NEWSLETTER

January 2004

Announcements

10th Anniversary of Reinventing Our Legacy

March 8, 2004

Commemoration of the 10th  Anniversary of the 1993 Report of The President's Advisory Committee on the Status of Women will be held on International Women's Day. Watch for details

CAUT Executive Committee Call for Nominations

Nominations are being actively sought for election to the CAUT Executive Committee, namely: President, Vice-President, Treasurer, and two Members-at-large. Nominations are also being sought for election to positions on three CAUT Standing Committees: Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee (two vacancies); Collective Bargaining and Economic Benefits Committee (one vacancy - Chair); Librarians Committee (two vacancies including Chair). Individual affiliated members and associate members of CAUT are entitled to make nominations.

Elections will take place at the CAUT Council meeting in Ottawa in April 2004. The deadline for receiving nominations is March 1, 2004.

Nomination procedures and forms can be found on-line at http://www.caut.ca/english/member/nominations/ or by contacting the USFA office.

CHAIR'S REMARKS

There are a number of issues of importance that I would like to bring to your attention.

First of all, I would like to let you all know that we now have a full Executive Committee. Vaneeta Grover, a Lecturer in Community Health and Epidemiology, volunteered to fill our one remaining vacancy. Thank you Vaneeta. I also want to get a plug in early for people to consider running for the USFA Executive Committee. Elections are held in April and terms of office, which commence on July 1, are two years in length. There will be nine positions open this year. Persons appointed by the Executive to fill vacated or unfilled positions only serve for one year. That is why there are more than the usual 6 positions this year.

Fall General Meeting

Thank you to everyone that came out to our Fall General Membership meeting, which took place on November 26^th. A good portion of the meeting was taken up with discussion around the Provost's recent letter to the campus community on the subject of the University's structural deficit, and USFA members had a good deal to say about the issue. A motion was passed instructing the USFA Executive to take steps to protest the University's attempt to restrict faculty appointments to term positions and to respond to the many challenges in the Provost's letter.

The Provost's letter is silent with respect to responsibility for the deficit and although it talks a lot about managing the deficit through the integrated planning process, it says nothing about how to address the deficit other than to stop hiring long-term employees. Now is not the time to curtail recruitment of new faculty into tenure track positions. In the upcoming decade this University will lose approximately 500 faculty to retirement and the pool of PhD graduates is not growing at anywhere near the same pace.

As part of the Executive's work on the motion we have formed subcommittees to work on specific issues and a steering committee that will coordinate the subcommittees' efforts. We would very much welcome the participation of any interested USFA members. Please feel free to contact the USFA office or any member of the Executive for details.

Saskatchewan Academic Health Sciences Network

In this last round of bargaining, we negotiated a Memorandum of Agreement respecting discussions about a Saskatchewan Academic Health Sciences Network. The discussion thus far centers around the search and appointment process for department heads in clinical departments in the College of Medicine.

The current Search Committee process is seen as a problem by the employer because there is no requirement to involve the community-based physicians in the search process for the head (who will be their head, as well), and, even if they are included in the process, their opinion could be ignored.  Also, there is no defined process for selecting community-based physicians for the subcommittee, or opportunity for participation by the Dean's counterpart from the Health Region.

The Appointments Committee is also seen as problematic in that when a Search Committee fails to find or refuses to consider candidates who have the support of both the university-based physicians and the Health Region, the result will be a series of acting headships.  Also, it is not clear how the community-based physicians will be consulted at this level. We have been advised that it is the position of the Provost and Dean that no appointment to a Single Headship position will be made unless the candidate has the support of the Health Region.

The employer has put forward a proposal for a modified processes, which proposes joint Search and Appointment Committees that allow for equal input for university and community-based physicians. In non-clinical departments the search would follow the process currently used, with no attempt to involve community-based physicians in a subcommittee

Discussions are still underway and we will keep you informed as they progress.

