Collective Bargaining and Economic Benefits Conference: Bargaining for Equity
by Canadian Association of University Teachers
held at the Sheraton Ottawa Hotel
January 31 - February 2, 2003

by Carl James

The conference was an attempt to engage university association members in thinking through issues of equity related to bargaining.  In this regards, most of the people in attendance were officers in their respective associations, many of whom were on their bargaining teams.  In his keynote address, Peter Cole of York University, now visiting professor at University of Victoria, set the context, reminding us of the need think of diversity in universities, not only in terms of the cultures of students and faculty members, but also in terms of knowledge, ways of knowing, voice and epistemology, and the space that must be provided for all.    

The Chilly Climate

Presenter Anver Saloojee talked about the “chilly climate” of the university in which minority faculty members are: multiply disadvantaged, under-used and over-used, challenged by students and colleagues, feel isolated – isolated from the informal consultation and are not part of the feedback loop.  For these faculty members, tokenism continue to plague their professional development, especially in cased in which they are reminded that they were “token hires.”  It was recommended that in conducting equity systems review, institutions should have committees in which “equity seeking groups” members participate; and the responsibility of those responsible for carrying out the task of addressing the issues should be identified.  

It was noted that in creating positive climate, institutions should :

• recognize and value the contributions of knowledge creation of the various “equity seeking groups.”
• be explicit about their commitment to academic freedom.
• provide professional development opportunities and pedagogical support to faculty members from “equity seeking groups.”
• provide protection from discrimination (particularly, for example in teaching evaluation).
• establish complaint mechanisms in which faculty members can also be protected from retaliation.
• ensure “equity seeking groups” are represented on Tenure and Promotions Committee.
• provide safe fora for members of “equity seeking groups” to discuss their issues and concerns.

The audience was reminded that we also need to deal with issues of age, specifically situations in which older individuals are not given tenured positions or promoted because of age.  Similarly, the situation of single mothers was also noted.  In fact, there were panel presentation about the extent to which institutions are supportive and accommodative family life.  The sentiment was that institutions are not, and this was something that needs to be more fully addressed particularly in workloads and expectations.  It was also noted that family should be broadly defined to include elderly parents.    

There were also questions about cases in which individuals do not self-identity.  It was pointed out that this is sometimes due to their need for privacy.  And it was mentioned that some organization might not seek or encourage self-identification because of fear of being sued.  It was pointed out that the Human Rights code allows for such requesting such information, and permission could be sought from the Commission.

There was also a question about how to evaluate foreign qualification (degrees).

Federal Contractors Program

In a discussion of the Federal Contractors Program, it was noted that only 10 percent of employers implement all the steps of the contract, and those who did, had good results.  It was observed that the FCP influenced the implementation of Employment Equity, but there still remains a need for an enforcement mechanism of EE.

It was also noted that GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexuals, transgendered and transsexuals) are not included, but they should be.  Similarly, while physical disability is included, mental disability is missing.

And despite the existence of the FCP and EE, it was observed that there is an under-representation of women as research chairs.  Specifically, 15 percent (2000) and 18 percent (2001) of the research chairs were women, reflecting the fact the disciplines with research chairs.

Why the need for equity?

In a group discussion the following questions were posed: “What is the motivator for equity? Why is there a need for equity?”  Some participants agreed that there is a need for explicit policies and agreements to address the barriers for “equity seeking group” members.  However, others suggested that “things will correct themselves;” they have seem this happening in their respective institutions.  This idea of the “system will correct itself” was challenged and it was suggested that such “correction” should not be left to “chance” for the situation which we are trying to address were not created by chance. 

The thinking of colleagues was identified as part of the obstacle to equity.  For this reason, therefore, it was seen that it is important for us to work at changing individuals’ thinking about the existence and need for equity.  

In discussing the diverse needs of faculty members, one participant shared that his association negotiated agreement for aboriginal faculty members where they are entitled to cultural leaves and Aboriginal leaves.  These are paid holidays days to which they entitled.

How to think of Bargaining

It was suggested that we could think of bargaining as something which is intended to produce change in the culture of the institution and as a way of working with administration.  The contract is could also be thought of as a process through which both might be produced.  With this in mind, therefore, change through bargaining should be thought of as a process which takes time.  And insofar as minority issues will be difficult to gain easy or full acceptance, at least initially, then we should be prepared to work at them over a period of time.