In the case of the college network, the politicization of the bargaining process has meant employer offers that are almost exclusively focused on the government’s priorities. We believe that the CAQ’s appetite for short programs of study and distance learning, on the pretext of promoting access to education for a diverse student population, is likely to exacerbate the deep inequities that already exist. For example, the employer’s enthusiasm for distance education, and particularly asynchronous teaching, seems to ignore all the evidence in the academic literature about how this affects student motivation, persistence, and success.

The CPNC’s concrete proposals for adapting our collective agreements to distance education are cause for concern, because of both their conception of the “digital transition” and the related specific objectives, such as the development of asynchronous courses in which teachers would surrender their intellectual property rights to the educational materials they produce.

With respect to course offerings, the employer wants to develop recognition of acquired competencies (RAC) but also to increase the use of atypical teaching schedules. In fact, they are contemplating special financial incentives to have more classes in the evenings and on weekends, while ignoring the many teachers who are already working atypical hours without being paid more, such as Cont’Ed teachers and the supervisors of stages in hospitals.

Finally, when it comes to work organization, the details in the employer’s April 6 submission indicate a desire to limit professional autonomy. For example, they want mandatory professional development as well as rollbacks on issues such as the creation of positions and the granting of leave.

It is clear that the calls for greater flexibility and agility amount to undermining the CEGEP model and the job security of the people who work at CEGEPs.