cupe3912webmaster

By Isabel Fearon, Erica Fischer and Karen Harper

On Friday February 14th, we attended as guests the SMU Senate meeting. After two hours of observing the Senate discuss several motions from committees and sometimes revise them to get things passed in a timely manner, we were invited to sit at the table so that we could respond to general questions from Senators when the bylaws committee introduced a motion to allow part-time instructors to vote and run for Senate, subject to some seniority qualifications.

It’s important to note that while a petition on this matter was recently circulated and signed by more than 100 members of the university community, the discussion at Senate was prompted by a motion from the Senate’s own Bylaws Committee and not from the motion we had sent. Their motion included not only an amendment to the definition of Academic Staff to include Part-Time Faculty, as ours did, but also several amendments to include language about the eligibility requirements for PT Faculty to be included in the electorate list.

Under the Saint Mary’s University Act (1970), part-time faculty should be eligible to run for Senate.  “Academic staff” means “the persons employed by the University to carry out teaching or research responsibilities or both” other than students. The current bylaws wrongfully exclude part-time faculty from running for Senate. While the proposed qualifications on part-time faculty Senate participation are not consistent with the Act, the amendment would have been a big step forward. We commend all the work the Bylaws Committee put into preparing this motion. If it had been carried, these amendments would have allowed PT Faculty to participate in Senate elections this coming March.

Unfortunately, even though some Senators appeared open to discussion, most spoke about being in favour of including PT Faculty on Senate but then proceeded to explain how they were not. They expressed their concerns without going through the proposed amendments to see if their concerns were addressed or without indicating specifically how the wording didn’t address their concerns. The apparent desire of a few Senators to shut the discussion down as quickly as possible stating that this is a matter for bargaining when in fact is simply a matter of abiding by the St. Mary’s University Act, combined with the short amount of time allotted for consideration of the motion (which it should be said was extended for an additional 15 minutes), resulted in the motion being relegated back to committee without benefit of feedback or timeline.

Dr. Kocum, who was a vocal advocate, resigned her seat in protest. The reason of her resignation in her own words and with her authorization to publish it follows:

“It was frustrating to witness the deeply patronizing and exclusionary treatment of part-timers. What was most disheartening was the unwillingness of most senators to bend even slightly—refusing to postpone elections by one month, which is entirely in our purview—to allow for a real discussion about inclusion of part-timers this year. Inclusion requires those in power to make space, not just to say the words “I support part-timers being part of Senate” while actively kicking the issue down the road; those on the losing end of power dynamics are all too accustomed to this pattern. Interesting that several senators mentioned being concerned for the unpaid time of part-timers who would serve on Senate, yet they were perfectly willing to have them waste another year advocating. The math just doesn’t math.

Instead of engaging thoughtfully and addressing specific concerns collaboratively, several senators maintained the appearance of inclusion while actively deferring action. This was my final straw, and the reason I resigned. The issue here isn’t about my personal reaction, however—it’s about the broader problem of exclusion where logic, ingenuity, and part-timers’ voices were immaterial against toxic attitudes and the need to maintain the status quo. This toxicity is not unique to part-timers; it generalizes to many areas of progress where those with less power advocate for change. We do have an inclusion policy at SMU, as inclusion is essential for change. It means valuing diverse voices and integrating them into decision-making. The opposite is marginalization, where people look out for their own concerns while sidelining those of others with less power. My emotions signalled the toxicity of this fundamentally exclusionary context. Unlike a canary, though, I had the freedom to bust out to venture where my voice may actually have traction, and I am free to keep on singing.

It’s been 5 years collectively on the Board and Senate and honestly, that display Friday was it.”

This is another step on a long path for us. Bringing this issue to the Senate floor is a win in itself. Already we are trying to determine next steps. The fight is not over, it’s just unfortunate that it is a fight.

