By Su-Yin Tan
Continuing Lecturer, Faculty of Environment
[Disclaimer: This is a guest blog and the views expressed in the content are solely that of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Lecturers Connect or other associated parties.]
Dear Lecturer colleagues,
It is difficult to comprehend that Policy 76/77 negotiations for creating a new Teaching Stream Professoriate at the University of Waterloo has been ongoing since 2014/15. In the meantime, most of our comparator universities in Canada have already instituted their Teaching Streams. Eight years later and after at least three Policy Drafting Committees (PDCs), we are still continuing this process, much the same as before. We are technically not yet Professors, but still Lecturers.
I first became involved with FAUW in 2015 when P76/77 was opened. I was an original member of the FAUW Lecturers Committee (LC) that was formed the same year and David Porreca was also FAUW President. I am technically the longest serving LC member (2015-23) and became Chair during 2019-23. I was also elected by Lecturers as a FAUW Board Director (2021-23). Note that the LC Chair does not have a vote on the Board and is not guaranteed a place on the P76/77 PDC. I have also served on several FAUW committees including the Equity Committee, the AF&T Committee, the Executive Committee, and the Faculty Relations Committee. After much collective advocacy, I was appointed to the second PDC in 2021 and was the only member to continue over to the current (third) PDC.
Factually, I have had the most experience with P76/77 negotiations; no one else has consulted more with Lecturers in faculties, units, and various groups across campus. I have devoted more than 8 years of my life and career to advocating for improved Lecturer terms and conditions of employment. I have spent countless hours meeting 1:1 with Lecturers, consulting at the faculty and department/school levels, moderating town halls and forums, conducting surveys and polls of Lecturers, and serving on the Academic and Freedom Committee (AF&T), where I witnessed inequitable treatment of Lecturers by our employer. Throughout this process, I gained an appreciation of how diverse Lecturers are at UWaterloo and how there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Nevertheless, the common denominator is the need for policy updates to recognize the role of Lecturers at the University and to help level the playing field at least. We are the most disadvantaged faculty group on campus in terms of workload, salary scales, and hiring and promotion practices compared to our professorial faculty peers. It is not clear why we are paid less. Our working conditions directly affect student learning conditions; in other words, we matter.
Fast-forward to now, P76/77 negotiations between FAUW and the administration are still in mediation/arbitration. FAUW says that it is committed to the “Path Forward”. The current PDC (including myself) has been working since May 2023 on developing a mediation/arbitration brief that sets out the facts that are important to us and outlines the key arguments for what we hope to achieve in mediation/arbitration. This 120+ page document was finalized and due on Friday, September 29. As a member of the PDC, completing this brief and preparing for P76/77 negotiations have taken countless meetings, endless e-mail streams, and more sleepless nights than I can remember.
This is why it was a surprise that on the same afternoon when the mediation/arbitration brief was due, I received an e-mail from FAUW President David Porreca and the Board informing me that my involvement in all P76/77 PDC activities were suspended immediately. Despite spending the last few days and nights working on the final edits of the brief, I was being booted off the PDC due to a perceived “conflict of interest”. For transparency, I have attached the e-mail I received from the FAUW President below. I have also attached the legal opinion that he commissioned to support his desire to remove me from the PDC. The cost of this legal opinion was covered by FAUW membership dues and can rightfully be shared with the membership who paid for it. Bear in mind that the legal opinion is based on assumptions made by the opining solicitor on selective information provided by the FAUW President. It would be within my rights to seek my own legal opinion on the matter.
Even more coincidentally a couple days later on Monday, October 2, Mary Hardy was also informed that the Faculty Relations Committee (FRC) had agreed to remove her from the PDC. Retirement was claimed as the reason, although she has been retired since July. This is despite the fact that PDC membership appointments are approved by Senate and no removal mechanism is defined in Policy 1. Mary has served as the PDC Co-Chair (equivalent to our Chief Negotiator) and was the previous FAUW President; her removal was not officially announced to the membership. It is not known who has replaced her as PDC Co-Chair, which is an important role for representing our interests, communicating with the FAUW lawyers and the mediator/arbitrator, and making decisions when the PDC does not agree on a matter. These events mark a concerted effort by both FAUW and Admin to remove two prominent FAUW members of the PDC and to reduce our negotiating capital during a critical and pivotal time of deliberations.
