Questions

The perspectives below do not necessarily represent the views of MAUT

Please remit your questions to membership.maut [at] mcgill.ca

Question
Pro-Union Response
Rebuttal
Pro-Association Response
Rebuttal

Does this mean I could be forced into s union membership against my will and forced to go on strike if the union so decides?  That would be a huge reduction in my autonomy as we have seen with the tenured faculty.

This is the general way that university unionization works in Quebec. If people want to work collectively to have a say in their compensation and working conditions then they start a process similar to a national referendum or mini-election. For university professors, this is done by people in individual faculties or the whole university—a community—by signing union cards. Once 50% + 1 sign cards, unions apply to get a licence (i.e., accreditation with Quebec’s Labour Tribunal—the TAT) to represent the community as a bargaining unit. As part of that process, the employer and community have to agree on the composition of the bargaining unit (e.g., tenure track members of a faculty and faculty lecturers). Then the bargaining unit gets a government licence to begin bargaining and strike, if the unit deems it necessary.

Once the license is granted, everyone in the community is bound together. Some unions do not obligate everyone in the bargaining unit to become members. This depends entirely on the choices of the union makes during collective bargaining. Members of the union do not have to remain passive; they can actively participate in crafting the collective agreement.

Quebec law requires everyone in the community, whether they are a member of the union or not, to pay union dues once those due are voted on by the union. This is because the union has a duty to represent everyone in the bargaining unit and everyone benefits from the workplace improvements; therefore, everyone is obligated to “subscribe” to the union.

Before a union can call a strike, members of the bargaining unit authorize it through a simple majority vote conducted by secret ballot. If a majority have authorized a strike, then the entire community is bound to that decision. In Quebec no one in the unit may perform their work duties for the duration of the strike — although they are not obligated to participate in activities like picketing.

Unions are democratic entities. If your unit is unionized then you can work to persuade your union colleagues not to go on strike. Strikes represent the last resort of unions and unions seek to avoid them. Ultimately, the goal of a strike is not to force you into action against your will but rather to build collective power to negotiate better terms. When a union decides to strike, it is because union members believe it is the most effective way to improve their/your situation.

Unionization may reduce individual autonomy because policies, compensation are often negotiated collectively. This potentially limits individual agreements and flexibility vis-a-vis the employer. However, unionization also enhances collective autonomy by enabling faculty to negotiate better conditions and rights together. The shift prioritizes unit decision-making over individual freedom and it balances personal autonomy with the benefits of collective bargaining.

 

As a member of the bargaining unit (Faculty) you are not forced to be a member of the bargaining agent (union). However, there will nevertheless be a deduction from your pay equivalent to whatever the union dues are, as determined by the union. The collective agreement would apply to the bargaining unit, including those not members of the bargaining agent (union). I assume that you would be on strike with the others of the bargaining unit that are on strike.

 

I think all McGill faculty should unionize and the MAUT should transform itself into an organization that brings about this change. Otherwise the unionized groups will multiply at McGill (the trend is clear) and the multiplication of unions will weaken McGill staff. MAUT’s importance will wane until it becomes irrelevant.

It is individuals who choose to sign union cards. MAUT could choose to promote unionization but it cannot snap its fingers and become a union.

MAUT can remain neutral as well. It should be careful not to come out as anti-union for the simple reason that it is legally considered an "employer-dominated" association by allowing employers to remain members when they move into upper administrative positions.

We are currently past the point of achieving a single union since it is illegal to "poach" other union members to become a single union. That being said, the 3 existing unions have agreed to a confederation, agreeing to collectively bargain on some issues. Going forward, unions can continue to work collectively. There are any number of arrangements that could emerge (e.g., UBC). MAUT can play a role in future mergers or other arrangements at a future date. MAUT also can constructively engage with the unions now to create that space in the future.

There is no doubt that MAUT will shrink with these other unions, although it should be noted that only half of the faculty were members of MAUT prior to unionization efforts (we should ask why that is). There's no guarantee that multiple unions will weaken the faculty's voice; healthy competition could actually increase all of our influence.

 

Some of the different models of representation were presented at the Spring MAUT GM. A summary can be found in the minutes of the MAUT Council meeting of September 25, 2024 and in the Fall MAUT Newsletter

 
Perhaps you can start by giving us an honest description of the union recruitment process that has been initiated? It seems like it has been going on in the background since the MUNACA strike in 2011. Not sure everyone had laid their cards out openly. It might have been preferrable to make union recruitment more transparent. It might have been nice if MAUT had known (MAUT does not know when recruitment began). The reason why unionization does not happen openly and why MAUT was unaware is because unionization efforts generally alert the employer that they might want to begin union-busting efforts. Awareness of unionization efforts can open up union organizers to retaliation by the employer, even firing (less an issue for tenured faculty but remember that MAUT represents non-tenured faculty, contract academic staff and academic librarians). It allows the organizing to build momentum. When sufficient momentum is achieved is when the organizers feel they can go public.   The process is governed by the Quebec Labor Code. There are 2 paths to certification. The employees sign union membership cards and each pay $2: (1) If this represents a majority (50%+1) of the employees in question, then there is no vote and the Quebec Tribunal administratif du travail (TAT) certifies the union. OR (b) If this represents at least 35% of the employees in question, then there is a secret ballot vote conducted by the Quebec Tribunal administratif du travail to confirm whether the relevant employees have decided to unionize. In such cases, everyone in the relevant bargaining unit can vote. If a majority (50%+1) of the relevant employees vote to unionize, then the union is certified. The Tribunal administratif du travail keeps the certification process confidential and does not share information on who signed union cards. The 3 Faculties that unionized at McGill chose the first path to certification. There was no open discussion. In particular, MAUT only found out officially after 50%+1 was reached.  
Would unionization increase our benefits, and would it increase McGill’s contributions to our pensions? I realize these would need to be negotiated, but based on all other unioned faculty in Quebec universities, have they received better or worse benefits and employer contributions to our pensions?

AMPL, the law union, was interested in the same questions and therefore commissioned an independent audit of our pensions relative to U15 universities (the 15 most regarded institutes of higher education), which includes QC universities. The audit found that we are at the bottom of the U15 in terms of pensions. Additionally and according to this audit, "The terms of the plan can be changed at any time at the discretion of the university", which could be changed should pensions become part of a collective agreement. So could the secrecy around in how decisions are made concerning the pension ("the bare minimum of what is legally required with regards to disclosing records") as well as the limited engagement of stakeholders in that decision making.