By JP Bourgeois, CUPE 3912 Secretary-Treasurer

CAUT Defence Fund

I participated in the CAUT Defence Fund Annual General Meeting (AGM) in Montreal October 18-19, 2024. I did so as a participating member, but also a director of the fund. The difference is that a member defends the interest of the local and the director defends the interest of the fund itself. 

What is this fund? 

The CAUT Defence Fund allows paying organizations (which we are) a nominal benefit when we go on strike. That means, if CUPE 3912, would ever go on strike again, the defence fund would pay the local daily benefits until the strike would end. 

How much will be discussed in a separate update as it is dependent on a few factors, but it is substantial, and why the executive last year voted to become participating members of the fund. 

What is interesting with the CAUT fund is that the payments while on strike are done to the local, and not the members. This would allow the local substantially more flexibility in how the funds are used. 

How it went

It was quite interesting to talk to other unions about the problems they faced, particularly with locals in the Maritimes. The impact of hiring freeze, immigration caps were notable topics. 

The CAUT Defence Fund AGM is very specific in scope, which means it’s a 7-hour meeting about bylaw changes and elections to different committees

Joining the Investment committee

It is my pleasure to announce that I was voted on the investment committee of the defence fund for a 1-year term. I will help bring investment proposals to  and do assessments for the defence fund directors. This is great news for the local as it will help us bring forth what will be an investment fund of our own to support the local. 

The next CAUT defence fund AGM will be held in Ottawa in October 2025. 

Applying for funds

We can apply, and are encouraged to apply early to the defence fund. It should be done before the strike vote. 

CUPE money and cents conferences

The week after the CAUT defence fund conference, I was also at the CUPE money and cents conferences right here in Halifax along with the 3 trustees of the Local: Kim Robinson, James Kho, and Wenceslao Amezcua! We participated in various workshops related to finance, which were quite interesting on their own, but also gave us the opportunity to see what other problems unions faced based on their size and situations. 

What was the conference about?

The conference was focused on the finances of locals and was hosted by the CUPE National treasurer, the provincial treasurers, and specialists in the field. 

Topics included a workshop on budgeting, bylaws that touch specifically on finances, accessing the CUPE National fund for cost share events, and general financial literacy. 

What I learned: Union structure and dues

I was most struck by the fact that CUPE 3912 is on the larger size for locals, but that we do not share in the same problems that larger unions have. Notably, we have a very large turnaround in membership, which happens when teaching assistants and part-time faculty find full-time employment. This situation is one that the other locals did not have, meaning that we need to develop a yearly onboarding process. Note that this initiative would have a financial impact on the local, but it could lead to us having more engaged and educated members.

We also learned about the types of dues that local can collect. Our local collects 1.9% of normal wages and pays a bit more than 1% to CUPE National and CUPE NS. This is on the low side of dues collection. This limits our ability to onboard members and defend our members and the local’s interest. 

Remedies could be:

• Increasing dues. Since the amount CUPE National and CUPE NS take is a fixed percentage, any increase would go directly to the local. Each 0.1 percentage point would most likely generate 20,000$ more in dues a year. 
• Levy an initiation fee. This could vary between 1 or 10$ for new members. 
• Levy a specific purpose amount. This could be done to shore up our finances, or other initiatives. 

Given that our local spends almost 95% of its budget on fixed items (dues to organizations, membership fees, administrative cost and salaries) we are left with very little money for other initiatives. 

Recommendation: Do a ‘what if’ exercise to discuss what we would like to do (our dream union) and then work backwards to find the appropriate union due structure to levy. This way we would have a plan and a justification for increasing dues. 

What I learned: Finance Policy

While dues are maybe a more controversial topic, this one should not be. Our local NEEDS a finance policy. Given its size and high turnover, a finance policy would help guide what can and cannot be done with finances at our local level. 

It is a document which is supportive to the local’s bylaws and provides substantially more information to members, and executive. Without being afraid that the financial knowledge gets lost as treasurer or executive changes roles or from change of elections. 

