AI policy, bargaining and FA Working Group on AI

I want to update you on the discussions with the senior admin regarding FA involvement on a working group to address/develop AI policies on campus.  Given the major impact AI is having on our workplace and working conditions, the FA considers this to be crucial.  As a recent Globe and Mail article (G and M, July 27, 2026) noted, universities are very far behind in addressing the impact of AI on student education.  And we know that UVic is further behind than many other universities in addressing this major challenge to how we teach and how our students learn.

As I reported at our recent member meetings to discuss the tentative Collective Agreement, while we have made impressive gains in our new agreement on many fronts, we had great difficulty in getting the admin to agree to any language related to AI.  This was particularly troubling, in that they had agreed to similar language for other unions on campus.  In the final hours of mediation, all the admin negotiators would agree to was that they would advocate for an FA rep on the university AI working group.  Unfortunately, we were later informed that this group was “operational” and so could not include an FA rep.  When we asked whether, if they created other more policy-based committees addressing AI, they would then honour their commitment by having an FA rep on such a committee, they said they might have one or two faculty members on such a committee, but that they would not include an FA rep.  We believe that this does not reflect good faith in bargaining.

 The bulk of AI expertise on this campus is found within the FA membership.  By refusing to include an FA rep on the committee, who would utilize this expertise to be a strong voice in analyzing and addressing the impact of AI on faculty and librarian working conditions, the senior admin is unfortunately treading a well-worn and discredited path.

Over the past three years, the senior administration ignored the feedback and recommendations repeatedly provided by Faculty Association leaders regarding the major  problems with the senior administration’s approach to student accommodations.  FA advice emerged from our role as an advocate for our members, and our knowledge of their concerns.  The senior administration has very recently had a turn-around on this matter, announcing the creation of a centre for accommodated assessments.  This announcement is very welcome news.  However, the three-year delay, and the lengthy refusal to listen to the FA and other important voices on campus regarding student accommodation issues, has seriously undermined trust in our senior leadership.

And now we have the issue of AI, which for some members has leeched all the joy out of teaching, and left many with a range of questions about how they can move forward.  The admin provides at best minimal guidance regarding this epochal and ever evolving change in how we can and should teach.  Although the FA has a history of effectively representing member concerns on policy, senior leaders have been clear that they will once again move forward in developing policies that deeply impact our members while excluding any organized FA voice from the table.

Given this unfortunate reprise of a discredited approach, the FA will be developing our own Working Group to craft recommendations on how best to address AI issues within our workplace.

While the FA AI Working Group will finalize its own terms of reference, it will, at a minimum:

• review the impact of AI on faculty and librarian workload and working conditions, academic and professional responsibilities, research, and teaching
• consider and recommend policies and procedures as they relate to the impact of AI on Members, as stated above
• identify gaps in, and make recommendations on, appropriate supports to address Member needs relating to Artificial Intelligence;

• assess “best AI practices” as they relate to Academic and Professional Responsibilities for faculty and librarians.