visit the NUFA website.

Strengths and weaknesses of Ontario’s funding formula for universities

| By | Be the first to leave a comment

In anticipation of a government-led review of Ontario’s university funding formula, OCUFA Report is hosting a special series of articles examining the issues around the funding formula. This is part five of six. You can also read parts one, two, three and four on OCUFA’s website.

Now that we have a handle on the origins of the funding formula and how it actually works, it is clear that as it currently exists, the funding formula for Ontario’s universities has some important strengths that ought to be preserved as well as some problematic weaknesses that must be addressed. This installment of OCUFA Report’s funding formula series will highlight the aspects of the current funding formula that aren’t working and need to be corrected as well as those aspects that are working well and should be protected or enhanced in the upcoming funding formula review.

Weaknesses
There are two key weaknesses of the current funding formula that should be addressed in the funding formula review. First, the formula no longer estimates the true cost of educating a student. Second, the current formula is overly complex and opaque.

The funding formula, as originally conceived, provided an estimate of the actual cost of educating a student in a given program or at a given level of study, and then multiplied this number by the number of students enrolled. In the current model, the government determines the overall amount of funding available for universities, and uses the number of students enrolled in a given year to divide that predetermined amount of funding among institutions. It is a distribution mechanism only, with little relationship to the true cost of education.  When the real cost of educating a student ceases to be a factor that determines the levels of funding that government provides to our universities, then the funding formula is no longer responsive to the financial realities faced by universities and faculty. This shift away from a funding model that is based on real costs contributes significantly to the biggest challenge currently facing the university sector: underfunding. The lack of financial resources underpins a variety of problems, from high tuition fees to the rise of contract faculty employment to billions of dollars of deferred maintenance on Ontario’s campuses.

In a previous column, OCUFA attempted to demystify the logic of the current funding formula. This is not a simple task, as decades of tweaks and add-ons have modified the original core formula in such a way as to make the overall funding regime complicated and difficult to understand – even to those in the sector. For example, in addition to the core logic of distributing funding on the basis of enrolment, the formula also uses the 1986-87 year as a baseline for funding. This was originally done to ensure some stability for institutions, a “floor” below which funding could not fall. Now, this provisions strikes many as arbitrary and increasingly irrelevant. There are also additional calculations/allocations for a variety of special purpose funding envelopes, for everything from accessibility to supporting Northern institutions. These are obviously important areas of investment, but the continual layering of new envelope funds makes the formula even more complex. It would be much simpler to include these priorities in base operating fund calculations.

Thus despite a clear and logical foundation, the complexity of the funding formula works against transparency, accountability and comprehension. The funding formula review is an opportunity to simplify the formula, and restore its ability to account for the true cost of a high-quality university education.

Strengths
There are three key strengths of the current formula that are worthy of being protected even as changes to the funding formula are being considered. First, the funding formula is student-centred. Second, it ensures relatively stable levels of funding. And third, it ensures equity across universities throughout the province.

While the current funding formula doesn’t reflect the actual cost of educating students and conducting research, it is nonetheless student-centred, insofar as the calculation for distributing funding is responsive to enrolment and provides funding to institutions on a per-student basis. Ensuring that funding for universities is tied to both the number of students in the system and the programs in which those students are enrolled is central to ensuring that universities are able to provide a high quality education to every student and is one of OCUFA’s key funding formula principles.

Another key principle seeks to ensure that funding is stable and predictable through mechanisms that guard against extreme fluctuations in institutional revenue, which allows universities to make well-informed long-term plans. The stability of funding is currently protected through the corridor model, whereby the variation in an institution’s allocation of funding is limited to a predetermined range based on a five-year moving average of an institution’s enrolment level. To the extent that it ensures stable levels of funding over time, the corridor model – or something similar to it – should be preserved in the upcoming funding formula review.

Finally, the current funding formula distributes funding equitably across institutions – that is to say that the same rules for how funding is distributed apply equally to every institution in the province. This model prevents wide variations in quality across the province and ensures that students can access a comprehensive range of university programs relatively close to home. While some funding is allocated on the basis of institutional performance on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), as a proportion of total funding, this amount is relatively limited and should not be increased. As the funding formula is reviewed, the equitable distribution of operating funding across universities must be preserved in order to support student success throughout Ontario.

Within the current formula there are strengths that are aligned with OCUFA’s funding formula principles. These aspects – funding tied to students, stability, and equity – should be preserved, while the weaknesses must be addressed and corrected.