Rather than supporting ongoing P76/77 negotiations to ensure the best outcome for Lecturers, FAUW is focusing on politics, sabotaging its own negotiating team, and paying its lawyer to discredit and scapegoat an individual FAUW member. It is also deviating from the Path Forward that was promised, voted on by Lecturers, and approved by Senate. FAUW has also failed to properly communicate and officially announce these important changes to its membership. The primary authors of the mediation/arbitration brief are no longer involved, and our representatives will be led by Peter Wood (Math), Dina Dawoud (Math), and Paul Wehr (Arts). Peter and Dina only joined the negotiation team a month ago, while Peter is in an administrative role as Assistant Dean. The PDC members were not elected by the Lecturer membership but were appointed by the President. Who are the new PDC members, why were they selected, and what are their negotiation positions? Have they consulted widely enough with the membership to appropriately represent our diverse views and working conditions? Why are such fundamental changes to the negotiation team being made on the eve of mediation? Note that mediation dates are scheduled on November 6 and 8 with the first arbitration date on November 27.
Such moves are full of contradictions. On August 29, David Porreca announced the expansion of the FAUW PDC membership by two members, only to reduce it again one month later. High workload was cited as the reason for expanding the PDC membership (“shar[ing] the load of negotiation and communication” and “the added membership will help them shoulder the load at this important time”). The President wrote “we are grateful to Mary Hardy, Su-Yin Tan, and Paul Wehr for [their] sacrifices, and we recognize the need for more support.” Yet four weeks later, both Mary and I are being suspended/removed from the PDC and effectively replaced with the President’s appointees. Was this the original plan and motivation all along?
What is obvious is the lack of transparency and that Lecturers are consistently left in the dark. Such contradictory actions create confusion, erode solidarity, and point to a hidden agenda that the membership is not privy to. FAUW’s primary focus is not on the substance of P76/77 negotiations or on achieving improved Lecturer working conditions, but more on the politics behind the negotiations and ensuring that the PDC is constituted by members who are loyal to the President and 'pro-status quo'. Rather than having Lecturers elect their negotiation team members, the FAUW President and his Board have made unilateral decisions about who represents us without any consultation.
Again, the question is “why now?” The answer seems obvious. FAUW does not want a Lecturers union or any form of unionization to be considered. It wishes to preserve the status quo. It touts that collegial governance and the current labour relations model work well, ignoring the fact that Lecturers have been waiting 8+ years for P76/77 updates. Are the latest changes orchestrated to ensure that the FAUW negotiation team will accept the administration’s preferred terms and conditions for P76/77?
What are the points of contention in P76/77 negotiations and what are the risks of a poor deal? The obvious issue is the non-teaching term or term allocated for pedagogical and professional development (PPD). This biennial course reduction is intended to provide dedicated time for PPD, which will be requirements for both tenure/permanence and promotion for the new Teaching Stream Professoriate. This would translate into a maximum teaching load of 10 courses over 2 years. Many Lecturers currently teach 6 courses per year continuously without breaks and would not be able to sustain PPD activities as additional workload for meeting tenure/permanence and promotion requirements for the new Teaching Stream. Other comparable institutions (e.g., U of T and McMaster) have some form of sabbatical or study leave for their Teaching Stream Professors, which we do not have.
Other problematic items in dispute are transition arrangements for long term (more than 5-years) Definite Term Lecturers with non-UARC appointments, tenure for the new Teaching Stream Professoriate, and eligibility to apply for sabbatical leave. The depth and breadth of PPD scholarly activities required for tenure/permanence and promotion are still to be discussed. Finally, the administration would like Teaching Stream Faculty to be teaching and service ONLY. New hires would no longer be able to have a research/scholarship component, which significantly hinders our academic freedom and the eligibility to apply for research grants. A host of other items are also under dispute, which is why we have had to proceed to arbitration. It is imperative that seasoned negotiators be involved otherwise important details may be missed or negotiation positions compromised with unintended consequences for the future. The devil is indeed in the details.