Diversity Focus Groups

Two weeks ago I received an invitation to participate in a focus group with respect to "diversity". I declined.

The intention of these focus groups was to discuss the University's new "Diversity Model", which is touted as building on the work done to date with respect to employment equity. The University wants us to believe that diversity is a more expansive concept than employment equity. The University feels that employment equity programs focus on quantitative achievements with less attention placed on making the workplace a better place.

While the USFA is in favour of addressing issues at the U of S that make the university workplace a better environment, we do not see how participating in Diversity Focus Groups will make this happen. The USFA has participated, to no avail, in past efforts to address issues with respect to what is referred to as diversity. The most notable of these was an employment systems review by external reviewers. The University has not shown any desire to complete this review even though the new diversity model includes employment systems review as one component.

The University has time and again shown its lack of commitment to such efforts. The 1992 decision of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission with respect to allowing the U of S to preferentially hire individuals in the designated groups included 26 terms and conditions which have yet to be properly fulfilled. The President's Advisory Committee on the Status of Women issued a report in 1993, which included recommendations to all levels of the campus community from the Board of Governors to students that have been largely unaddressed. And although the U of S states support in its Operations Forecast for pay equity, efforts to address it have been at best slow and in the case of CUPE 1975 have come to a complete standstill.

Meetings With FARs

Since mid-December Jim Cheesman, USFA Vice-Chair, has been meeting with small groups of Faculty Association Representatives (FARs). The purpose of these meetings is to pass along information from the USFA Executive and to find out what's happening in your units. As always these meetings are very informative and we are planning to have them on an ongoing basis.

Discussions at these meetings have covered various issues of concern to USFA members. FARs told us that USFA members are dismayed at the sudden notice of a structural deficit. They do not see that negotiated salary increases are to blame. They do see the cost of not making every effort to continue to recruit tenure track faculty even when there is a deficit.

The idea of a collegiality conference was explored. Faculty need to get excited about participating in collegial processes. We are all overburdened planning exercises and the ability to be involved in collegial processes is becoming more and more difficult. However, Administration is taking over the collegium's ability to direct the decision-making processes.

The USFA Executive Committee would like to thank those USFA members who have agreed to be the FAR in their unit. FARs are an invaluable resource to our union. We also need to let you know that not all units have a FAR. If you would be interested in being a FAR, please contact the USFA office.

Bob Gander

DRUG COVERAGE

The Faculty Association Benefits Committee has received a number of inquiries regarding the possibility of  increasing drug coverage.   That request may be a result of changes to government coverage with eligibility determined by family income.  Our information from Blue Cross is that drugs make up the largest claims component in our plan.  For the 2002 calendar year, drugs made up close to 70% of total Extended Health claims (excluding vision).

Blue Cross provided estimated costs of implementing various plan design changes for coverage of $1500 or $2000.  Initially these changes would result in an increase to premiums of between $40 per year (with a $100 deductible) and $120 per year (no deductible).  We have been told that in future years, increased usage and increased pharmaceutical costs could be expected to make the increase substantially more and that increasing the drug maximum would have long term implications for the cost of our Extended Health Care Plan.

Data on usage is interesting:  46% of members (468 out of 994) and 54% of their dependents (919 out of 1703) did not make any claim under drug coverage in 2002. For another 17% of members (176 out of 994) and 23% of their dependents (391 out of 1703) the claim for drug coverage was less than $100 for the year.  Only 5% of members (52 out of 994) and less than 3% of their dependents (44 out of 1703) had claims at the $1000 ceiling for the year.

Blue Cross provided the following table based on usage during the 2002 year:

Drug Claim Distribution by Amount Paid

On the basis of the foregoing information, The Association Benefits Committee recommends that no changes be made to the amount of drug coverage provided.

