Investing in Educational and Research Infrastructure
for Economic Recovery and Growth

A Submission to the
Pre-Budget Consultations of the
Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services
by the
Confederation of University Faculty Associations of British Columbia
October 23, 2009

The global recession triggered in the fall of 2008 has been a tremendous burden on all British Columbians-businesses have slowed down or closed, people have lost jobs, government revenues have taken a significant hit. Thankfully, the impact of the recession on Canada has been significantly less than elsewhere in the world.

Governments in Canada and around the world have recognized that it is necessary for government to provide stimulus in times of such deep economic downturn. This has largely meant investment in physical infrastructure to keep people employed and businesses operating.

In some jurisdictions, notably the United States, legislators have recognized that the short term stimulus from investments in physical infrastructure must be balanced with the long term stimulus that comes from investments in education and research. They argue, rightly, that it's not enough to sustain the old economy; we must also increase our preparations for the new economy. To this end, the US Federal Government invested $90.9 billion in education and $8.9 billion in research as part of the economic stimulus package approved in February.

Although the BC government has not cut nominal core funding for post-secondary education, funding for ancillary programs, student financial assistance and research has been cut. Looking at the next two fiscal years, rather than making new investments, the BC government plans to reduce real spending on higher education and research in many ways. This is not a productive or wise course of action.

We recognize the challenges the current global recession creates for the BC government in implementing the recommendations contained in this document. Now is not the time for government to pull back from its commitment to higher education. Without the necessary investments in education and research, we risk stalling the economy further, thereby multiplying the effects of the crisis and ultimately undermining necessary economic transformation.

Download the Full Brief (PDF)

Employees, Employers, and PSEC: An Awkward Threesome

by Paul Bowles, President, CUFA BC
September 23, 2009

Although you may not think about it very often, faculty members at BC’s public universities are public sector employees. As a consequence, when a university faculty association sits down with the university administration to negotiate wages, benefits and working conditions, the whole process takes place under the umbrella of the Public Sector Employers’ Council (PSEC).

Established in 1993 by the NDP government, the legislated purposes of PSEC are to ensure coordination of human resource policies and collective bargaining activities amongst public sector employers and to improve communication and coordination between public sector employers and employee groups. Over recent years, however, its practice has gone far beyond simple coordination to include explicit limits on free collective bargaining.

Part of the problem with PSEC is the extent to which it allows for direct governmental management of our bargaining. PSEC is compromised of two components, the Council itself and the Secretariat. The Council includes representatives from each of the seven public sector employers’ associations, seven cabinet ministers or deputy ministers and the Minister of Finance as the chairperson. The Council is responsible for setting high-level policy. The Secretariat is responsible for implementing Council policies and for dealing directly with public sector employers.

From its inception, the Council’s mandate has included a form of wage controls, which is currently known as the “bargaining mandate.” The bargaining mandates given to public sector employers includes a general limit on growth in wages and sometimes include more specific directives. Over time, the range of items covered by PSEC’s bargaining mandate has expanded unevenly, sometimes including virtually everything that has a cost implication, sometimes setting rules for non-monetary issues as well. The wage-controls can likewise be rather unevenly distributed; in 2006, the general wage increases allowed for university faculty were a little larger than those for most other public sector employees. Nurses in 2009 were given more than the general mandate as well.

This uneven treatment makes it clear that bargaining mandates are discussed between PSEC and the public sector employers’ associations, but the final decision on the mandates is made, effectively, by the Minister of Finance. Because of this political dimension, many have asked if BC public sector employees really have access to free collective bargaining. A recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling on government interference in collective bargaining has raised further questions about PSEC’s role in constraining bargaining.

It’s certainly true that anyone from a union or employee association who has been at the bargaining table since the creation of PSEC would be hard pressed to say that it is a textbook example of free collective bargaining. What is also clear is that —in the short term— PSEC is unlikely to go away any time soon. CUFA BC and its member associations seek to effectively represent the interests of our members in the shadow of PSEC, and we continue to closely monitor PSEC’s impact on our ability to bargain freely with our employer universities.