Stay tuned for the next part in this series, which will examine some of the myths about Ontario’s university funding formula.

Students, faculty, and staff call for a university funding formula that supports good jobs, public education, and accessible learning

| By | Be the first to leave a comment

A coalition of university students, faculty, and staff are calling for a funding formula that ensures high quality and accessible learning while fostering good jobs in the university sector. At the same time, the formula must guarantee that our higher education institutions remain strongly public. The Ontario University and College Coalition (OUCC) released these principles in response to the Government of Ontario’s announcement that it will be reviewing the university funding formula over the coming year.

“The government review of the university funding formula comes at a time when the system is seriously under-funded. Ontario universities receive the lowest per-student government funding in Canada, which has led to huge increases in tuition fees,” said Alastair Woods, Chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario. “We now have the highest tuition fees in the country. The funding formula review needs to tackle this problem to ensure that our universities remain accessible.”

“Underfunding has contributed to a huge increase in precarious work within our universities,” added Kate Lawson, President of the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA). “Since 2000, the number of courses taught by low-paid, insecure contract faculty has increased by 90 per cent. It is vital that the review of the funding formula examine ways to ensure secure full-time employment in the higher education sector.”

“Government underfunding of universities has opened the door for a fundamental shift from public funding towards the privatization of Ontario’s universities. This year, for the first time ever, over half of the operating revenue of Ontario’s universities came from private sources,” said Janice Folk-Dawson, Chair of CUPE’s Ontario University Workers Coordinating Committee (OUWCC). “It is essential that the funding formula review produces recommendations that protect the public nature of our universities, as a resource for every Ontarian.”

“Creating a funding formula that promotes greater access, better jobs, and public education is a critically important task,” said Warren (Smokey) Thomas, president of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. “Students, faculty and staff are united in working to achieve these goals, and for the record, the problems are fully as urgent in the community college sector as they are in the universities.”

The OUCC’s full statement is available here.

The Ontario University and College Coalition represents students, staff, and faculty at Ontario’s public universities and colleges. The Coalition is made up of the Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario (CFS-O), Canadian Union of Public Employees Ontario (CUPE Ontario), Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA), Ontario Federation of Labour (OFL), Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU), Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (OSSTF), Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), Unifor, and United Steelworkers (USW).

OCUFA submits recommendations on proposed government pension regulations

| By | Be the first to leave a comment

OCUFA has been working with the Ministry of Finance to ensure that the regulatory framework that will guide asset and liability transfers between single employer pension plans (SEPPs) and jointly sponsored pension plans (JSPPs) in Ontario’s broader public sector meets the needs of faculty associations across the province. On February 27, 2015, we submitted a written response to the government’s proposed regulatory framework and last week we met with Ministry of Finance to discuss our submission.

OCUFA’s response to the proposed regulatory framework deals with a number of technical issues and addresses several key issues that reinforce our core principles on pensions including respect for collective agreements, ensuring that the transition of pension assets occurs on a voluntary basis, and the preservation of pension benefits within a new pension plan.

The OCUFA submission highlighted the importance of ensuring that faculty associations retain the right to decide whether or not they will convert their existing SEPP into a JSPP. The submission called for consent provisions within the regulations that would respect collective bargaining and the rights of collective bargaining agents to consent to the transfer of assets on behalf of their members. This provision ensures that any transition of an SEPP to a JSPP is voluntary and that no faculty association would be forced to join a new pension plan against the will of its members.

The OCUFA submission also reinforced our commitment to ensuring that if a SEPP is converted to a JSPP, the benefits that plan members would have received under the single employer plan would be preserved under the JSPP – regardless of whether an existing plan is defined benefit, defined contribution or hybrid.

OCUFA’s submission to the proposed regulatory framework reflects our commitment to ensuring that pensions in the university sector meet the needs of our members. We are working actively to implement solutions that will ensure that university pension plans are fair and secure today and into the future.

The full submission can be accessed here.

Significant faculty layoffs announced at Laurier

| By | Be the first to leave a comment

On March 9 & 10, 2015, Wilfrid Laurier announced a series of layoffs to faculty and staff. Since the announcement, the Wilfrid Laurier University Faculty Association (WLUFA) has been working to clarify how many positions have been lost or affected. Based on the administration’s “loose forecast,” 30.5 fulltime faculty positions will be lost, alongside 27 affected staff positions.