These are professionally prepared documents. 

As the local finds itself wanting to do more events, conferences, educational events, discussions with members, the finance policy will help guide and answer questions surrounding how funds are used. Expense cards, investments, per diems/out of pocket expenses, travel, and accounting practices are but a few topics that it covers. While maybe not an exciting topic, it is a topic that takes a lot of time at the local because we don’t have such a policy. 

Overall

While the CAUT Defence Fund AGM was interesting (and is a conference that we have no choice in attending), the CUPE Money and Cents conference really was the most helpful and gave me a lot of things to bring to the executive and members for more in depth discussions.

By Pouya Morshedi

The Union regularly supports members to be delegates to conferences. Members report back to the Union on what they learned. Pouya Morshedi was CUPE 3912’s delegate to the ANSUT Equity Conference in Fall 2024.

The meeting started at 9:45 A.M. with Dr. Stewart, the ANSUT president, giving a welcoming speech. It continued with Dr. Jones’s poetry reading. Then, Dr. Brigham provided a report on EDIA activities at different levels at NS universities. They did not mention our union specifically in this report. The recommendation for SMUFU is mentioned below. It may be helpful for our union as well.

“It would be great to have a compilation of union equity policies and any resources that 

unions can use to enhance and support the improvements on EDIA.”

Fabienne Cyrius, the co-chair of the CAUT Equity Committee, gave the keynote speech. She mentioned some useful practices in other universities and some suggestions regarding the EDIA at universities. I mentioned some of them below.

Already have been done in some other universities:

• Course release for members undertaking services tied to identities.
• One university found the role of race and gender of instructors in the way students evaluate them. They decided not to consider these evaluations in instructors’ formal evaluation.
• Plans and protection for part-time faculties to become permanent faculties.

Suggestions:

• Mandatory EDIA training for “ALL” at universities.
• The training could be offered by a committee that includes members from the union and university or only union members.
• A more individual strategy for workplace accommodation. 

The panel on Effective Equity Initiative At NS Universities was the next part of the conference. In this part, participants started asking questions and bringing up the issues. I mentioned the precarity of part-time instructors who may stay in this precarity for years without a path to become a permanent faculty member. I also added the language and rules around permanent residency and its relationship to getting a permanent job in Canadian universities, which put more racialized scholars in precarious job situations. It was supported by some other part-time and full-time instructors in the meeting. I believe that we need more presence of part-time instructors at such meetings. However, the precarity and financial situation of part-time instructors make this presence harder. Some of the points brought up by panellists are mentioned below.

• Adding a non-voting equity representative to the hiring committee.
• Having the Equity language in the bargaining process. 
• A participant suggested using the term “Equity-denied” instead of “Equity-Deserving.”

Dr. Patti Doyle Bedwell was the next speaker to discuss the Erasures: The Colonialization of Indigenous Identity. She mentioned the issues she faced and how some people in power consider “Diversity means Unqualified” in their discussions and decision-making. She also discussed the issue of pretentious people in academia who try to take advantage of Indigenous positions and accommodation. 

Dr. Kubota was the last speaker who discussed the intersectional injustice of race and language. She brought up the hidden forms of prejudice and discrimination that are based on the linguistic profiling. Dr. Kubota addressed language equity and the necessity of considering it in the EDIA discussions.

The conferences ended with a group activity about what was missed and what could be the next step for equity at NS universities. The conference ended at 4 P.M.

Pouya Morshedi (Ph.D. Cand.). has been teaching in the Sociology Department at Saint Mary’s University since Fall 2020. He’s a co-organizer of The Qualitative Analysis Conference; Chair of The Anti-Racism, Representation, and Diversity Committee at the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction (SSSI); and Co-founder of Avalon Research Society He is a qualitative researcher specializing in the sociology of space and place, the sociology of cinema, and the sociology of revolution. He recently published a peer-reviewed article: Home in Cinema and Women at Home: A Comparative Study of Pre- and Post-Revolutionary Iranian Cinema from 1969 to 1999

In November I attended the 97th Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) Council Meeting in Ottawa. The reason why I particularly wanted to participate in this Council was that I am submitting my nomination to be Chair of the Contract Academic Staff (CAS) committee. The election will be at the next Council this spring. My participation in the November Council meant that I learned more about the current issues at CAUT and that I could talk to delegates that would be likely to be voting at the election. I accomplished this through numerous conversations with delegates I already knew and by meeting first-time delegates.