According to that study, McGill contributes the least compared to four comparable universities. AMPL is seeking to ameliorate this low number as part of its collective agreement.

  Pension and benefits may or may not become part of a collective agreement. This depends if the matter is negotiated into the collective agreement. At McGill, we have a Staff Benefits Advisory Committee where all staff (unionized and non-unionized staff) have representation. The SBAC is advisory to McGill. Most benefits at McGill are not covered by a collective agreement. For pensions there is a pensions advisory committee at McGill.  
If unionized, would the merit-based salary policy change? If yes, how would it change? Unionization obligates your employer to bargain with you in good faith and entitles you to go on a legally protected strike. It does not force you to negotiate any specific salary structure. The union — you and your colleagues — can draft whatever compensation structure that suits your objectives. There are tried and true union salary structures across universities in Quebec and Canada that you can use as a model, the final choice is up to you. An example is https://www.facultyassociation.ubc.ca/worklife/salaries/. Typically, employers begin negotiating with performance goals that decrease the rate at which salaries increase — motivated by their financial bottom line. The faculty bring their proposal of salaries and performance goals to the table. The final salary structure depends on what you can negotiate with the employer.   Any changes to salary policy would need to be negotiated with the administration and would require agreement between the parties.  
If unionized, how will the ratio of time spent teaching, research and administration change? This can be part of a collective agreement.   Any changes to salary policy would need to be negotiated with the administration and would require agreement between the parties.  
I vehemently oppose the transition of MAUT from an association to a union. I feel confident in saying that many concerns of faculty in Education and Arts are not shared by those of us in Science and Medicine (and vice versa). Therefore, even if a supported unionization (I don’t), one large union could never represent well the diverse interests of our diverse faculties. We have a good example of diverse constituencies being improperly served by the same union in MUNACA. Secretarial and lab staff do not belong in the same union. Summer Fridays may work for administrators, but they definitely do not work in the laboratory setting. Indeed, this is highly disruptive to our work. Science is not a 4 day per week endeavour. I cringe at the thought of some concerns of Education and Arts faculty leading to labor stoppages that would negatively impact research programs at the University. Cells and animals don’t know what weekends, holidays, or strikes are. Neither do serious scientists. Science and Medicine are large faculties. I imagine we will be strong opponents to unionization. If Arts and Education want to unionize, leave us out of it.

You're in luck. We are currently on a trajectory of not having a single union but faculty-specific unions. Indeed, the Labour Tribunal agreed that law faculty was sufficiently distinct from other faculties that it was an appropriate bargaining unit.

Science and Medicine faculty may well want to unionize. That is up to members of these faculties obtaining a majority of union cards.

While we may have issues with the composition of other unions and associations, they are democratic entitities and make their own decisions. It is more productive to engage with the other unions and associations if there are concerns. Indeed MAUT formed the McGill Community Council (MCC) yeas ago so that unions and associations could talk freely with each other. MCC operates independently of the administration and allows direct communication of union and association representative to discuss concerns and pursue joint initiatives.

  The process is governed by the Quebec Labor Code. The appropriateness of a bargaining unit is ultimately determined by the Quebec Tribunal administratif de travail. The proposed union and employer can make representation before the Tribunal for final determination.  
Since McGill management is increasingly corporatized in personnel and attitude, is it not inevitable that McGill professors unionize? Yes, for some faculty who signed union cards, this corporatization is a prime reason they supported unionization.   Hard to answer. Faculty are part of McGill, if we go the unionization route we definitely subscribe to the corporate model and abandon the collegial governance model. Collegial in this context means collaborative in contrast to adversarial.  
Although I am not a member of MAUT, I have taken your email from today as an invitation to inquire about the union you are considering of forming, as I would consider joining it.  I am concerned about the mandate of the union when it comes to matters that are beyond representing employees in regard to salary, working conditions and so on.

MAUT cannot itself unionization. It can remain neutral or promote that non-unionized employees unionize.

Much of a collective agreement can extend beyond the compensatory. That being said, union members have an ongoing role in crafting the collective agreement.

  The mandate of a union is governed by its constitution and by the motions adopted by their governance structures. If we consider the Quebec context, it appears that unions are political and activist. They spend union dues in such activity as well as on negotiating for a collective agreement. They also support strikes with their union dues.  
We have recently seen unions (UdM, FNEEQ, CEGEPS) taking political stances on matters in the Middle East. My position is that this is beyond the mandate of professional unions, especially as their leadership is not elected based on political agendas; candidates for union positions do not declare their political views and the actions they intend to take to promote them. Thus, I view such steps taken by unions as overstepping their mandate and misrepresenting a large part of their members. It is the choice of the union of what to include or not in its collective agreement, including whether it wants to take political stances as part of its mandates.   Yes, there is a risk for an association/union to advocate for a particular social and/or political position. However, they must abide by their respective constitutions that have been adopted by their membership.  
I would like to know your position on that. I would have a problem joining a union that considers politics as part of their mandate. I would like a union that from the outset limits its actions to representing their employees (the professors and lecturers in this case) to the employer (the university) only in matters of salary, working conditions, pensions and so on. It's not single indivduals who decide these things. This is determined by the faculty who come together to discuss these things.   Even if you choose not to join the union you will likely be considered as part of the bargaining unit that is determined by the Tribunal administratif de travail. You would be paying the union dues equivalent and be covered by the collective agreement.  
Academic freedom, and defending it, should be part of the union’s mandate. I have many worries about the union abusing their power also in this regard, but this is a complex issue and I cannot offer my opinion in just a couple of lines. However, I think that the union stance and mandate in this regard should be declared when the union forms. I view some of the actions of some of my colleagues in this regard as disruptive to the university’s mission, incitement and contrary to the values of McGill, and I am deeply concerned of a union that is being manipulated in that direction as has already happened with other unions. Academic freedom is the fundamental issue that faculty unions defend and protect.   Please see answers to two and three points above.  
Typically, unions tend to normalize everyone to the lowest common denominator, providing little to no incentive for performance. Are there examples of unions that incorporates performance evaluation to define annual salary increases? Would a hybrid system, such as one that combines a base salary defined by experience (i.e., education and recognized years of experience) and annual salary increases defined by performance (e.g., research, teaching, service), be achievable? Such a system would help in making sure that everyone is treated fairly while stimulating Faculty members to shine and maintain McGill University among the World leading academic institutions. This is possible in a collective agreement for a faculty union and presumably would be discussed during the drafting of the collective agreement. The union — you and your colleagues — can draft whatever compensation structure that suits your objectives. There are tried and true union salary structures across universities in Quebec and Canada that a union can use as a model, the final choice is up to you and your colleagues. An example is https://www.facultyassociation.ubc.ca/worklife/salaries/. Typically, employers begin negotiating with performance goals that decrease the rate at which salaries increase — motivated by their financial bottom line. The faculty bring their proposal of salaries and performance goals to the table. The final salary structure depends on what you can negotiate with the employer.   Union collective agreements are generally governed by years of service and progress through the ranks (PTR). There is little or no merit provided. Some do account for market differentials in some fields of study.  
If there is a transition to a McGill Faculty union, it will be important to make sure that individual performance-related salary increases are kept on top of a defined “base” salary. This is possible in a collective agreement for a faculty union and presumably would be discussed during the drafting of the collective agreement and during the negotiations with the employer.   This would need to be discussed and voted on at a union meeting.  
Is it within the mandate of MAUT, under its constitution, to consider the option of unionization? MAUT must conduct itself within its own terms of reference. I think that if the MAUT leadership chooses to probe this issue, it potentially makes itself vulnerable to complaints by members who might reasonably contend that MAUT leadership inappropriately used its resources (e.g., financial, personnel, email lists) to undermine itself as an organization and to advance the interests of a union, which is outside of the terms of reference of MAUT and is not the basis upon which its leadership was elected. Perhaps the only way to address this is for MAUT to consider amending its constitution to allow itself the power to consider transforming itself into a union.

