Continuing the Casualization: Teaching Stream Appointments, Round Two

Lykke de la Cour
Department of Social Science

The administration’s most recent proposal for the creation of teaching-only faculty positions within YUFA is provoking considerable 'deja view' both with respect to actual TS proposal, as well as some of the ensuing discussions across YUFA listservs. As a long service CUPE member now holding a CLA position, my current employment location affords a bit of a 'borderland' view, between YUFA and CUPE, and there are a few comments I would like to further add to this discussion.

First, the proposal for Teaching Stream Faculty currently before YUFA is in many ways (except for a few slight improvements) the TSA proposal that Contract Faculty in Unit 2 rejected in a forced ratification vote in January 2009. So it is odd that it is now being put forth for consideration by tenured faculty at York.

Secondly, I am a bit surprised that there has been no discussion of this proposal in
light of the 2008 OCUFA Report "Career Limiting Move? Teaching-Only Positions in
Ontario." This report critiques the 4.0 teaching-only model for many of the same reasons that Craig Heron identifies (its stultifying affect on career/professional advancement). But OCUFA also argues that the 80/20 model is simply bad for pedagogic reasons. Attached is a copy of this report. It’s worth a read.

In terms of the actual details in the Teaching Stream proposal now before YUFA, there are a number of other troubling aspects with these teaching-only positions:

1. Not only are these TS positions contractual and not tenured, but also the 'lay off'
provisions differ significantly from what tenured faculty currently enjoy in their collective agreement. This proposal specifies that teaching-only faculty can be laid off if 'curriculum becomes unavailable and redeployment is not possible.' This provision actually makes these TS positions even more precarious than Unit 2 work at the university.

Currently, when particular courses or programs become 'unavailable,' Unit 2 Contract Faculty are often able to shift their teaching loads across faculties and departments to pick up new courses in their areas of expertise. However, it is highly unlikely that faculty in these TS positions will have the same flexibility to do so, especially given that these appointments will at least be faculty, if not department specific.

So far from creating or enhancing employment stability at York, these teaching-only appointments actually exacerbate employment precarity at the university further. Again, this is not good for the quality of teaching and undergraduate students' learning experiences. Also, as was argued by CUPE two years ago, with respect to the TSA proposal that was put forth in tripartite discussions at that time between CUPE, YUFA and the administration, faculty holding these positions are basically 'sitting ducks' in moments of budgetary constraints, i.e. very easy to lay off and the first to be let go when finances get tight. With no seniority provisions either within YUFA or CUPE, these faculty will simply be put out on the street.

2. Another paradox between the proposed teaching-only positions and current CUPE
contract faculty work is that the criteria for hiring is actually less for these TS positions than what is currently being asserted in some quarters with respect to 'qualifications' for Unit 2 work.

The teaching-stream appointments do not require any demonstration of research or other scholarly activity, either for initial hiring or for renewal of the three-year teaching contract. Ironically, this stands in marked contrast to what is currently being demanded in some CUPE Contract Faculty positions, where evidence of 'on-going research' is increasingly being required for Unit 2 work in some departments and programs.

Over the past few years, a number of programs and departments have begun to indicate
'evidence of on-going research' as a hiring requirement in Unit 2 job postings. This is one of the key ways that seniority provisions within the Unit 2 collective agreement are currently being challenged and eroded. Collectively and cumulatively, these alterations in Unit 2 job descriptions are furthering the casualization of academic teaching by: (1) eroding the distinction in employment requirements between Unit 2 and tenure-stream positions; and (2) imposing qualifications that very few contract faculty can meet once they’ve entered and worked for a few years in the ranks of Unit 2, teaching 3, 4 and up
to 5.5 courses or course equivalencies each year. The emphasis on 'evidence of on-going research' opens teaching work, at least for a few years, for junior, freshly-minted graduates, but simultaneously erodes their chances of longer term employment as they become less and less able to meet the job posting requirements around on-going research once the teaching demands, associated with Unit 2 work overtake their lives.

This assault on Unit 2 seniority provisions has been challenged by CUPE through a number of grievances. But, unfortunately, 'managerial rights' so far have been upheld to the disadvantage of CUPE in these grievances. This is an issue that obviously CUPE will have to continue fighting. But the TS proposal does introduce a quite ironic and central contradiction to academic teaching at York whereby the presumably more prestigious YUFA teaching positions will actually have a lower standard or threshold for employment than CUPE Unit 2 work, at least if Unit 2 posting requirements continue along the trajectory outlined above.

3. Finally, of course, the most troubling aspect with this TS proposal is that these hires will by-pass Unit 2, the current teaching-only faculty stream at York, in all and any hiring considerations -- i.e. that these positions are for external hires, not for current or even future Unit 2 Contract Faculty.

This is perhaps where the TS proposal is most ill thought out, especially given that York's administration is suppose to be searching (as directed by the Ministry of Labour) for ways to improve, not antagonize, labour relations at the university.

It has been articulated by some YUFA members that these new teaching-only positions are precisely designed to provide a 'way around' CUPE seniority provisions so as to allow departments to hire whomever they want. However, outside of the obvious pitfalls with this line of argument (i.e. that the limited number of TS appointments, coincidental with projected growth in undergraduate enrolments, YUFA retirements, etc., will still leave a large contingent of contractualized faculty within CUPE) we need to think quite carefully about what this critique of 'seniority' really means – essentially what this argument is saying is that some YUFA faculty or some departments at York do not want to hire academic faculty who have demonstrated and established teaching experience, but would prefer to hire, for teaching-only positions, new faculty who have very little or no teaching experience. This is ultimately what critiques of CUPE seniority essentially mean.

So I'm left with pretty much the same conclusion as two years ago when plans for teaching-only appointments were first raised and discussed at York. This proposal, like its TSA predecessor, is extremely flawed, contradictory, and illogical, and will do absolutely nothing towards improving teaching and learning conditions at the university.

Isn’t it time that we put undergraduate students at the centre of analysis here and figure out, given the university’s financial constraints, what would be the most optimal way of achieving employment stability among the ranks of teaching faculty so as to enhance the learning environment instead of eroding it through even more precarious, casualized academic teaching positions?

Commenting on this Story is closed.