The faculty layoffs include:

  • 75 contract academic staff stipends, amounting to 12.5 full-time equivalent positions
  • 12 limited term appointments
  • Six retirement positions not renewed

The staff positions include:

  • 18 Wilfird Laurier University Staff Association (WLUSU) positions (13 layoffs and five people with reduced hours
  • Nine CUPE positions

It appears that eight managements positions will be cut, with five of those coming through attrition.

These are significant cuts that will have a harmful effect on the quality of education at Laurier. OCUFA will be working with WLUFA to get more information on these layoffs, and assisting the association as it rolls out its response. OCUFA is also assisting the Nipissing University Faculty Association, who also experienced layoffs earlier in the year.

Government announces consultation process on university funding formula

| By | Be the first to leave a comment

On March 12, the government announced that it will be launching consultations to inform a review of the funding formula for universities, starting this spring. The process will be open, formal and transparent and will include students, administration, and faculty. The government has also indicated that employers, colleges, professional associations and the elementary and secondary education sector will be included in the consultations.

OCUFA will participate actively in the process at every opportunity to ensure that Ontario’s professors and academic librarians have a strong voice at the table. OCUFA has developed a set of principles that should guide public funding for Ontario’s universities. They include ensuring adequate resources to provide high quality and affordable higher education, supporting good academic jobs, and promoting stability, equity and transparency.

The government has indicated that its focus throughout the process will be fourfold:

  • Enhance quality and improve student experience
  • Support differentiation as expressed in each universities’ strategic mandate agreement
  • Maintain financial and long-term sustainability of the postsecondary sector
  • Increase transparency and accountability

Sue Herbert has been appointed to lead the consultation process. Herbert played a central role in the process of negotiating strategic mandate agreements with the community colleges and has served as deputy minister in several ministries.

In anticipation of this review process, OCUFA Report has been hosting a special series of articles examining issues around the current funding formula. You can read parts one, two, three and four on OCUFA’s website.

Professors at Queen’s Park today to talk about contract faculty, university funding

| By | Be the first to leave a comment

TORONTO – Professors and academic librarians from across the province will be at Queen’s Park today, talking with MPPs about important issues facing Ontario’s universities. The meetings are part of the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Association’s annual Advocacy Day.

“The work of professors and academic librarians is at the heart of higher education in Ontario,” said Kate Lawson, President of OCUFA. “We teach the courses, mentor the students, and do the research. We have concrete ideas for improving our universities, and look forward to sharing them with Ontario’s political leaders.”

OCUFA representatives will be looking for MPP support on the following:

  • Increasing public funding to support adequate hiring of full-time tenure stream faculty and measures to help improve the terms and conditions of work for the growing ranks of contract faculty members;
  • Ensuring that the upcoming government review of the university funding formula is guided by principles that protect the quality of higher education; and
  • Securing faculty representation on the Board of Directors of Ontario Online, a new e-learning initiative in the province, in order to keep Ontario at the forefront of technological advances in higher education while maintaining a high-quality learning experience for students.

“We know that quality higher education depends on a strong partnership between government and university faculty,” said Lawson. “Together, we can build the strong universities Ontario needs for a prosperous future.”

 

OCUFA to hold “After Bill 168: Occupational Health and Safety in the Academy” workshop

| By | 1 comment
OCUFA is pleased to announce a workshop on the ongoing implementation of the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act on Ontario campuses. The workshop is intended to initiate broader dialogue between all association representatives charged with protecting members’ rights to a healthy and safe workplace.

Nearly five years have elapsed since the provisions for workplace harassment and workplace violence under the Act came into force. Practices for meeting the legal requirements of Section 32 vary widely at Ontario universities. The experience of faculty associations and their members is decidedly mixed, and faculty associations continue to seek effective means of ensuring commitments to a healthy and safe workplace are kept.

The workshop will:

  • Provide up-to-date information on legal issues, and rights and responsibilities;
  • Facilitate a practical discussion about what exists now at the association level;
  • Identify frameworks and practices that facilitate resolution of complaints and discord;
  • Identify steps faculty associations may take to increase protection of members’ rights;
  • Propose issues for further discussion and action;
  • Foster a community of practice sharing experience and knowledge about effective means of ensuring healthy and safe workplaces in the academy.

This workshop is directed towards a cross-section of faculty association representatives and staff– grievance officers, representatives on joint occupational health and safety committees, equity and human rights officers, negotiating committee members, and members of faculty association executives. Participation is restricted to faculty association representatives, and the number of participants is limited: consult with your association about attending and be sure to register early.