It was fortunate that I was at Council because it was there that I found out about the Senate by-election at Saint Mary’s University (SMU; see the Senate petition and update). Cathy Conrad, President of the Saint Mary’s University Faculty Union (SMUFU; which represents full-time academics and librarians), helped me navigate through the nomination process and various staff at CAUT provided advice for me and Erica (CUPE 3912’s SMU Vice President for Part-Time Faculty, who I was emailing constantly throughout Council) about our next steps for securing our right to vote and run for SMU Senate.

As with conferences much discussion and socializing goes on outside of the actual meeting, but there were also important agenda items as part of the meeting itself. The most interesting items were the two emergency resolutions from member associations. The first of these, from the Mount Saint Vincent University Faculty Association (MSVUFA) was a motion to support the association to get the employer to sign their collective agreement, which they had been neglecting to do for months; simply putting this on the Council agenda worked since the employer signed later that day! The other motion about the working definition of anti-semitism and sanctions of the State of Israel was more controversial and time-consuming. Most of the disagreement related to procedure – does this count as an emergency motion? Can we approve this if we have done so already? Should we do something now or wait? There were multiple amendments and votes resulting in an amended motion being accepted if I remember correctly. The part I really disliked was that one delegate on each side appeared to harass the Chair of Council while he was doing a great job in very challenging circumstances.

Other highlights include a report on a survey of public attitudes of post-secondary education in Canada, in which Brad Lavigne from Counsel Public Affairs (one of Canada’s leading public affairs agencies) summarized the results as saying the Conservative Party will win the next federal election but that most Canadians still value universities and its instructors. There were the usual reports and policy statements including one on distance education. The most important item for us was squeezed in at the last minute just before adjournment. A motion to change the procedure for selecting CAS committee members was approved. Before the committee was composed of the 6 largest CAS member associations plus one each representing middle and small associations. We lost out because of this when we were dropped from the committee years ago when we moved from 6th largest to 7th largest. I am only on the committee now after submitting my nomination three years ago to represent medium-sized associations. But now the rules have changed to be similar to other CAUT committees that are composed of 8 CAS members, regardless of the size of the association. 

CAUT also presented its federal election campaign called Unlock Education and mentioned their January lobbying efforts. CAUT encouraged and provided training for members to meet with their MPs in January. Erica and I participated in the training and met with Member of Parliament Lena Diab a few weeks ago. Our meeting was very successful. We heard about how Lena understands the importance of post-secondary education and how she blames the conservatives for resisting efforts of the Science and Research Committee to achieve things like increasing funding for students and researchers. Our key accomplishment was establishing a connection with one of our MPs and sharing stories about part-time instructors.

I am submitting my nomination to continue to be part of the CAS committee and to be its chair. Stay tuned to find out the results of the election in early May. I believe that it is important that CUPE 3912 and Atlantic Canada have a strong representation in CAUT.

In solidarity,

Karen Harper

Karen Harper continues her dedication and commitment to helping improve working conditions for CUPE 3912 members and contract academic staff across Canada through her roles as a member of the CAUT CAS committee (Canadian Association of University Teachers Contract Academic Staff committee). She also recently joined the committee for COCAL (Coalition of Contract Academic Labour). Her experience with CAUT is extensive, having attended numerous Council meetings, forums (for presidents, bargaining officers), webinars and workshops. Within CUPE 3912, Karen was Communications Officer from 2016 to 2019 followed by President from 2019 to 2022. She currently still helps CUPE 3912, particularly with mobilization for SMU. Karen has taught in Biology at the Mount; in Biology, Management and Environmental Science at Dal; and in Applied Science, Biology, Geography and Environmental Science at SMU. Her main motivation for being involved in the labour movement is to try to get more paid research opportunities for CAS – see her article ‘Working part time in name only’  in the CAUT March 2018 Bulletin. Her research focuses on vegetation at forest edges.