MAUT may promote unionization; it may remain neutral. It cannot unionize. We are probing this issue because we cannot ignore it. If and when the 3 unions obtain their collective agreement then MAUT will lose 30% of its members.

The Constitution is silent on unionization. There is nothing in the constitution that prevents our investigating unionization. Indeed, MAUT investigated unionization twice in the past. Those investigations were 30 and 40 years ago. Arguably times have changed; administrations have become more corporate (distant from their employees); and more universities in Canada have unionized. 90 percent of faculty in QC are unionized. Although MAUT itself cannot unionize; it needs to seriously examine the benefits of unionization.

  This would required an amendment to the MAUT Constitution. This is not the first time that MAUT has considered a different model of representation.  
At the meeting held several months ago, I heard claims made that unionization would lead to improved collegiality and financial benefits to faculty members. These claims were not justified with any supporting data. In fact, I would argue that, anecdotally, the recent creation of AMPL has resulted in a disastrous decline in collegiality, especially through social media. As such, I ask that the ad hoc committee back up ALL statements of the advantages and disadvantages of unionization with real data, not anecdotes or unsupported claims. For instance, I would like a study to demonstration that there are demonstrable financial benefits or working conditions (relative to other institutions) upon unionization. This would include a cost/benefit analysis of unionization.

Faculty who have unionized have told us that unionization improves collegiality. This is anecdotal but we should not dismiss these voices. A central tenet of unionization is that it increases wages and improves pensions. There is sufficient data proving the association among these variables. It is important to note that we're not seeking causation here (aka unionizaion CAUSES higher wages).

A study from the University of Waterloo https://clef.uwaterloo.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CLEF-067-2024.pdf finds the following: “Using administrative data which covers the full universe of faculty salaries, we find strong evidence that unionization leads to both average salary gains and compression of the distribution of salaries. Our estimates indicate that salaries increase on average by 2 to more than 5 percent over the first 6 years post unionization.”

  If we consider the mean salary data from Statistics Canada we find several non unionized universities ranking higher than some unionized universities. For example, Toronto (usually at the top of salary ranking), McMaster and McGill. Unionization doesn't necessarily mean better salaries and benefits.  
If a union would be created, would it be done under the auspices of an external union organization, or would it be established as an independent union? What are the advantages, disadvantages, risks, associated with these two models? This is part of the decisions that unions make. Currently none of the other 3 unions are under the auspices of an external union. (Note that the 3 separate unions are now a confederation, who will collectively bargain on certain issues.) The advantage of external support is just that: external support (resources, legal expertise, and stronger bargaining power). It's the same reason why MAUT pays considerable dues to CAUT and FQPPU: for that external support. The support may come at some loss of autonomy but the benefit is access to greater resources. Overall, this is a question that is completely up to the membership of a union to decide.   A union can be created with the help of an external organization or done independently. It depends on the wishes of the membership of the forming union.. An external organization may provide needed financial and other resources to support the forming union. It may also help to provide research and other support when the new union is negotiating its collective agreement. It may also provide financial support during a strike. There is also the additional dues that would need to be paid to the external organization. CAUT and FQPPU are external organization that help in the process to unionize academic staff. Over the years, they have also provided resources to non-unionized associations like the MAUT.  
I am alarmed that a “survey” of sentiments be made, which might be misinterpreted by some as a vote. I ask that the ad hoc committee be very careful in the language that they use. If the sentiment is positive, then the MAUT leadership must have a clear and transparent statement on what they plan to do to act on this sentiment and in a manner that does not violate the terms of their elected office in the MAUT. Thank you for these suggestions, which we will discuss in Council   Comment well taken. The questions and comments on this website will inform the next steps. In my view they indicate possible issues that MAUT needs to focus on as well as questions that pro-union colleagues need to address to possibly make a convincing case for the advantages of unionization.  
Will the ad hoc committee arrange for formal facilitated debates between elected “pro” and “con” sides (perhaps 3 to 5 on each side) to flesh out the advantages and disadvantages of unionization? Also, will such a debate occur in a manner in which they will engage with questions from the audience. I respectfully suggest that such debates should occur before any survey of sentiment is conducted so that people can properly reflect on their opinions before offering them. Yes, we have always planned to have a townhall on the aspects of unionization.   Currently, there is no plan for a formal debate. The suggested straw poll is a test if such a debate is of interest to our members. In my opinion we first need to understand the questions and issues our members have, hence this website. Some answers in particular where hard data is needed, will need some time to collect. Only then should and could your suggestion lead to a debate, if a substantial fraction of members are interested in such a debate.  
When considering the issue of whether or not to include members of the administration in a union, given that administrative appointments are of a limited term, is it reasonable and/or fair to exclude them from the organization given (1) their representation in the organization is tiny relative to the remainder of the faculty body, and (2) that they will ultimately be impacted by decision made by the organization after they return to the ranks.