New sexual violence and harassment initiative makes Ontario campuses a priority

| By | Be the first to leave a comment

On March 6, 2015, representatives of OCUFA were pleased to attend the launch of the Government of Ontario’s It’s Never OK: An Action Plan to Stop Sexual Violence and Harassment. The plan is a wide-ranging and comprehensive document, and demonstrates Premier Kathleen Wynne’s commitment to fighting sexual violence and harassment in Ontario. The plan makes the reduction of sexual violence on university and college campuses a particular priority.

According to the plan, the Government of Ontario will:

  • Introduce legislation to require colleges and universities to adopt a sexual assault policy, developed with significant input from students, and renewed — with student involvement — every four years.
  • Ensure each campus has clearly stated complaint procedures and response protocols; effective training and prevention programs; and services and supports for survivors available 24/7.
  • Require universities and colleges to report publicly on incidence of sexual violence, as well as initiatives underway to address sexual violence and harassment, and their effectiveness.
  • Support initiatives by colleges and universities to reduce sexual violence and harassment, and ensure safe campuses.
  • Make sure all students have information about preventing sexual violence and harassment and are informed of resources and supports, starting with their first week of orientation and continuing throughout the year, for students in all years of study.

OCUFA commends the Premier and the Government of Ontario for making this issues a priority, and for outlining a multi-year, collaborative commitment to reducing sexual violence and harassment. We would also like to recognize the leadership of the Canadian Federation of Students – Ontario, who were instrumental in placing this issue on the public agenda and in shaping the provisions outlined in the Action Plan.

Faculty and students at Nipissing unite to fight back against layoffs

| By | Be the first to leave a comment

As part of ongoing layoffs, the administration of Nipissing University recently announced that 22 limited-term appointments would not be renewed. This means the loss of 22 faculty members and many more courses, and does significant damage to many academic programs. On March 3, 2015, the Nipissing University Faculty Association (NUFA) and Nipissing University Students Union (NUSU) released a joint letter calling for the reinstatement of the lost faculty position as full-time tenure-track jobs. The letter is reprinted below:

To the Board of Governors of Nipissing University,

The Nipissing University Student Union and the Nipissing University Faculty Association write this open letter to you, the Board of Governors, to express concern and frustration over recent decisions made by the administration to reduce the faculty complement by approximately 13%. Morale among faculty and students is reaching an all-time low. Students don’t know if the professor currently in front of them has been targeted for no-return and as a result, classroom dynamics are altering. The 22 faculty slated for non-renewal will not be able to commit to the long-term development of their students. We are concerned that with the loss of approximately 135 face-to-face courses, the educational experience at Nipissing University will be compromised.

The University needs to discontinue its reliance on contract academic staff but also provide job security for all faculty. In the current year, more than 50% of classes are being taught by non-tenure stream faculty and the precarious nature of their employment has never been so obvious. Since the Board of Governors is concerned with the long-term interests of the University and the city, please begin to realize that only job security and more tenure-stream positions will ensure that Nipissing can continue to be the great University we all want it to be.

The cuts came without faculty, student, or Senate consultation. Was there consideration of the implications on students currently enrolled in programs? Chairs of academic units have already indicated that they will be forced to cancel courses and change their programs. Reducing the number of course offerings creates long-term difficulties for academic units: a department that offers fewer and fewer courses will be less and less attractive to students, resulting in even fewer students, classes, and faculty. Please consider the long-term interests of the University and reinstate at least some of the lost Limited Term Appointments but as tenure-stream positions.

Sincerely,

Chris Burke, VP External, on behalf of the NUSU Board of Directors

Rob Breton, President, NUFA

OCUFA statement of support for striking TAs and contract faculty at University of Toronto, York

| By | Be the first to leave a comment

The Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA), on behalf of its 17,000 members at 28 faculty associations across Ontario, supports the members of CUPE 3902 and 3903 currently on strike at the University of Toronto and York University. We join them in their call for better pay and improved working conditions. We also urge the administrations of U of T and York to reach a fair agreement with the members of 3902 and 3903 immediately for the benefit of students, staff, and faculty.

OCUFA firmly believes that all academic jobs – from TA to contract faculty to tenured professor – should be good jobs. This means fair pay, good benefits, and real job security for everyone who works in our universities.

OCUFA is currently running We Teach Ontario, an initiative that highlights the important work done by contract faculty in the face of difficult working conditions. We invite everyone to visit the website and read the stories of Ontario’s contract faculty. We would also like to extend a special invitation to contract faculty – especially those currently on strike – to share their story with us and be featured in the campaign.

For more information, please contact Graeme Stewart, OCUFA Communications Manager.