To the Editors Brandon Sun On the web-site for the Brandon University Board of Governors one of the major policies by which the Brandon University (BU) will be guided reads as follows: "The Distinct Nature of the Academy – The fiscal soundness of an institution is not an index of academic vitality. While fiscal realities cannot be avoided, the special character of a university is found in two broad relationships within it: the relationship between students and teachers and the relationship between these two and the administration. The quality of these relationships provides the best indicator of the real heal(th)(sic) of the institution." This policy statement references the importance that the BU places on relations amongst and between teachers, students and the administration. It is, therefore, puzzling to read about the actions taken by the administration during the strike. The strike began October 12, 2011. That same day the administration wrote a communique to the BU Community (that is, students, staff, faculty) stating that classes were being cancelled October 12 through 14th but that the administration would be contacting faculty members to determine which classes would be resumed the week of October 17th. This action on the part of the administration can and probably should be interpreted as an effort to subvert the solidarity of the membership wherein lies the strength of the union. While an action that would be supported by "union-busters" it is an action totally contrary to any policy or intention to establish good relations between the administration and the teachers. This same communique also stated that, subsequent to contacting the faculty, the administration would be advising the students as to which courses would be resuming October 17th. There are several aspects to this action. Firstly, it placed each student into an awkward position with respect to the labour dispute. In essence the students were being placed on notice that they were considered to be participants (rather than victims) in the labour dispute. Secondly, the action undermined the relationship between teacher and student - a relationship built upon trust and respect in the context of education not in the context of labour relations between the teacher and the administration. Thirdly, the action intimated, not in words but in the absence of words giving assurances to students of their right not to cross picket lines, that there might be consequences for students who did not cross the picket line to attend courses held by faculty members who did cross the picket line. With respect to the last point it took several meetings between the BU Administration and the BU Student Union (BUSU) to obtain assurances from the BU Administration that the Administration would respect the right of students not to cross picket lines and that their rights would be protected should they not cross the picket lines. If this was an effort on the part of the Administration to use the students to disparage the striking faculty it was a serious miscalculation. Reports in the Brandon Sun have raised the question of integrity on the part of the BU Administration with respect to financial issues. At first the BU Administration made claims that they were operating under a mandate from the provincial government to hold wage increases in line with those offered the University of Winnipeg and University of Manitoba. This has turned out to be less than the complete truth. Both the BUSU and the BUFA have reported that they have been unable to obtain evidence that such a mandate existed nor has the BU Administration been able to provide such evidence. On November 2nd, the BU Administration stated that the BU had an unfunded pension liability which would cost the BU $3.12M per year for the next 15 years. Now here was something of substance which would substantiate the BU's position regarding the non-affordability of the wage demands made by faculty. However, an unfunded pension liability, as workers in other establishments have experienced, means that the pension fund into which the BU faculty and the BU pays to cover the current and future pensions of faculty does not have sufficient monies in it to meet those liabilities. In virtually all cases this unfunded liability is the result of employers not having placed their required share into the fund. Should this be the case at the BU, the BU Administration is asking the BU faculty to reduce their wage demands so that the savings in reduced wages can be used by the BU to partially cover its liability for pensions owing or that will be owed to the faculty members. The BU Administration stated that the provincial government funding will increase by $1.5M this year (although it is not clear whether the increase continues through other years or there will be year-over-year increases of $1.5M). This would leave them with a shortfall of $1.7M per year to fund their pension liability. But as the Administration stated they would be able to incur further savings by not filling vacancies in faculty positions which is disconcerting since it is faculty that provide the education to BU students. Other items that are at issue in this labour dispute are not so easy to find, follow or appreciate but they may represent the tip of the iceberg which has made the current labour dispute so confrontational, intense and long-lived. The BUFA has stated that the Administration in negotiating for a new collective agreement has opened up almost all the terms of previous agreements. A communique available at the BUSU web-site provides a glimpse of the demands made by the BU Administration. One being the BU Administration position that, in certain faculties, in the future tenure will only be offered to teachers who hold a PhD. While laudable as a goal it could mean that current teachers without the PhD would not be eligible for tenure even though they would not have been hired with that understanding. Another item is the intent of the Administration to reduce the credit hours taught by faculty from 18 hours to 15 hours. As discussed in BUSU bulletin the impact could be significant since students would not be able to pursue a major in certain programs of study thus jeopardizing their opportunities to seek post-graduate studies at other institutes. As to the impact on the faculty one can only make guesses, such as, reassignment of faculty time and energy from teaching to doing research and publishing articles. Potentially the most damning action on the part of the Administration is their response to a question raised by the BUFA at a bargaining session held September 13, 2011 (this is before the strike). According to a partial record of the meeting posted at the BUFA web-site the BUFA asked the Administration (i.e. Employer), "Is it your view that the present complement of faculty at Brandon University is inferior to that of our peer institutions?" The response from the Administration was, "Yes". This is not the way to establish a relationship of trust and respect. It is probable that this behaviour and the attitude it represents on the part of the Administration created the atmosphere and circumstances leading to the current situation at the BU. Jay Winburn, in a letter to the editor, wrote "(T)he only way to win in a dispute with a publicly supported institution is to have public support. This strike by Brandon University's faculty has no support". Is it possible that the BU Administration placed too much confidence in the statement and the attitude it reflects? It would explain the Administration's rationale for the actions discussed above. That is, the actions had little to do with negotiating directly with the BUFA. Rather the Administration in its actions and its statements was appealing to the public for support of its position with respect to items being negotiated including, of course, the issue of wages and benefits. A position that apparently could not be supported on its own merits. What the Administration missed is that in negotiations both parties must feel that they have improved their position, in the parlance of negotiation theory, a win-win situation. What this means is that both parties must negotiate in an atmosphere of respect for and trust in the other. This is what the above policy statement made by the Board of Governors is all about. The Administration also confused the attitude towards strikes with the attitude towards the respective positions of the parties, that is the Administration and the Faculty, which may lead to a strike. One may abhor strikes or lock-outs but one may condone strikes or lock-outs if the issues warrant them. As stated in the BU's policy the relationship between student and teacher is also central to defining the health of the BU. What is most instructive in assessing this relationship is the BUSU's, an elected body representing the students at the BU, support of the BUFA. The students have the most to lose in supporting the BUFA. The support encourages the BUFA in its stance, thereby probably contributing to lengthening the strike and it places the student body in an adversarial position with respect to the Administration. Yet the BUSU appears to have sided with the BUFA, a courageous position regardless of one's sentiments about its advisability. This position of the BUSU is even more instructive when considering that the BUSU is a member of the Board of Governors and a member of the Board's Executive Committee. In that role it is privy to information and discussions related to the BU's operations, plans, finances inclusive of its stand with respect to the Collective Agreement with the BUFA. It is reasonably certain that their exposure to and relatively intimate knowledge of the managing of the BU has contributed to and rationalized the BUSU's position. This position speaks volumes about the health of the relationship between the teachers and the students. The current agreement expired March 31, 2011. The strike was called on October 12, 2011. It is not likely that the strike will end without arbitration or back-to-work legislation which means classes will not resume before January, 2012. There have been numerous calls for government intervention in the labour dispute. That is ‘meat' for another debate. There is, however, something about which we can be certain, arbitration or back-to-work legislation will never and cannot ever force the parties to trust and respect each other. Without trust and respect we can look forward to more disputes at the BU and all that that means for the future of the BU. It will be the task of the Board of Governors to find the way to implement its policy and heal the rifts that just do not seem to go away. Rosemarie and Chester Letkeman