Members of the administration are generally excluded for the duration of their appointment. The reason is simple. They become employers who make decisions about the employees' compensation and working conditions. These individuals could resume membership in the union upon their return. This is quite common in other universities.

Keep in mind that increasing numbers of the administration are not faculty and that many faculty going into deans' positions and above do not return to their departments.
 

  Senior administration members cannot be part of a union according to Quebec Labour Law.  
If we consider unionization, will there be a code of conduct for union leaders, that will reflect the broader interests of the community in maintaining collegiality, integrity and rigor in its relations with the university administration? This question is formed with the impression that the leadership of unions often resort to tactics, misinformation or outright lies (or less than complete information) that do not reflect a standard that many of our colleagues would expect in a collegial setting. As such, I am asking if the membership will be empowered within a union to keep its elected leadership accountable to the membership? There typically are codes of conduct for union leaders, as there are for members of the administration. Union leadership can resort to misinformation and other tactices; however, this is hardly unique to unions and can happen now under our current collegial relationships. Administrations can be sources of misinformation. If during negotiations, a union membership wants signifcant accountability, it could do that as well. That accountability could exceed that which we have today.   In both cases, unionized and associations, this depends on what the constitution and by-laws say. These governing documents are voted on and adopted by the membership.  
If unionization is being discussed by MAUT, this has important implications to all those faculty members who have chosen not to become members of MAUT. It strikes me as unfair that MAUT might start going down the road of unionization without engaging those who are not members and who will be impacted by MAUT’s action. As such, will the ad hoc committee commit to engaging with all faculty members including those who are not currently members? MAUT is discussing unionization; it is crucial to note that this is not the same as going down the road of unionization. Approximately half of our faculty are not members of MAUT so an important initial question might be why is a particular faculty member not or no longer an MAUT member? It is unfortunately possible that faculty are not members because they believe MAUT is ineffective in its current incarnation to protect the interests of faculty.   MAUT has not committed to unionization. Some of our members have decided to unionize, without any interaction with MAUT. Clearly, some of our colleagues (MAUT members or not) are dissatisfied with the status quo. We need to understand better what issues concern faculty, MAUT members or not. Furthermore, many would like to have more information about alternatives (e.g. unions). This is the aim of this website.  
I am not a member of MAUT yet—I was planning on doing it when I returned from sabbatical and I am now on parental leave, but I still plan to do it when I return, so forgive me if I am not allowed to ask these questions yet.     Please go ahead and ask your question anyway.  
1) My first question is about the cost of joining a union versus an association. My understanding is that union members are typically encouraged to pay 2% of their salary toward the union in Quebec. Assuming a salary of around $100,000/year (for simplicity's sake), that’s $2000 per year. This is currently more than three times more that it costs to be an MAUT member given that dues are fixed at 0.58% of salary. What does a union do to warrant the extra cost?

Increases in cost can happen depending on how much staff and resources are needed to support union activities. Do keep in mind that MAUT will likely have to adjust its rate upwards when we lose 25% of our membership when the unions obtain collective agreements, per our constitution.

Union dues are among the things discussed when a union forms. What are those dues for? Dues pay for more support for faculty in grievance processes, hiring of lawyers to improve bargaining positions, and support for strike funds (in case these are ever needed). If union members expect more services then that will cost more.

  Yes, union dues tend to be significantly higher than association dues. For example, MAUT and the MFA (non-unionized) have some of the lowest membership dues in the country. Also, Unions need additional funds to support potential strikes.  
2) My second question is about merit pay and which kind of association is going to fight to retain it? Currently, if I am not mistaken MAUT negotiates merit pay amounts with admin. Is a faculty union going to preserve merit pay? I ask because the head of the education faculty union has made disparaging statements about merit pay publicly on at least two occasions (see attached screenshots). Currently, with merit pay plus the across-the-board (ATB) increase of 1%, if one gets a “2," in the faculty of arts, one gets around a $4000 merit raise plus a $1000 ATB increase. This is, assuming a $100,000 salary, a 5% annual raise, which is compounded year to year. My understanding is that, at Concordia, the rate of increase of salaries is slower, and everyone receives the same merit pay regardless of accomplishment, e.g. publishing a book versus publishing an article. At least in my department, these are currently considered different kinds of career milestones and accomplishments.

We cannot speak to the situation in Education. It's important to remember that a union is a democracy and union members vote on such issues. Unions can select a merit structure if it chooses. Questions about merit will be addressed during collective bargaining.

We have analyzed the numbers of faculty salaries in QC and found that Concordia's salaries, are lower, they are actually accelerating.

  Your example perfectly illustrates the challenge of comparing different systems. No system is perfect - MAUT constantly strives to improve the transparency and fairness of merit. If the majority of our members support merit is another, separate question.  
3) Are comparable faculty unions in Quebec achieving annual raises that are on par with a professor receiving an ATB raise plus merit pay in the range of a reasonable merit score plus an ATB of 1%? Could MAUT please put together something that shows the difference in the rate of salary increase using a collective agreement worked out by a peer institution (e.g. Concordia, U de M) versus the merit system/ATB system currently negotiated with MAUT? I feel like this would be helpful in deciding what kind of union is best.

MAUT has analyzed salary numbers from CAUT, which they received from Statistics Canada. We did this in comparison to the U15 and to other QC universities. The university has refused to share their numbers with us. The university certainly performs poorly in terms of salary compared to universities outside QC. MAUT has found that McGill is not the highest paid institute of higher learning in QC.

Yours is a good suggestion for something MAUT can prepare.

  For 2022-2025, the salary mass increase negotiated between McGill and MAUT was 14.81% . This included an across the board 1% increase, merit pot as well as new $7500 (instead of previously $5000 promotion increases. By how much the individual salaries increased is a function of the salary, as merit is a lump sum and not a % of the salary. As a comparison, Laval received 15% over 3 years. Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/universit%C3%A9-laval-professors....  

I am writing in response to the invitation of 1 October 2024 to provide questions regarding the 4 models for MAUT going forward. My question:

Will any of the proposed models re-orient MAUT toward more inclusive representation and advocacy for all faculty?