USFA and Other University Unions in Common Front on Equity

The Executive of the Faculty Association has been struggling for the past several years to gain some progress on employment equity and pay equity, both matters that the University had agreed to move on in collective bargaining.  Unfortunately, there has been little progress to date.  We have also realized that the same situation has occurred with other unions on campus-ASPA and CUPE 1975.  At the moment, it would appear that some progress is occurring between ASPA and the University in their Job Evaluation (JE) process.  The same cannot, however, be said about the situation for either CUPE 1975 or USFA.  That is why the two unions published a joint newsletter in June, 2003 and that is why the USFA supported CUPE in the staging of its protest rally on November 25, 2003.  It is also why members of CUPE 1975, ASPA, and the Association's Committee on Women's Issues are working together on a joint strategy to lament the lack of progress since Reinventing Our Legacy, the University's study on equity, which was published in 1993.

It is shameful that the University has shown little or no commitment to achieving equity on this campus.  Moreover, the University is on very shaky ground indeed to backtrack from the legal commitments it has given through the collective bargaining processes with its unionized employees.  The University is giving every appearance of engaging in the kinds of containment strategies that are described in the literature on equity: Steinberg, Ronnie J., Job Evaluation and Managerial Control: The Politics of Technique and the Technique of Politics and in Judy Fudge and Patricia McDermott (eds) Just Wages A Feminist Assessment of Pay Equity (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), at 193-218.

These strategies include:

-         Turning political decisions into technical decisions.  The University has, with both unions, been taking the position of late that the methodology used to determine inequities was flawed from the beginning, a conclusion with which we profoundly disagree;

-         Withholding information.  A common ploy by employers is to set a ceiling on pay adjustments, then withhold this information from the unions.  Is this the reason the University is backing away from its contractual commitments?

-         Placing proponents of equity on advisory committees to divide or weaken them.  The plethora of President's advisory committees on a variety of issues that include equity confirms that this strategy is at work here;

-         Piggybacking other political agendas onto the effort to achieve equity.  The new buzz word from the University is "diversity;" in our estimation, it is designed to deflect attention away from concrete steps towards equity and is essentially devoid of content;

-         Control of the timing.  The USFA has been trying to pressure the University to carry out an Employment Systems Review (ESR), which would assess barriers to equity-seeking groups in the recruiting, hiring, tenure, promotion, and merit processes.  CUPE 1975 had been engaged in the JE process for years before the University recently pulled the plug.

The University is behaving in predictable ways to avoid its legal commitments.  However, strong united action from the unions will continue until we achieve what we bargained for.

LIFE INSURANCE COVERAGE

Our office has received a number of questions regarding life insurance.

In the 2002-5 Collective Agreement, Mandatory Life Insurance increased to two times the annual salary effective July 1, 2004.  The mandatory plan provides insurance only for the employee and premiums are entirely paid by the employer.  This coverage is considered to be a taxable benefit. 

The maximum coverage available through the Voluntary Group Life Insurance Plan (VGLI) is $500,000.  This maximum is available to either an employee or a spouse without evidence if coverage is applied for within thirty days of the date of hire or of a change in status due to marriage or birth of a child.  A spouse may apply for voluntary group life insurance coverage even if the employee has not taken out or does not qualify for voluntary insurance.

The same provisions  apply to the Accidental Death and Disability Insurance Plan (ADD) as for VGLI.  The employee or spouse need not be a member of the Voluntary Group Life Insurance Plan in order to qualify for ADD.

Reminder to those planning on retiring:   If you think that you might want to convert your Voluntary Group Life coverage, we suggest you look into the matter well in advance.    The conversion option allows a member to continue life insurance coverage without the necessity of a medical examination. Generally the conversion option is only of benefit to those people who would not qualify elsewhere because of medical problems.  We recommend that people find out rates and requirements of other insurance on the market.  Usually the market has other plans for a lower price than the conversion option.  However, for those who wish to exercise the conversion option, be advised that the application for Voluntary Group Life conversion must be received by the carrier, Manulife, within 31 days of ending employment.