 

Karen Harper

Through my participation in events held by the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), I have learned a bit about ‘indigenizing the academy’. CAUT (and others) advocate indigenization through ‘a commitment to undertake proactive measures aimed at restoring, renewing, and regenerating Indigenous practices, languages, and knowledge’. They suggest that Aboriginal content and Indigenous knowledge should be incorporated in curricula but should not result in tokenism, distortion or cultural appropriation.

Although indigenizing the academy should be done at a scale of the entire university by providing appropriate resources, I have been wondering how I might be able to add Indigenous content in my own courses. Indigenization involves expanding the academy’s conceptions of knowledge to include Indigenous perspectives in transformative ways and part of this process is to spread Indigenous knowledge beyond its foundational area to other parts of the institutionI have asked myself: how can I as a non-Indigenous person lacking traditional knowledge teach any indigenous content?

A few years ago a couple of friends (including Lauren Mckenzie, CUPE 3912 President, who asked me to write this article) recommended the book Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmerer. The author is a plant ecologist, professor and environmental scientist, just like me, but she is Potawatomi, born in the United States. The book explains that the braid represents the weaving together of scientific knowledge, Indigenous ways of knowing, and stories. The author uses the three strands to present and discuss ecology and environmental science from these different perspectives. Since I teach in the Environmental Science program at Saint Mary’s University, I thought that this could be a way of including indigenous knowledge in my course.

As I told my students, my idea was to have the author teach us Indigenous knowledge from her perspective, and to have my role as the instructor to be to lead the discussion about her teachings. I assigned several appropriate chapters throughout the course including Skywoman falling, Sitting in a circle, Maple sugar moon, A mother’s work, Old-growth children and The teaching of grass. The book is available online through the SMU library with no restrictions, which made it easy to add to the course readings. 

The students and I thoroughly enjoyed reading the chapters, which read more like a novel than a textbook. I came up with questions that I think highlighted the different perspectives portrayed in the chapters and related them to the course material. We had some good discussions as well, particularly at the start of the course. I also included questions specifically on the assigned chapters in each test to make sure the book was an integral part of the course. One of the questions on the final exam (given to the students in advance) was to explain two environmental issues from the chapters we read from the three perspectives.

I should note that including this book as reading material was my own initiative. I did not go through any consultative process or attend any workshops. Perhaps I should have but it seemed to make sense to incorporate Braiding Sweetgrass into the course. This small step felt like I could make a small difference on my own without imposing on others. I think I made a slight impression on SMU students. I believe that my course was enriched by adding new perspectives. The few students I have talked to who actually read the book agreed.

In solidarity,

Karen Harper

Karen Harper continues her dedication and commitment to helping improve working conditions for CUPE 3912 members and contract academic staff across Canada through her roles as a member of the CAUT CAS committee (Canadian Association of University Teachers Contract Academic Staff committee). She also recently joined the committee for COCAL (Coalition of Contract Academic Labour). Her experience with CAUT is extensive, having attended numerous Council meetings, forums (for presidents, bargaining officers), webinars and workshops. Within CUPE 3912, Karen was Communications Officer from 2016 to 2019 followed by President from 2019 to 2022. She currently still helps CUPE 3912, particularly with mobilization for SMU. Karen has taught in Biology at the Mount; in Biology, Management and Environmental Science at Dal; and in Applied Science, Biology, Geography and Environmental Science at SMU. Her main motivation for being involved in the labour movement is to try to get more paid research opportunities for CAS – see her article ‘Working part time in name only’ in the CAUT March 2018 Bulletin. Her research focuses on vegetation at forest edges.