We would hope the representation and advocacy would be more inclusive. Indeed, equity/inclusion and academic freedom are likely core to the non-compensatory items in a collective agreement.   A federation model of the MAUT would likely allow for co-operation among academic staff (unionized or not) at McGill.  
The MAUT has remained silent on documented acts of vandalism and intimidation by protesters on campus, but released a statement (15 March 2024) of concern regarding the potential presence of law enforcement on McGill campus. The MAUT has made no statement in support of faculty who are shocked and intimidated by the presence of national socialist graffiti on campus ( McGill reports incidents of antisemitic graffiti and 'intimidation' | Montreal Gazette ), vandalized buildings including the James Administration building, encampment signs calling for "class warfare", and the physical disruption of lectures and laboratories. This is outside the terms of reference for this set of questions on unionization or not. This is better brought up separately to a Council/Exec member.   I understand your concerns. MAUT should remain neutral with respect to political statements. In general MAUT Council passes statements with a majority vote. I encourage you to engage closer with MAUT if you want to achieve a more inclusive representation. Individual members are encouraged to voice their opinion, e.g. by writing articles for the MAUT newsletter. This could lead to a useful, nuanced debate on campus and also help inform MAUT Council.  

I am full supportive of the right to collective bargaining and for units to pursue this where it has sufficient support. I ambivalent about unionization for my faculty (Science) and wish to contribute my thoughts on the current context and concerns about unionization to the discussion.

My first concern is that unionization cannot address the root causes of our problems. In my 11 years at McGill, my sense is that administration-faculty relations decline dramatically, and my view is that this has arisen largely from an increasingly remote, secretive, and high-handed administration. It has increasingly allowed various non-academic units in the university to function without regard for supporting our academic mission as their primary (or secondary, or tertiary) concern. Rather, each unit is encouraged to focus on its own narrow functioning and interests, which usually means reducing “costs,” with the apparent assumption that these apparent savings are not simply being paid for elsewhere. This is seen in the increased downloading of administrative duties on to faculty, empowering administrative units to arbitrarily impose onerous policies and duties on faculty without consultation or meaningful cost/benefit analysis, and allowing research and teaching spaces to degrade to the point of serious functionality and safety concerns. Faculty time and labor is essentially treated as a free, unlimited resource that any administrative unit can take advantage of to reduce their own costs and workload, with no assessment of—let alone concern for—the impact on our institutional mission. This siloed managerialism and a pattern of dishonest communication (especially during the pandemic and around labor relations) underlies most of the collapse of trust, in my view.

Some of these workload-related problems could be addressed through collective bargaining. However, three of the principle causes of these problems are 1) the poor overall financial condition of the university, 2) a management culture that does not engage in any serious policy assessment and is allergic to all forms of accountability, and 3) our deferred maintenance and infrastructure problems. I do not believe any these can be improved through unionization, because they are related to external (political) and internal (administrative dysfunction) factors that collective bargaining simply cannot effectively address.

My second concern is related to research. I am very concerned about the potential for disruptions to research caused by future labor actions. This is based on 2 observations: 1. The administration has demonstrated itself to be maximally obstructive and obstinate when engaging with unions, making strikes seem inevitable. 2. The administration is also maximally punitive toward union members during strikes.

Like most academics, I do not view my research as work done on behalf of my employer. It contributes to my broader field and my personal reputation as a scientist, which travels with me if I leave. My research agenda is not set, overseen, or meaningfully assessed by my employer. I do not get the sense that the administration would particularly care if I stopped doing research altogether, and I desire neither their approval or commendation for the research I do. The direct costs of my research are funded by external granting agencies. Because I use these grants to pay my students’ tuition, I am effectively paying McGill for the ability to do research. However, the bureaucratic reality is that McGill owns or administers all research-related resources and controls my access to them. It is intolerable to imagine a situation where a labor action results in the loss of access to my laboratory and my ability to continue to participate in my field (apply for and review grants, submit and review papers, travel to conferences, perform experiments and supervise the research activities of graduate students, etc.). Many of us in the natural and health sciences do work where even a minimal disruption of days or weeks can have enormous impacts on our research progress and competitiveness for funding. For example, when Stewart Biology closed for a couple of weeks due to flooding and asbestos, many labs lost weeks or months of work.

My sense is that unionization would inherently involve categorizing research activities as work done for the employer, and I am certain McGill would use the leverage it gains from controlling these resources to undermine bargaining and negotiations. For me to support unionization would require a guarantee that labor actions would be exclusive to teaching and university service activities, and a guarantee that access to research facilities and related resources (ability to apply for grants, approve purchases, email, IT resources, etc.) would be undisturbed during such actions. I would strongly oppose any bargaining position or collective agreement that did not explicitly contain these provisions, and I would encourage my colleagues in laboratory-based research to do the same

 

Should Science faculty members wish to unionize, the union can work to reduce the ambiguities that you are concerned about.

Unionization may not address all of the problems at McGill but it is part of the solution to the root causes. A collective agreement can force greater transparency; the non-compensatory items can ensure support for our academic mission better than exists now. It can reduce the amount of downloading onto faculty. Indeed faculty representation by the association and not by a union likely has allowed the administration to download more tasks onto us. The faculty can definitely write health and safety as requirements into our collective agreement, shoud the faculty choose to do so. If they choose to include it in an agreement, faculty can decide when and when not to go remote and how much lead time is required. A union cannot guarantee greater trust or communication but it can push for the administration to be more accountable for its actions.

1) There may be little we can do about financial condition of the university; 2) a collective agreement can include numerous policies that affect working conditions like academic freedom and health and safety. It also can institutionalize greater accountability; 3) A union can push for the administration to be more accountable for its actions.

Yes. 1) This maximal obstruction and obstinence was observed when dealing with law. 2) It was maximallly punitive towards union members. That being said, the university has changed its tact regarding law and the other prospective unions. Unionized faculty can draw on numerous examples where university administrations are not as maximal as McGill.

In all unionized settings, faculty continue to have autonomy over their research. In fact, contractual language on academic freedom in research specifically protects this. Related to whether research could be protected during some type of industrial action: whether in a unionized or non-unionized workplace, faculty research is considered part of the academic job. In the case of a strike, a protocol is negotiated that allows members access to labs or other facilities where essential.

