OPSEU Local 560

    The Employee Attitude Survey - 1999 which was conducted in the past winter semester by Locals 560 & 561 told us that 83% of the faculty respondents agree or strongly agree that The Local has been a "reliable and helpful source of information and advice."  We want to be sure that it remains so.  Our goal is to increase the frequency of issues, as well as the content.
In the past, every issue of The Local has contained an open invitation for submissions.  We hope that more active solicitation will generate more material from our members who can share their views and expertise with colleagues via the local newsletter.
The Executive has asked Diane Meaghan to chair the Communications Sub-Committee.

    So far, the sub-committee has focused on the newsletter.  It is my hope that a reduction in workload for those who have been carrying The Local will free up time to turn more attention to the development of our web page and electronic communications efforts.  We would like to use those media to better effect, and Patricia Clark and I hope to have more time for that now.  Steve Rakus of the Faculty of Technology, has already assisted in getting us started, and we should now be able to devote more time there.

    Improving the existing forums for communication with and among our members, as well as opening up new ones, has been a long-standing goal of local 560.  We do not want to abandon the paper/hard-copy medium and, as noted, plan to increase the frequency of publication.  At the same time, we hope to develop better use of our electronic capabilities as a quick and useful avenue of communication. 

 What is clear in the Harris agenda is that an entrepreneurial spirit will continue to restructure the activities of post-secondary education, aligning them with market needs. The neo-conservative agenda encourages the use of markets rather than state intervention, emphasizing labour-market flexibility, reducing production costs, and increasing competitiveness. Thus, the government will continue to dismantle social reforms, reduce public-sector spending, offload costs to users, and reduce business taxes. In future, post-secondary institutions, and colleges in particular, are to focus on meeting corporate demands for a multi-skilled workforce in order to attract high-wage jobs.

 The Tory plan does not mention reinvestment in education. In fact, it enshrines previous cuts and proposes to continue to extract money from the publicly-funded educational system. The reduction in base grants, the support of business-education partnerships, and the use of designated funding will introduce market forces into the colleges and put pressure on these institutions to engage in market-like behaviours.  Although colleges and universities will receive $750 million in 1999, the funds are predominantly targeted for building to accommodate the baby-boom echo and the double cohort (produced with the elimination of Grade 13), together projected to increase enrolment by 30 percent over the next ten years. At the same time, the government continues to raise tuition fees to approximately 35 percent of total spending in colleges and universities.

 Shifting government responsibility to individuals and the private sector is expected to increase the participation of business and industry in education at all levels. Program rationalization, the use of performance indicators to elicit specific performance tied to funding, and the development of non-governmental funding signal a shift to corporations and employers playing a greater role in program design, and enhanced managerial control over teaching/learning processes. Funding for the development of virtual-learning systems, partnerships with private businesses, the growth of part-time and sessional faculty, and other cost-saving measures will be employed to bring the activities of colleges in line with the interests of the market. Within the framework of a business agenda, college policies and practices are transforming assumptions about citizenship, universal rights, and the collective good. College education is being framed as a commodity, to the detriment of concepts of entitlement, accessibility, and equity - those who pay call the tune, and those who benefit pay the piper. However, what is good for the economy is not necessarily beneficial for all in society. Practices successful in the world of business do not guarantee quality education or ensure democracy in the social world. It is important that those who oppose this agenda not become discouraged and demoralized. Indeed, academics and unions on the front line of delivering college programs play a crucial role in maintaining and enhancing academic quality. Now more than ever, academic workers need to be vigilant in terms of protecting the established tradition of college teaching and learning processes, as well holding Mr. Harris accountable to his promises to protect public services. 

The arrangement permits professors who transferred from the OTPP to the CAAT PP prior to January 1, 1993 and who left their deferred pension benefit with the Teachers’ Plan to transfer the value of their Teachers’ Plan service to the CAAT Pension Plan.

To maximize your retirement earnings, you will need to consider the options available and which arrangement best suits your particular circumstances.

If you qualify and consider the transfer advantageous, your application must reach the CAAT Pension Plan by August 31, 2000.

You can direct your questions about the transfer to Lisa Pitaro at the CAAT Pension Plan telephone number (905) 281-4417.

Let us know what’s going on in your corner of the College. Contact us with your questions about workload.  Tell us what you think of college and government policies and practices affecting education. Your articles can be e-mailed to: opseu560@idirect.com, mailed to Patricia Clark or Ted Montgomery at Newnham Campus, or faxed to the union office at (416) 495-7573.

We reserve the right to edit articles and request that you provide a telephone number or e-mail address where we can contact you regarding your article. You can, however,  request anonymity at the time of publishing. 

 As Catherine Rellinger, President of Mohawk College in Hamilton, Ontario points out, "This represents an important change in approach for all Ontario colleges. College funding has traditionally been based solely on enrolment numbers. Performance based funding raises the bar for quality and accountability". Furthermore, reporter Kim Goodman of the North York Mirror  (January 6, 1999, p.8) quotes Dr. Bill Gordon of the K.P.I. Implementation Team as saying: "Ultimately, the hope is to make colleges as good as they can get and look at where programs are weak and where to strengthen them. Students can do more comparative shopping." In the same article, Vicki Milligen-Carter, Director of Student Development at Seneca College in Toronto is quoted as saying, "Academic programs will use (survey results) to decide which programs need to increase enrolment, which ones need to be revamped, and those that need to be cut back... We try to be responsive to industry and the job market."