Reinventing Our Legacy 10 Years Later

The USFA Committee on Women's Issues marked the 10^th Anniversary of Reinventing our Legacy (ROL), in November when it hosted a luncheon with representatives from other unions at the U of S (ASPA, CUPE 1975 and CUPE 3287) for the purpose of getting acquainted and exploring the possibility of joint actions.

The meeting was a resounding success. There was immediate agreement that these groups work far too much in isolation on the same issues and that the 10^th anniversary of ROL would be the focus of the first of what is hoped will be many joint events.

A committee has been formed comprised of representatives from each of USFA, ASPA, CUPE 1975 and 3287 to undertake a commemoration of ROL. It was felt that a celebration was not appropriate because little seems to have happened in the last 10 years toward addressing the report's recommendations. But it was also recognized that ROL was a significant moment in the life of the U of S and should be remembered as such.

The commemoration is in the planning stages and the committee would welcome anyone interested in participating. If you would like more information, or would like to get involved, contact any one of the union offices.

Employee Assistance Program Fact Sheet

(Second in a series about Employee Assistance Program services)

By Norm Biram, EAP Director

The Employee Assistance Program (EAP) is a confidential counselling service available to all University employees and their dependents. It offers help for personal, work, and family related problems. The EAP provides on-campus therapeutic services and also refers to community psychotherapists for longer term help. The EAP provides limited financial support for psychotherapy costs.

How is confidentiality protected?

Confidentiality refers to the protection of information given by a client to EAP staff. Any contact with the EAP office is confidential.

A Memorandum of Agreement in the USFA Collective Agreement specifies that the University and the Faculty Association will have no access to EAP files and that EAP staff and client files cannot be summoned before an Arbitrator.

EAP files are kept for clinical and professional reasons and are not part of any official employee record held by the University.

The EAP will disclose information in the following situations:

1.       Routine referral information only to the agency/therapist receiving a referral.

2.       To third parties, with signed client consent, if the client so instructs, and it is deemed as supporting the resolution of a problem to do so.

3.       As a condition of law or of professional codes of ethics, if a client is clearly in danger of harming herself/himself, or others. This is called a "duty of care" or a "duty to warn".

The confidentiality of the EAP is important to establish a level of trust - first, that information will not be disclosed without client consent; secondly, that the EAP is neutral and without bias regarding work-related issues within the University; third, that the EAP is focused solely on support and therapeutic repair of the issue defined by the client.

EAP staff members to discuss the conditions and boundaries of confidentiality with every new client to ensure that clients are both aware and comfortable with the protections offered.

What is the role of the EAP Board?

The Memorandum also establishes the EAP Board. This Management Board is charged with overseeing  EAP services, and is essentially an organizational buffer by which EAP services are maintained as independent, or "at arm's length" from the University and from Unions/Associations. The Board is also the mechanism through which the EAP demonstrates accountability to its constituent sponsors. The Board consists of two members each from CUPE Local 1975, CUPE Local 3287, ASPA, the USFA, and the University. The Board also contains two members external to the University.

Board members are responsible to advocate for EAP perspectives, and to bring perspectives from their constituency to the EAP Board. EAP staff are directly accountable to this Management Board, which also establishes operational policies for the EAP, evaluates the services, and develops preventive or training events which support the mental health and "work-life" balance of all employees.

Board members do not have direct knowledge of individual clients, but instead receive aggregated statistics which demonstrate patterns of EAP utilization.

USFA representatives are currently Cheryle Kelm (Physical Therapy - 6586) and Don Saklofske (Educational Psychology - 7727). Please contact them if you have questions.

Coming Next:

What are the typical patterns of EAP usage in the University?

Why is it important to consider using EAP services?

Can I be required to attend EAP?

For further information or for a confidential inquiry, contact:

Employee Assistance Program

Rooms 1013-1018 Education Building

Phone: 966-4300

Email: eap@usask.ca