Strike protocols allow for access to labs when essential. The Tri-Council has provided the following written response in the event of a labour strike: 1) the agencies would maintain grant and award funding to researchers, students and fellows for existing research projects. Funds for grants, fellowships, and scholarships must continue to be able to be used for the eligible expenses for which the funds were awarded. During this time, in keeping with the Tri-Agency Guide on Financial Administration (TAGFA), the institution must ensure that the research project and/or the grantee's signing authority is not compromised. As such, a grantee may delegate his/her signing authority to one or more person of his/her choice at the organization for the purpose of approving research expenditures directly related to the funded research. 2) As indicated in the “Authorization of grant expenditures” section of the TAGFA: “The grant recipient holds the authority to use the grant funds. Only the grant recipient can delegate authority to use the grant funds. The delegate should possess the skills and knowledge necessary to exercise the role effectively. Approval of the delegated authority must be formally documented using an appropriate delegation instrument and in accordance with the administering institution’s relevant policies and requirements.”

See above. Labour actions can be restricted to teaching and university service activities. That doesn't prevent the employer from treating research separately, as research is part of our job. That being said, a union can establish protocols and get agreement from the employer that access to research facilities would be protected and related activities (e.g., ability to apply for grants, approve purchases, email, IT resources) would be undisturbed during such actions.

It should be noted it doesn't require unionization for the employer to adversely impact access to research. We know from the asbestos crises.

 

 

     

I strongly support unionization at McGill. I do so because of several reasons:

1. Unionization is the norm in Quebec.

2. Generally speaking unionization is increasing in North America at this moment, and it is a good thing to have in place for a more just workplace environment.

3. We have seen multiple times during and after the pandemic that McGill administration can make unilateral decisions and impose them on us faculty members and staff with no explanation. These decisions have affected almost every aspect of our teaching and workplace experience at McGill - from how we teach to what we teach (this has been less pronounced but there are many warning signs that in the future what we teach will become an ideological battleground) to when and where we teach, to our salaries and the possibilities of future hiring and the health of our disciplines.

a. In stating this, I do not take the view that the McGill administration is acting maliciously or even cynically or opportunistically. Rather, I think that the leadership is severely dysfunctional. Because many of the administrative positions at McGill seem to lack training or clear incentivization, it's just bad leadership over and over. There is also a tradition of a lack of transparency, and the decisions often seem hasty and ill-considered, in part because most of us faculty do not have access to the contexts in which they were made. Particularly given the difficult financial situation, budget decisions should be available to us, the employees, for true consultation. This has never really been the case.

In sum, unionization is the only way forward. I am not going to mourn the demise of MAUT if it is replaced by a union that actually has teeth.

Yes it is. There are strong rules in QC that protect labour rights. These rules are far stronger than for non-unionized employees.

Unionization efforts are increasing in North America. A recognition of the need for unionization is happening particularly with the adjunctification of universities and the downloading of responsibilities onto faculty.

Unionization can push back against these no-consultation no-explanation decisions.

Unionization can compel greater transparency, consultation and communication. Greater transparency, consultation and communication cannot be absolutely guaranteed but can definitely be improved should a faculty include various non-compensatory items in their collective agreement.

Should a faculty decide to unionize, MAUT should not stand in the way and should continue to advise, per its existing and future resolutions that the university should respect unions and bargain in good faith.

     
Is it possible to reconcile formal cooperation between MAUT and Faculty unions (Models 3 and 4) with the principle of academic freedom?

We see no contradictions here. Academic freedom is central to MAUT and to faculty unions.

It should be noted that discussion of unions tends to emphasize compensation and stirkes. However, non-compensatory issues among faculty are often more important. Academic freedom is a key issue in those negotiations. Unions are reponsible for creating and maintaining academic freedom, which is singularly critical for our research and teaching. As David Robinson, Executive Director of CAUT points out in his recent article in the Research Handbook on Academic Labour Markets (https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/book/9781803926865/book-part-9781...), Canada doesn't have laws protecting academic freedom. Instead, academic freedom has been fought for, won, and defended through collective bargaining agreements that codify it. Any non unionized university, which protects academic freedom, is forced to do so as if by a kind of herd immunity. Arguably, if faculty truly want to protect academic freedom at the university in a way that is not unilaterally revocable by the employer, they must do so through collective agreements that codify it. Of note, as part of its union negotiations, AMPL currently has a stronger statement on academic freedom than the one crafted between the administration and MAUT.

  The answer depends on how Academic Freedom is defined. MAUT, Senate, CAUT, academic unions and the Quebec Government have attempted to define Academic Freedom. To my knowledge, striking is not considered to be a breach of Academic Freedom. A strike might infringe on one's Academic Freedom but the law allows for the collective rights of a union to conduct a strike which has financial, social and political consequences that are considered to be legally acceptable.  
Academic freedom is fundamental to MAUT’s mandate, which certainly includes the ability to teach, conduct research, and speak freely on scholarly matters. At the same time, to function properly and effectively, a union must be able to call and enforce strikes, a power enshrined in Quebec law. We don't see any contradictions here. Academic freedom is central to faculty unions across North America. It is regarded as a fundamental right that supports the ability of scholars to conduct research, publish, and teach without interference by the administration. Going on strike, which is a last resort for a union in negotiations with its employer, does not eliminate a faculty union's right to academic freedom, which is part of a collective agreement. (Law has an academic freedom policy in its non-compensatory items.) Unionization does not eliminate an individual member's right not to participate in strike action.      
Having some Faculties represented by unions (Arts, Education, and Law) while others are not, brings these two principles into conflict. Indeed, as we saw in the summer of 2024, when AMPL (with only 50 or so members) disrupted thousands of scholars gathered for the Congress of Learned Societies and attempted to coerce speech (support for AMPL) as a condition of participation.

We want to be clear. AMPL did not coerce the Congress of Learned Societies. Rather they requested that these societies boycott the location of the congress in support of the faculty union. Alternate venues were found by numerous academic societies.

Is academic freedom impeded if a building or a lab has to be shutdown due to asbestos? If a MUNACA strike involves picketing a building? The ability to present, to run a conference or to teach, certainly can be impeded. But this is not a violation of academic freedom, freedom from institutional interference.

  There are several campuses across the country that have multiple unions representing their academic staff. As far as we are aware, the points you raise have never been debated e.g. at CAUT or FQPPU.  
Should any of the three existing unions – or any future Faculty union – call a strike, it would infringe on the academic freedom of non-union faculty members. This would include, but is not limited to, courses cross-listed or cross-taught between a striking and non-unionized Faculty, and cross-administered degree programs (e.g., BASc, BA programs in Scienced departments, etc.) Classrooms and lecture spaces are also shared across campus, so even if a striking union only picketed “their” buildings, it would disrupt the teaching activities and other scholarly activities of non-union members. If a striking union pickets campus as a whole, the effect would be even more severe.

