Other WLUFA Sites
Categories
Archives
Top 25 Tags
- academic labour issues
- academic staff
- CAUT
- contract faculty
- events
- faculty
- gendered violence
- higher education
- IPRM2012-2014
- Laurier
- Laurier Administration
- Laurier Senate
- negotiations
- OCUFA
- Ontario PSE
- precarious employment
- Statue Project 2015
- students
- teaching
- Waterloo Campus
- Wilfrid Laurier University
- WLUFA
- WLUFA Advocate
- WLUFA Executive
- working conditions
Blog Stats
- 16,158 hits
Faculty Association newsletters
- Follow The WLUFA Advocate Blog on WordPress.com
-
The WLUFA Advocate Blog 
Below are some comments cobbled together from letters I have sent to WLUFA requesting that they take this matter to arbitration.
Cheers, Andrew Robinson
re: Centralized Scheduling. As far as I can tell the Deans here in Brantford have been committed to correcting any schedules CMIS generates that violate the strictest interpretation of the CA, so my concern is not with that.
My concern is with the more basic violation of 18.2.2.2. In my opinion, my right as a program coordinator to submit a proposal for each of my Members’ teaching schedules has been denied. This article is important because, as written, it gives the initiative of setting schedules to chairs/coordinators/Members and places the onus on the Dean to make changes. This allows for schedules to be created that optimize Members’ ability to balance their teaching, research and service commitments and that benefit students by having them teach at the time of day at which they are at their best. Further, this is a right defined in the CA that faculty negotiated in the past, presumably giving something else up in order to obtain this right.
Under the new de facto system, CMIS determines the schedule and the onus is on chairs/coordinators/Members to justify changes. Since this requires Members to argue for each and every schedule change, it is likely to produce much less optimal schedules/working conditions/ability to conduct research, etc. for Members than the approach described in the CA.
My concern focuses on the reference in the CA to the Chair submitting “to the Dean for approval a proposal for…the teaching schedule for each Member.” In Brantford , we didn’t use the Course Build process Deb refers to the Memo, but I have seen it and, as I read it, it does not facilitate the Chair submitting a teaching schedule for each Member. Further, the sentence that follows suggests that the Dean’s approval should be based on concerns about equitability in workload; this does not seem consistent with ignoring proposed schedules and randomizing the times and days of courses.
LikeLike