During negotiations, I have also been struck by how many Lecturer concerns are NOT addressed by P76/77 negotiations. Terms and conditions related to workload and teaching load, availability of teaching resources, classroom safety, instructional support and teaching assistants, differential salary scales, research grant eligibility, grievance procedures, faculty merit system and performance review, equity and inclusion, etc. will not be directly addressed by P76/77 updates. How do we improve our working terms and conditions, and more importantly, strengthen our negotiation position with the employer? FAUW has represented us so far, but it is one of the few non-unionized faculty associations in the country and not protected by the Ontario Labour Relations Act (OLRA). It has little to no leverage. There is no collective agreement or regular cycles of bargaining. Our current collegial governance structure may work when there is mutual agreement, but how do we deal with situations where there is obvious disagreement, such as P76/77 terms and conditions for the new Teaching Stream? Lecturers are also less than 20% of the FAUW membership and will potentially be outvoted even on issues that only affect us.
Why is FAUW so scared of unionization? On the other hand, it has notably supported the certification of Lecturers. On June 6, David Porreca announced "that FAUW supports the unionization of Lecturers within FAUW and will commence a certification drive to that end." The FAUW certification drive of Lecturers was launched with the assistance of OCUFA and CAUT. Certification was touted as the answer but based on the condition that Lecturers remain within FAUW and not as a separate association. If FAUW is committed to transparency, what is the current status of FAUW’s Lecturer certification drive? Why have there been no activities, updates, or events from the FAUW certification drive? Why was the drive launched in the first place and without any Lecturer input? Was this done disingenuously and simply to derail the Lecturers Connect certification drive, which was a grassroots initiative?
In attempting to remove me from the PDC, they have claimed that I have a "conflict of interest". But what does “conflict of interest” really mean? Oxford Languages defines it as “a situation in which the concerns or aims of two different parties are incompatible”. Note that Lecturers Connect’s mission statement is:
“To increase the economic, professional, social, and political power of teaching stream faculty at the University of Waterloo through collective action, and thus to improve the quality of education at the University of Waterloo.” Is this goal in conflict with that of FAUW or the P76/77 PDC? If common goals exist, why not work together to achieve the desired outcome?
When I joined Lecturers Connect certification efforts, FAUW’s own legal counsel for P76/77 was consulted about my continued participation. I was encouraged to continue. On May 19, Emma Phillips (Goldblatt Partners) indicated that a “certification drive does not impact on the agreement or value in proceeding to arbitration.” She also advised the FAUW President not to change the negotiation team in order to preserve the integrity of negotiations. The FAUW President has gone against the advice of his own legal counsel, colluded with the administration on FRC to change the PDC membership, and obtained a legal opinion from another lawyer to support his desire to remove me from the PDC. Emma Phillips also advised that any P76/77 mediation/arbitration would “provide a helpful floor to a first collective agreement (in other words, Lecturers can focus bargaining on improvements over and above whatever is achieved throughout arbitration)", suggesting that current P76/77 negotiations and any certification drive have common goals and could be complementary to each other.
Therefore, Lecturers Connect has no interest in derailing P76/77 negotiations. Quite the contrary, Lecturers Connect wishes to achieve the best outcome from P76/77 mediation/arbitration, which would only benefit a first collective agreement. I have given my very best efforts for P76/77 negotiations; there is no sense in sabotaging my own working conditions as a Lecturer.
Moreover, the FAUW President and the legal opinion fail to mention that as the LC Chair, I was directed by the FAUW Board to explore an independent Lecturers association. On April 20th, the FAUW Board unanimously approved the motion:
To “[allow] Lecturers to obtain CAUT and OCUFA resources and support about certification and will not actively oppose the establishment of an independent Lecturers’ association if that is the democratic will of its Lecturer members”.