Academic freedom does not cover these sorts of scenarios (see https://www.caut.ca/about-us/caut-policy/lists/caut-policy-statements/po...). A strike might significantly impact one's work environment but not diminish this fundamental right. That being said, academic freedom is not a gift granted by university administrations. It is protected mainly through its inclusion in collective agreements. Historically, faculty unions have been the main defenders of academic freedom against a university adminsitration.

There are certainly important implications for non-unionized faculty working well with unionized workers. The same holds true for union-union interactions. This question asks about a strike, which is a last resort of a union. If a union goes on strike then all faculty who are members of the union are on strike. They cannot perform their work functions.* If a unionized faculty member co-teaches a course with a non-unionized professor then non-unionized professor will have to continue to teach the course alone. If the unionized professor runs a centre, they will not be able to perform those tasks (and cannot be replaced or their functions performed unless there was an arrangement set up before the strike) even if there are professors from other units in the centre. If a union member is jointly-appointed, during a strike by their union, then they must cease all work for the employer in all units. (Inversely, if they are in a faculty union that is not on strike and the faculty union in their other unit goes on strike, they are not on strike and must continue to work.)

If a union pickets a building (their own or another) then non-unionized professors will have to choose whether to cross the picket line. They have a right to refuse to cross the line under Senate resolutions, although they forego pay if they refuse to cross the picket. (Striking unions sometimes provide picket pay in those cases, for solidarity.) In principle, a picket is not suppose to completely block access, though picketers may delay entry to attempt to talk with those attempting to pass. A strike is disruptive; it is supposed to be disruptive. The way for non-unionized faculty to reduce the disruption is for them to lobby their employer to negotiate in good faith. Arguably, it is the employer inducing the strike and not the union.

The issues mentioned in this question are certainly important details that can be worked out in a collective agreement by the union in negotiations with the employer and in direct conversations with non-unionized faculty. Under Models 2 and 3, MAUT can play a role in presenting these issues to the unions. More importantly, the administration, the employer, can demonstrate collegiality by not taking a maximalist approach in these situations.

*there are exceptions, for example, related to research protocols like laboratory access and publishing. What work can and cannot be done is also determined by the union. Teaching is one thing; how a union constitutes what can and cannot be done regarding research and publishing is part of a longer discussion that the union has with its members and then with the administration. See answer to question that talks about U Laval.

  A strike might infringe on one's Academic Freedom but the law allows for the collective rights of a union to conduct a strike which has financial, social and political consequences that are considered to be legally acceptable.  
Hence MAUT’s support for the academic freedom of its non-unionized members would conflict directly with the union’s interest and right to strike. Does this not rule out a formal agreement or cooperation between MAUT and any faculty union? If not, how would the conflict between these two principles be resolved? MAUT is at a crossroads. It will want to discuss the implications to rights of non-unionized faculty to items in the collective agreement. There's no reason these will compromise academic freedom of unionized or non-unionized faculty.   It depends on the details of the agreement. A strike by one of the three unions could potentially infringe on the academic freedom of non-union members and members of the other unions if the latter decide not to go on strike (see above).  
I am deeply opposed to unionizing, especially the sort of forced unionization I can see coming. I do not want labor actions to disrupt my research, which I do not see as being done for McGill. No matter what the union’s policy on this is, the University goes for lock-out during labor disputes, so I don’t think this can be avoided if there is a strike. I definitely do not want to give up a large chunk of salary that I will never, ever gain benefit from. I especially resent skimming from my salary to cover strike funds, given that I oppose unionization. Many of my colleagues in my field are envious that we are not unionized (or at least they say so in discussions at conferences). I am especially leery given the recent tendency of local unions to throw support around on issues that are not labor-related. Is there any way to set up a union so this is not possible? Unions (like everything else) are dominated by the tiny minority who care a lot about something, often to the detriment of everyone else. I have no desire to add to my workload by having to keep track of stupid petty votes about weighing in on policies that have nothing to do with collective bargaining.     Good questions, looking forward to the answers from the'pro union' side of this forum.  
Could you clarify the role of MAUT vis-à-vis unionization efforts? Is MAUT as an organization actively seeking to transform itself into a union? Were the successful unionization drives in Arts, Education, Law, and current efforts in Dentistry and Engineering conducted independently of MAUT?    

1.) No, MAUT is not seeking to transform itself to a union. MAUT constitutional changes would be necessary if this were envisioned (see below). 2.) Yes, the successful unionization drives in Law, Education and Arts were conducted independently of MAUT. Similarly, we only know of rumours of efforts by Dentistry and Engineering to unionize. In all cases of unionization, MAUT was only informed after the successful union drives, although individual MAUT members from these Faculties knew. There was no advanced notice or discussions, thus taking many MAUT members including some colleagues in Law, Education and Arts by surprise. This was arguably not a collegial process. Note: We cannot vote on a constitutional amendment at a GM unless the notice for the GM includes a statement of the proposed amendment. Amendments to the Constitution must be presented at a General Meeting (GM).
Notice of the GM would need to include a statement of the proposed amendment(s).
Only Full Members (not Associate Members or Retired Members) may vote at the GM.

For further info, please see Articles XIV and VII s4 of the MAUT Constitution 

 

If a union calls a strike, what of our research activities, if ANY, will we have the right to continue, e.g.:

(i) presenting in conferences/external seminars; (ii) submitting research papers; (iii) peer-review; (iv) answering emails from colleagues/collaborators via @mcgill.ca

The colleagues from Laval were complaining that none of these were permitted during their strike.

    A strike protocol would need to be negotiated between the union and McGill University to cover the issues mentioned above.  
Why did MAUT proceed with posting these questions along with only pro-association responses? Why not wait until there are pro-union responses?    

Renée Sieber and I were tasked by MAUT President Nate Quitoriano to answer questions our members had in order to start a discussion about MAUT and its future. We were informed that we should post answers as soon as possible, which is what I did. I assume Renée will post the answers from a pro-unionization perspective soon, as well as possible rebuttals. I think this will lead to a fruitful and informed ongoing dialogue.

 

Please note my absolute opposition to the idea of unionization, in particular, under one organization that represents all faculties.