 As these quotes suggest, K.P.I. scores could be used to drop programs which are not "performing". If low K.P.I. scores are not accompanied by funding for improvement, programs within colleges which are currently underfunded (e.g. Nursing) may be at risk. Institutions of higher learning in Ontario are, in fact, already chronically underfunded, and the predicted 30-40 per cent increase in enrolment in the next 10 years will only add to the existing financial crisis. Unless appropriate funding is provided to Ontario's community colleges, K.P.I. results will only provide a mechanism, if not an excuse, for indirectly and inadequately dealing with underfunding and faculty downsizing. Given the history of Ontario's community colleges, competition between colleges for K.P.I. scores will likely encourage the expansion of academic-lean production techniques which will further undermine faculty control of curriculum and teaching in the classroom.

 Unless K.P.I. includes a vehicle for assessing faculty satisfaction with college management, the structure of curriculum, student performance and government funding and political practices, the chances of producing a more positive work environment for educational workers in Ontario's community colleges will be limited. Raising the bar of accountability through performance-based funding will probably restrict teaching professionals from practising their trade.

 Academic lean-production techniques, such as Key Performance Indicators, promote the emergence of a skilled, academic proletariat in Ontario's community colleges. Even if the provincial government increases funding, it is not likely to be interested in creating working conditions which will encourage the professional autonomy of faculty. Lean production in Ontario colleges, as in the auto industry, will probably result in fewer professors producing more graduates in a shorter period of time under the strict supervision of managerial performance evaluators. 

Still, analyzing this latest fiscal initiative can be instructive. First question: Why have parking fees at all? Why must employees pay for the privilege of coming to work?

Particularly at King, where no public transportation is available, commuting by car is a necessity for most employees. Many employers (including elementary and secondary school boards) provide free parking. What is different about us?

The answers may have no immediate practical value; nevertheless, they can give useful insights into our corporate culture. Seneca charges us because: (1) it can - no law forbids it and the topic has never been a high priority in negotiations; (2) other colleges charge their employees, and no senior Seneca manager wants to look soft on employee benefits; and (3) the revenue - almost $400 yearly from most employees (plus students and visitors) - represents a tidy cash grab, a way of taxing back our wages at source. This said, three issues beg comment.

Why So Much?
An e-mail from the  "Employee Help Desk" says the increase is the first in three years. So what? Our 1998 raise was the first in six. Also, the fee increase is over 36% in 1999 and was 20% in 2000. Meanwhile, thanks to the Bob Rae-Mike Harris axis, between 1992 and 2000 our salaries will have risen by only 15%, less than 2% annually. Finally, the fee hike is blamed on unspecified "rising operational costs." Maybe the problem results from the privatization of Seneca's security service, and that is ideology not economics. Let's see the books.

Why Different Rates?
Thanks to management's crack negotiating team (that was also unable to  win faculty full access to York's Library), Seneca teachers at Newnham and King pay less than at York. The issue is equity. The College should subsidize employees so teachers pay equally regardless of campus. Saying York controls the system is no excuse. We work for Seneca and benefit adjustments are our business.

Who's to Blame?
In most matters of administrative malfeasance, mendacious motives are at work. Here, the malice is more passive than active. Senior management, after all, is probably not eager to punish people at  Seneca @ York more than others.
No, the problem is overall managerial style. After briefly flirting with the rhetoric - though never the reality - of employee empowerment, the College has again embraced authoritarianism. It precludes collegial decision making and excludes even the possibility of constructive suggestions. One might have been using the "quad" at the York facility for parking at much reduced rates. Why not? There may well be practical objections but, in the absence of open discussion, such topics cannot be raised,  much less resolved. 

On June 9th and 10th of this year, the Ninth Annual General Meeting of the Ontario College Council (the provincial body composed of local college councils) took place at Seneca's King Campus. At the meeting, faculty, administrators, and Board members reaffirmed their worries over Seneca's unique refusal to respond to its employees inclusively. Among the several expressions of distress that flowed from the meeting was one of "concern over the process of replacing the Seneca Academic Council and the composition of the replacement Council." While the OCC urges an amicable solution to the obvious problems at Seneca, it remains clear that President Quinlan has defied provincial policies in order to impose his own order.
It is time for Seneca to solve this problem by establishing its own Education Council that does, in fact, represent the Seneca community and is independent of the President.

Can he be serious? Surely all Board matters (especially the ones that led to a major bail-out from a Board that has occasionally - though ever so politely - disagreed with the current administration) affect Seneca employees!

The fact is that four members of the Board (including the Chair) walked or were driven away. But, according to President Quinlan, "these members resigned over internal Board matters" that "do not involve ... Seneca employees in any way."
Still, maybe President Quinlan's efforts to bend matters to his own will have not been without some benefits. Somehow or other - perhaps no one was looking at the time - the trade union representative on the Board, Doug Dutton, wound up as Chair. To quote Inspector Gadget, "Wowsers!"

There may be an opportunity for faculty, for support staff, and even for middle management to gain a generous ear, one that is not already closed by an administration that is indifferent to our concerns 

Second, the majority of customers know what they want; many students don’t.
Third, stores exist to sell things and nothing else; schools exist to explore ideas, teach techniques, impart information, probe values. What they do is sometimes messy; you can’t package a questioning mind in Christmas wrap.

The "student-as-customer" movement forgets that students come to you because of who you are, and while some of that is public relations work, your substance in the long run is what sustains a reputation, not your catering to the fickleness of fashion.
Calling students "customers" cheapens them by focussing on the dollars they have to spend rather than the ideas/energy/commitment they have to contribute. The Free Speech Movement at Berkeley and the students who died at Kent State brought more than their dollars to campus; they helped transform institutions and the conscience of a nation. The "student-as-customers" [gimmick] denies this tradition and equates education with a Sears catalog.

C. W.  Bishop is Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning at Johnson County Community College in Overland Park, Kansas.