Dear Premier Stefanson,
When I wrote to you last, the University of Manitoba Faculty Association (UMFA) was ending the first week of the 2021 strike. As we now start our fourth week, I and my colleagues are hopeful that recent events signal a change in the Province’s, and with it the University administration’s, approach to bargaining. Until now, and especially in the last week, the administration has moved very little when they moved at all. “Meaningful dialogue and engagement” are indeed necessary for truth and reconciliation, but they are also necessary in negotiation. Most recently, the administration rejected and refused to counter UMFA’s latest offer electing instead to propose unconditional binding arbitration
This option is frankly unacceptable. In the past (specifically 2013), the administration proposed the same thing, and in front of the arbitrator retracted a number of issues which had been on the table, but which they suddenly decided ‘shouldn’t be arbitrated’. When UMFA objected, they’re response was, essentially, ‘if you wanted X so badly, you should have gone on strike’. Our current opposition to unconditional arbitration is based on exactly that ‘advice’. Fool me once, and all.
Instead, UMFA has imposed conditions before we will proceed to arbitration. These conditions included the settlement of a number of non-financial governance issues to protect our rights as scholars and as employees.
I am cautiously hopeful about your government’s approach to higher education and public sector unions. I am particularly pleased by Minister Fielding’s announcement that the PSSA-style wage freeze is to be lifted, and that in court the government’s lawyers have acknowledged the unconstitutionality of the interference in the 2016 collective agreement negotiations. “Dialogue and engagement” are indeed necessary to truth and reconciliation. I would remind you that they are also the essence of negotiation.
I am however very concerned about the ‘new funding model’, about which the Speech from the Throne gave no details, except that it is to be tied to ‘employer needs’ and outcomes. Although we share your government’s wish that all our graduates find gainful and fulfilling employment, I absolutely disagree that ‘training’ students for specific jobs is a good strategy.
For the last 15 years, at least, employers have been telling us that reliance on STEM education isn’t the panacea some had thought. A business associate said to me ages ago that ‘we can teach them to run the machines and do the calculations. What we can’t teach them is to read and write.’ Many, many articles suggest that the value of STEM education isn’t the focus on employability or job skills, but on creative problem solving and critical thinking.
I have great respect for tradespeople and vocational training. However, that is not the point of a university education. Particularly in Arts, we have always focused on critical thinking, critical reading, and critical writing. That is, skills much needed by and appreciated by employers for the workforce. These skills are fostered not only by major and minor coursework, but electives that allow students to explore fields they hadn’t considered, or in some cases even heard of, and to experience different approaches and points of view to various real-world issues.
My point is that one can never be sure exactly what kind of needs employers are going to have in the next 5-10 years, let alone over the lifetime of our graduates, any more than one can be sure what knowledge, skills, and talent are going to lead to the next entrepreneurial success, or the next medical breakthrough. What employers have always needed, still need and always will need, is a workforce capable of thinking critically and creatively. This is the point of a university education, and this is what we all, whatever our individual fields of study or discipline, strive to offer to our students.
It would be remiss of me now to not mention the admiral goal of opening 400 new spaces for admission to nursing school. I want to point out that educating all those nurses will require a good deal more staff, and as I’m sure you know, University of Manitoba salary grids at the moment do not offer competitive compensation for the staff we have, let alone any new staff we want to recruit and retain. This is what is at stake in our current negotiation. Education, including higher education, requires a financial investment, not arbitrary austerity measures, if we are going to be able to do our jobs, and our students to do theirs.
Respectfully,
Robert Hagiwara, PhD
University of Manitoba
Currently on legal strike
This option is frankly unacceptable. In the past (specifically 2013), the administration proposed the same thing, and in front of the arbitrator retracted a number of issues which had been on the table, but which they suddenly decided ‘shouldn’t be arbitrated’. When UMFA objected, they’re response was, essentially, ‘if you wanted X so badly, you should have gone on strike’. Our current opposition to unconditional arbitration is based on exactly that ‘advice’. Fool me once, and all.
Instead, UMFA has imposed conditions before we will proceed to arbitration. These conditions included the settlement of a number of non-financial governance issues to protect our rights as scholars and as employees.
I am cautiously hopeful about your government’s approach to higher education and public sector unions. I am particularly pleased by Minister Fielding’s announcement that the PSSA-style wage freeze is to be lifted, and that in court the government’s lawyers have acknowledged the unconstitutionality of the interference in the 2016 collective agreement negotiations. “Dialogue and engagement” are indeed necessary to truth and reconciliation. I would remind you that they are also the essence of negotiation.
I am however very concerned about the ‘new funding model’, about which the Speech from the Throne gave no details, except that it is to be tied to ‘employer needs’ and outcomes. Although we share your government’s wish that all our graduates find gainful and fulfilling employment, I absolutely disagree that ‘training’ students for specific jobs is a good strategy.
For the last 15 years, at least, employers have been telling us that reliance on STEM education isn’t the panacea some had thought. A business associate said to me ages ago that ‘we can teach them to run the machines and do the calculations. What we can’t teach them is to read and write.’ Many, many articles suggest that the value of STEM education isn’t the focus on employability or job skills, but on creative problem solving and critical thinking.
I have great respect for tradespeople and vocational training. However, that is not the point of a university education. Particularly in Arts, we have always focused on critical thinking, critical reading, and critical writing. That is, skills much needed by and appreciated by employers for the workforce. These skills are fostered not only by major and minor coursework, but electives that allow students to explore fields they hadn’t considered, or in some cases even heard of, and to experience different approaches and points of view to various real-world issues.
My point is that one can never be sure exactly what kind of needs employers are going to have in the next 5-10 years, let alone over the lifetime of our graduates, any more than one can be sure what knowledge, skills, and talent are going to lead to the next entrepreneurial success, or the next medical breakthrough. What employers have always needed, still need and always will need, is a workforce capable of thinking critically and creatively. This is the point of a university education, and this is what we all, whatever our individual fields of study or discipline, strive to offer to our students.
It would be remiss of me now to not mention the admiral goal of opening 400 new spaces for admission to nursing school. I want to point out that educating all those nurses will require a good deal more staff, and as I’m sure you know, University of Manitoba salary grids at the moment do not offer competitive compensation for the staff we have, let alone any new staff we want to recruit and retain. This is what is at stake in our current negotiation. Education, including higher education, requires a financial investment, not arbitrary austerity measures, if we are going to be able to do our jobs, and our students to do theirs.
Respectfully,
Robert Hagiwara, PhD
University of Manitoba
Currently on legal strike
2 comments:
Dang. That last paragraph hits the nail on the head.
Thanks, Conner!
Post a Comment