I do not believe that Professors in different faculties perform the same jobs. Research faculty in the sciences/medicine run large labs and teams with dramatically different demands on time and external funding acquisition compared to arts, education, or law professors. My job is more comparable to running a small business under the pressures of international competition than to the experiences of colleagues in other disciplines.

Stuff growing in labs, research staff, postdocs, or graduate students are not law students I can abandon for a strike without severe consequences to my research program, my career and the careers of my trainees.

Please stop making comparisons to ‘other’ universities in Quebec. The only benchmarks McGill should care about are UBC and UofT unless you wish to descend into insignificance.

The system of forced unionization without any individual opt-out option is insane. I grew up in an unfree, socialist country and can tell you firsthand that unfree and socialist are precisely the two reasons why this country ceased to exist.

   

Thank you for your comments and food for thought.

As a member of the unionized bargaining unit, you are not forced to be a member of the bargaining agent (union). However, there will nevertheless be a deduction from your pay equivalent to whatever the union dues are, as determined by the union. The collective agreement would apply to the bargaining unit, including those not members of the bargaining agent (union).

For decades, we have compared our salaries and some other working conditions to the group of research-intensive universities (U15): Alberta, UBC, Calgary, Dalhousie, Laval, Manitoba, McGill, McMaster, Montreal, Ottawa, Queen’s, Saskatchewan, Toronto, Waterloo, and Western.

 
I would like to inquire what MAUT is doing to combat Legault’s tuition hikes that is so damaging to McGill. Why are we hearing noting from MAUT on this? There are numerous University associations around North America and the world that go to bat for different universities facing difficulties. Why has MAUT not brought the full weight of the AAUP, CAUT, etc. down onto the head of Legault's assault on the provinces English universities?     MAUT is a founding member of the CAUT and FQPPU and makes representation to these federations. MAUT has participated in helping to draft affidavits from Professors in support of the legal intervention being made by McGill University on the matter. MAUT had a meeting with Advisor to the Quebec Minister of Higher Education and presented the potential impacts of the new policies on faculty, librarians and teaching staff at McGill.  
Can you point to 3 key benefits and 3 key drawbacks of MAUT members unionizing within current McGill context? In other words, in your opinion, what are the key things we would be gaining by unionization and key things we may be loosing (or having less of) if we unionized.        

I am in favor of faculty unionization at McGill. While unions are not perfect, I think a union would help with the following issues.

 

We agree and think that you are providing excellent responses for us!      
1. Wages and Benefits: Currently, McGill teaching staff (tenure and non-tenure track) have very little power when it comes to wages and benefits other than their initial offer of employment. Across the board wage increases are pitiful and merit increases are below inflation (in percentage terms) for many faculty members. In my view, a union would increase the bargaining power of teaching staff and lead to better wages.        
2. Arbitrary Treatment: Teaching staff is often subjected to arbitrary treatment from management and unfortunately, complaints offer fall on deaf ears. In many cases, teaching staff is intimidated to keep quiet as there is a fear that speaking up will affect tenure, promotion and merit. In my view, a union would provide staff with a measure of protection against such treatment.        
3. Dispute Resolution: Disputes with management often go nowhere or take years to resolve. While MAUT may be able to help in some cases, they unfortunately have little teeth to bring the matter to a close. In my view, a union would help here by providing a standardized dispute resolution process (grievance).        
4. Fair Treatment of Non-Tenure Track Faculty: McGill employs a lot of non-tenure track faculty (Ranked CAS for example) who work as full-time lectures. Unfortunately, these members of staff are treated as second-class citizens which is unfortunate as many of McGill's peer schools like UofT value teaching-focused faculty (granting tenure, comparable wages to tenured staff, administrative postings). In my view, a union would help these members of staff have a real voice and feel valued at McGill.        
5. Administrative Workload: Academics, in many cases, spend a large amount of their time doing the jobs of the administrative staff. Academics don't receive credit or compensation for this work. MAUT has raised this as an issue but there has been no movement on the part of the university. In my view, a union would help set boundaries and compensation for these tasks.        
Given the above, my question for MAUT is as follows: McGill is one of the few non-unionized universities as far as faculty is concerned. What benefits have McGill faculty enjoyed that our unionized colleagues at other schools do not?        

1) While I don't think neutrality has been the right principle for MAUT to adopt with respect to unionization— surely MAUT is allowed to adopt the institutional position that it has done a good job and is worth preserving, and at a minimum MAUT ought to have stood for the proposition that faculty representation rightly happens at the level of the whole University— and I don't think that MAUT has even lived up to neutrality over the last few years— too many people who were committed to the destruction of MAUT were elected to offices and put a thumb on the scale— the various "federation" options look to me like they will abandon even the minimal effort to live up to a minimal principle of neutrality.

How can a professional association built on non-adversarial collegiality institutionally ally with other institutions built on adversarial bargaining? MAUT will still have the responsibility to represent members who are not members of the various unions, including those in other faculties that are still structured as professions, and those who are "management" for purposes of labour rules: not only faculty colleagues in central administration, but also deans and associate deans of faculties, and almost certainly eventually department chairs. AMPL has shown a clear willingness to demand affirmation of its positions from other organizations. How will a federated MAUT respond when AMPL demands that its federated allies endorse its next adversarial attack on other Faculties with their conferences and academic events? How will it respond when AMPFA or AMPE repeat the process AMPL has gone through of adversarially trying to force Associate Deans and Department Chairs into the bargaining unit, when those Associate Deans and Department Chairs are still members of MAUT and reasonably expect its support? In short, how could an MAUT that formally commits to working with the various unions neutrally stand up for the rights and interests of its members when the various unions are committed to treating some of those members as counterparties in adversarial processes?

       
2) From the unions' perspective, could they legally cooperate with MAUT at all? Because MAUT's membership includes faculty colleagues serving in management leadership positions, from the perspective of labour law it's a "management dominated" association. This is nonsense, but it's the legal rule. How could they work with it in a formal way? Wouldn't the process of federation ultimately MAUT entail expelling members who serve in such positions? The unions are already discussing issues of mutual concern with MAUT.      
3) Would federation or cooperation tend toward a demand for unanimity across the associations? If so, given the model of unionization that has been adopted, wouldn't that have the effect of letting the bare majority of one small union— say, 25 or so law professors— dominate the university professoriate as a whole? Or is there some way to insist that federation or cooperation include decisionmaking that is weighted by the size of each group's constituency, so that MAUT could effectively continue to speak for the majority of the university's professoriate?        
         
Back to top