This piece was originally published in the April 2022 Newsletter.

Larissa Atkison

In early April 2022, a few of us participated in supplemental interviews for the next President of Mount Saint Vincent University. In response to a question on part-time precarity, one of the candidates exclaimed, “no one could expect to make a living stringing together part-time teaching contracts, it’s impossible!”

This statement was not meant to be cruel or ironic. The candidate was quick to admit that part-time per course compensation is terrible. This had just not struck them as particularly problematic, because they believed (coming from a business background) that most contract academics have full-time careers and therefore accept low stipends as a “way of giving back to the community.”

This episode warrants unpacking.

Doctoral programs across North America accept far more students than could ever be employed on the academic job market. Between 2002 and 2017, the number of students admitted to PhD programs in Canada more than doubled, yet the number of academic jobs has remained constant. Moreover, only one third of those who complete their PhDs typically find full-time academic positions. As is often the case, these numbers are even worse for women, who earn 19 percent less than their male counterparts, and are more likely to end up in precarious academia. This is no accident. University administrators have come to rely on an overabundance of unplaced (in tenure-track positions) academics to deliver undergraduate instruction at discount rates.[1] This cost- saving measure has allowed universities to continue to invest in new buildings, infrastructure, and administrative raises, even at a time of decreasing provincial funding.

The term “part-time instructor,” used at all three institutions in the HRM to describe precarious teaching, is designed to belie this undignified reality. Part-time terminology signals an arms-length relationship between universities and precarious faculty, where the latter are categorized as occasional and dispensable workers. It allows university administrators to shirk their responsibility to provide precarious academics full-time supports, including benefits, pensions, office space, paid leave, access to meaningful professional development, and a voice in university governance.

Sure, some CUPE 3912 members do fit the Mount candidate’s description. Those who teach in professional faculties such as business, nursing, pharmacy, dentistry, medicine, law, and so on, often do teach as a side gig to supplement full careers. Some also teach part-time at the end of their careers, whether they be retired faculty or other professionals.

But the reality is that most contract faculty in our union and across the country do strive to string together enough contract teaching to equal a full-time job.

In this sense, the Mount candidate was insightful. Making a living wage as precarious faculty is incredibly difficult. In the HRM, an entry- level instructor would have to string together at least nine CUPE 3912 teaching contracts (4.5 full credits) each year to achieve a living wage. So much for research! Senior CUPE 3912 instructors would likewise need to teach seven courses a year to earn the same. The bar here is low. We are talking about the amount of work that is required to make ends meet month to month – we are not talking about compensation that adequately reflects years of professional training and expertise or that corresponds to the hours of (research-supported) work that university level teaching involves.

The situation is particularly bad in our local.

True, CUPE 3912 members have access to three universities in the HRM, all of which heavily rely on cheap part-time teaching. But the market is bloated and there is simply not enough contract teaching work to go around. In this context, the old tenet that achieving precedence is a matter of waiting one’s turn no longer holds true. It is not uncommon for new members to land only one contract a year at each institution – if they are lucky. At this rate it would (and often does) take years to gain precedence and the accompanying pay increases and minimal security that go with it. In most cases, it is simply not possible for a junior CUPE 3912 member to earn a living wage as a university instructor.

Moreover, because our compensation is so incredibly low, those who are at the top end of the seniority scale are incentivized to take on excessive teaching loads to establish a basic degree of financial security (in the absence of pensions, benefits, paid leave, and so on). Members who have precedence at multiple institutions could, theoretically, teach as many as 24 courses a year to offset terrible per course compensation. Of course, the prospect of teaching 24 courses a year sounds absurd — it is! But it is not unheard of for CUPE 3912 members to teach 15-18 courses a year. Who can blame them, when bulk teaching is the only mechanism available to increase their meagre income year over year?