The LC was also consistently instructed by our membership to explore certification. During the Lecturers Town Hall on March 24, 2022, a live poll found that 76% of attendees voted in favour of the LC “exploring various unionization models as possible means for strengthening our ability to negotiate our terms and conditions of employment.” During the Lecturers Town Hall on April 4, 2023, “certification” was the most popular response when Lecturers were asked what they would like the LC to work on.
During the last few months, while Lecturers Connect was working hard at constituting the “University of Waterloo Teaching Stream Faculty Association (WatTSFA)” as a viable option for improving Lecturer working conditions, FAUW has been focused on its own political and financial interests. It is concerned that separation of 20% of its membership could reduce membership dues and impact FAUW’s budget. It is concerned that a certified union of Lecturers could potentially be stronger and more powerful than an uncertified FAUW, because we would have access to negotiation tools such as mediation and arbitration by default and gain significant leverage. It is concerned that if Lecturers unionize, this would influence the rest of FAUW to eventually unionize. The main concern is not about augmenting Lecturer working conditions, but about protecting FAUW’s majority membership and the best interests of our professorial colleagues. It is about preserving the status quo. These are perhaps the real conflicts of interests that exist.
Lecturers Connect’s vision is stated as:
“Recognition and improved working conditions for teaching stream faculty appointments at the University of Waterloo. We envision having a career progression path parallel to existing professorial appointments. We value tenure, time and resources for pedagogical and professional development, recognition for scholarly activities, and having consistent and equitable treatment of Lecturers across campus.”
Lecturers Connect’s interests are not in conflict with those of Lecturers. Rather, FAUW’s own actions harm P76/77 negotiations the most. These include changing negotiation team members at the last minute, failing to provide regular updates about ongoing negotiations, launching a faux certification drive of Lecturers, making continuous changes in timelines and backing out of promises, and making agreements with the administration behind closed doors at the Faculty Relations Committee without transparency or accountability to the membership. Such moves are highly questionable and more likely to be in conflict with the best interests of Lecturers and more damaging than any certification drive could be.
There is ample evidence to suggest that FAUW has failed and is continuing to fail Lecturers. I have personally witnessed through Lecturers Connect how capable Lecturers are at advocating for our own working conditions and how collective will and efforts can make a difference. Again, no one knows what it is like to be a Lecturer more than a Lecturer. I truly believe that the way forward is to establish our own certified bargaining unit of Teaching Stream Faculty and to forge a service agreement where we maintain official affiliation with FAUW and still pay membership dues towards FAUW. This would be a similar relationship as what the Renison Association of Academic Staff (RAAS) already has with FAUW. We will work together with FAUW to achieve better working conditions for Lecturers.
Let us trust ourselves and our own collective ability to negotiate for our terms and conditions of employment by constituting the “University of Waterloo Teaching Stream Faculty Association (WatTSFA)”. By signing a membership card, we pave the way forward to have a democratic vote of certification and this is the real gamechanger that we have all been waiting for. I truly believe that this is how we can make a real difference in improving our current working conditions and those of future Lecturers.
The time for systemic change is now. We deserve much better.
Yours faithfully,
Su-Yin Tan
Continuing Lecturer, Faculty of Environment
Nowhere in this post do you state that you are currently serving as the Dean at another institution
https://www.isunet.edu/team/.
Wow. Thank you for all of this detailed information, Su-Yin. I'm really disheartened to hear so many of these points, but appreciate the clarity and transparency with which you laid it out. Personally, I'm especially shocked that FAUW had an opposing legal opinion on not changing up the PDC. This was not related to us at all when they mentioned the "expansion" (or the removal of Mary and yourself.) The email from the FAUW board primarily asked you to "resign" from the PDC, but also suggested you had the option of "disputing" the perceived conflict of interest. Can I ask which option did you select? Are you fighting this?