YUFA

External

 

 
   Home

   Feedback

   Archive

CAUT Contract Academic Staff Conference 2009

30 May 2009, Ottawa, ON

by Ruthanna Dyer, Division of Natural Science, York University

2 Jun 09 – The purpose of this conference was to explore the Pro Rata model for CAS faculty and the concerns that may arise in implementing this practice. CAS faculty include sessionals, part-time workers and CLAs. The Pro Rata model is endorsed by CAUT and specifies that contract faculty receive a pro-rated appointment based on what a full-time tenure stream appointment would include: salary, benefits, sabbatical, leaves etc. So if one taught a 50% load, one would be reimbursed at 50% of the wages and benefits, etc. This sounds just and reasonable, but concerns were raised about the implementation of the model. These concerns were from CAS faculty themselves and included: acceptance by tenure stream faculty, ability to resurrect or initiate a research program when one has done teaching only for a number of years and the possibility of fewer jobs if the remuneration for CAS work increased.

James Turk, Executive Director of CAUT, and others spoke about the casualization of faculty work as a threat to the very nature of universities and our profession. Effective contracts which include a living wage, benefits and the protection of academic freedom are essential if universities are to remain the social and educational academies we deem they should be.

Some gains have been made across the country in implementing the Pro Rata model or a program to “regularize” CAS work. In almost all cases these advances have occurred where all CAS and Tenure Stream faculty are represented by one union in relatively small institutions unlike the situation at York University.
The exception to this was Queen’s where there is a defined pattern of regularization in place. I attended break-out sessions on “fostering solidarity and support among tenure stream faculty to get CAS issues to the table” and “what are the barriers to securing full time appointments?”. In both sessions, CAS faculty told of their difficulties being visible and accepted within departments – many of which barred their attendance at any meetings or functions. While many suggested and recognized that researching within their field to teach was research, they did not believe the institution of full-time faculty would see that as of scholarly value when evaluating their work.

Positive suggestions that came out of the break-out sessions included:

  • Establishing personal and working relationships with tenure stream colleagues so that they can present the issues of CAS. Some people rejected the paternalism implicit in the latter part of that statement!

  • Negotiating CAS issues prior to addressing any full-time faculty issues at bargaining,

  • Using newsletters and case studies to inform full-time colleagues of the issues

  • Organizing, organizing and organizing which is difficult with part-timers who have no office of visibility except in their classrooms,

  • Negotiating research funds for returning scholars so that research programs can be rekindled,

  • Establishing teaching – service positions for those who wish to concentrate on undergraduate teaching,

  • Obtaining statistics for your institution on the proportion of teaching done by CAS,

  • Looking at permanent part-time positions on the Pro Rata model for those who have specific skills and knowledge but who do not want a full-time position,

  • Negotiating voice and representation in departmental meetings so that CAS faculty have input on courses offered … thus work.

One plenary session dealt with grievance for CAS issues. Examples of successful grievances were given and the following principles were promoted:

  • Grieve early, grieve often and grieve again!

  • Lodge policy grievances not individual grievances to protect vulnerable CAS faculty.

  • Be creative in your use of the Collective Agreement. Use generic clauses of reasonableness to address issues not specified.

  • Lobby and organize so that cases are clear and well presented.

  • Grievances pay off at the negotiation table when employers know an issue is a problem that will continue to fester if not addressed.

The dinner speaker, Ian Robinson, spoke about the paucity of research on the role and work of CAS in the USA and Canada. He pointed out that the average age for CAS members was very close to that of tenure stream faculty and that in Canada post-secondary educators are represented by unions in almost all cases. This should mean that the CAS issues are being addressed effectively, but in fact there is much more organizing and research to be done. Robinson co-authored a paper1 with David Dobbie on the issue.

1Dobbie, D and I. Robinson (2008) Reorganizing Higher Education in the United States and Canada: The Erosion of Tenure and the Unionization of Contingent Faculty. Labor Studies Journal 33: 117

Other Delegates from this Conference:
 Jay Rahn