Faculty Negotiations 2026: Let’s Talk About Workload

“We have all felt the workload creep; in all aspects of teaching, research, and service as well as inequities across campus. Whether it is less teaching support, more students in classes, more tasks that are not faculty related, more academic dishonesty cases due to inappropriate use of AI or other matters, teaching workload is increasing.  That leaves less time for research where administrative tasks have also increased. And with the decreasing number of full-time, tenure-track faculty, service loads have also increased as the number of committees that must be filled increases and the training required for these committees does as well.  We are looking to have this acknowledged and to find solutions for this workload creep.”

– Tania Granadillo, Department of Anthropology, UWOFA Collective Bargaining Committee

Tania is describing something Members across campus will recognize. Workload at Western is not a simple problem with a simple fix. It is shaped by decentralized processes, unclear definitions, institutional decisions made without faculty input, and years of non-faculty tasks quietly accumulating on Members’ plates.

Our approach to workload in this round builds on work begun in 2022: increasing accountability in the workload document review process carried out by unit workload committees, to enable meaningful member engagement in the equitable distribution of work and the allocation of resources needed to keep each faculty member’s workload manageable. We have identified five key problems and proposed concrete solutions to each. 

Problem 1: Inconsistency across campus

Bargaining faculty workload at Western presents an inherent challenge. The process is decentralized by nature, and that has led to considerable differences in how workload is defined and managed across campus. Some of those differences are necessary and reflect the genuine diversity of disciplines and units. Others perhaps are not, and without visibility into how workload is handled across units, it is difficult for Members to know which is which. 

What we’re proposing: Make all unit workload documents available to all Members, so that variation is visible. Prescribe how workload documents must account for student supervision and how they specify teaching release for unit-level service roles, bringing consistency to areas where differences are hardest to justify. 

Problem 2: Confusion around normal workload definitions

The language currently defining normal workload is unclear and appears to have contributed to inequities, particularly for teaching scholar track Members whose workload balance has apparently not always been consistently or fairly applied.

What we’re proposing: Define in clear quantitative terms the normal workload balance for tenure track appointments and for teaching scholar appointments, with any deviation from those norms formalized in an alternative workload arrangement.

Problem 3: Non faculty tasks downloaded onto Members

“Every day I keep thinking that if I just work all evening or all weekend I will be able to catch up and then things will be more manageable. Sometimes I manage to get the tasks under control for a short time, but then 5 new things rapidly come in and the process starts again. Some things are small, some large, but they add up to fill all the time, leaving insufficient time to take care of myself or my family. This continues almost 365 days per year and seems to get gradually worse each year. Between teaching, research, and service, it’s pretty much not possible to even take a vacation, because if we do that, things will be unmanageable when we return.”

– Beth Gillies, Department of Chemistry and Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, UWOFA Collective Bargaining Committee

This is a pattern many members will recognize. Work that was never faculty work finding its way into faculty workloads and staying there. Over time, this accumulation makes it genuinely impossible to keep workload within reasonable limits.

What we’re proposing: Specify what duties should not be assigned to faculty members, and what duties should only be assigned when they are associated with a service role that is appropriately recognized in the Members workload. Require workload documents to account for the support personnel necessary to faculty members’ work, so that gaps can be identified and units can advocate for the resources needed to keep workload manageable.

Problem 4: Policy changes adopted without workload consideration

Academic policy changes that affect faculty workload are sometimes adopted without adequate consideration of what they mean in practice for Members. The student reported absences policy adopted by Senate is one example of a change that added to faculty workload without a corresponding adjustment of how that work is recognized or resourced. 

What we’re proposing: Following the recommendation of the joint workload study group established through the 2018 and 2022 collective agreements, require a review process through joint committee that makes recommendations that the employer is responsible for implementing. 

Problem 5: Enrollment growth without workload accountability 

Institutional efforts to increase student numbers have direct implications for faculty workload. More students means more teaching, more supervision, more advising, and more administration. When those implications are not factored into workload planning, the gap is absorbed by Members. 

What we’re proposing: Following the recommendation of the joint workload study group, require the employer to work with joint committee to address the faculty workload implications of efforts to increase student numbers, and to implement recommendations formulated by that committee. 

The Goal

Our overall goal is to continue the work begun in 2022: building a workload process that is accountable, transparent, and capable of delivering outcomes for members across a decentralized campus. That means ensuring Members can see how workload is defined across units, that normal workload is clearly defined for all appointment types, that work belonging to other employee groups does not continue to accumulate for faculty, and that institutional decisions about policy and enrollment goals cannot be made without genuine accountability for their impact on faculty workload.

Workload is a significant issue at the table this round and we want Members to be informed and engaged every step of the way. This reflects what members are living, and what a fair and functioning workload process should be able to address. 

For the latest bargaining dates, process updates, and key developments, visit our Faculty Negotiations 2026 page, where we will post regular updates to keep members and the broader public informed throughout the process.