Both situations are untenable and mutually compounding. The excessive teaching burden that some members are driven to accept to secure basic financial stability means that there are fewer jobs to go around. This makes it very difficult for new members to make ends meet, let alone earn anything close to a living wage. Excessive teaching also sets a bad precedent with our employers. It conveys to administrators that teaching 5-6 courses a term is doable. This, in turn, allows employers to rest satisfied that we are fairly compensated for our work. Ultimately, it undermines our capacity to advocate for fair compensation based on realistic assessments of the time it takes to teach a university-level course well.The standard rule of thumb for undergraduate teaching is that each hour of teaching should involve approximately three hours of prep time. This does not include time spent with students in office hours, it does not include grading, or emailing, or any of the other increasingly time-consuming technological aspects of our job. If these numbers are reliable, which personal experience and anecdotal reporting support, then a 3-credit course with three hours of class time per week, would require anywhere from 12 to 20 hours per/week, depending on whether teaching it is a new or established prep.

In other words, if we assume a  standard 40-hour work-week for our “full-time” teaching members, then an ideal teaching load should be no more than three courses a term, give or take, based on experience, subject matter, enrollment numbers, and assignment structure.

As we’ve already established, it’s not only difficult for junior CUPE 3912 members to secure work, they will also work more hours for each new contract — this is especially true for women and minorities. If teaching nine courses is impossible due to limited availability of work and unadvisable given the time each required for each new prep, a more feasible full-time workload of 6-8 courses a year for junior faculty would be only marginally easier to secure and result in an annual income that is significantly less than a living wage.

Likewise, if senior members were to limit themselves to a realistic full-time teaching load of 9-10 courses a year including the semester break for professional development, restoration, research etc., that is available to full-time teachers in all education sectors (elementary, secondary, and post-secondary), they would max out their earning potential at just over a living wage.

In no way is the above scenario acceptable, yet somehow this is the reality that many of us have accepted.

One response to these disturbing facts, implied by the Mount presidential candidate, is that junior faculty should cut their losses and move on. This does seem like the only option when the alternative is to wait years for sufficient teaching credits to get by. But leaving academia is not as easy as it sounds — for most of us. Recent studies from CAUT and CAS report that contract faculty hang on, despite terrible work conditions, because they love teaching and feel a commitment to their students; others see themselves as biding time as they wait for the rare golden egg (even as this tenure-track employment becomes increasingly unlikely the longer one remains in precarious employment). There are also extraneous factors, such as family and geography that require academics to stay put in a given location. Sunk costs play a role too: academics typically spend more than a decade training to work in universities.

Why should they give up the work they’re highly trained to do and love just because academic administrators are greedy? This may be an impossible bind but it’s one many precarious academics choose to endure for reasons that run deeper than their financial interests.

What about senior part-timers? Why should those who have spent their time rising through a system which rewards endurance choose to give up their course loads, even if the work is exhausting? After all, those who have been around long enough, know that we’ve made very little progress in pushing our base stipend above $5,000/course, despite advocating for pay increases on par with the rest of Atlantic Canada and other comparable institutions since the mid 1990s. A realistic assessment of our limited progress in increasing per course compensation over the past 25 years, would almost certainly support a strategy of accumulating as much available work as possible.

I would like to suggest, however, that we do not have to choose between protecting seniority and advancing employment equity and living wages. As I see it, the end game is clear: we need full- time positions (including  stability and benefits) for full-time work, and reasonable per course compensation for those who do not desire to teach full- time. We also require a clear and defensible account of the amount of work that goes into a single course from which we can advocate for reasonable part and full-time teaching course-loads and supporting benefits.

We do not need to accept the double bind that has been imposed on us by institutional

actors who stand to benefit from our division and inequity. We are at an important moment in the struggle for labour equity across the nation and within our local. How we organize to establish and achieve our demands is up to our members; let’s just not let this moment go to waste.