Bullying rife in RAE run-up - UK

The research assessment exercise is a major cause of the bullying taking place at universities, a survey on bullying by The Times Higher suggests. One in ten university staff who responded to the survey said the RAE was directly linked to bullying in the academic workplace, an analysis of the written feedback in the survey has revealed.

Many respondents alluded to big academic names or "RAE stars" brought in to boost the finances of departments and universities. Such stars seemed to be allowed to operate outside normal workplace rules, particularly when they brought large research grants with them, the survey found.

"The university is well aware of his behaviour but because he brings in significant grant income, will not act," one respondent said of a bullying academic.

Petra Boynton, the University College London psychologist who led the research, said that the data illustrated how far academics feel the RAE is to blame for bullying in higher education. "Respondents said managers had threatened their careers by not returning them in the RAE or making them go in directions they didn't want to, so they did badly in the exercise. A lot of it's about bad management and people in senior positions who are under a lot of pressure."

Nearly 700 academics said that they had been bullied in some way, an online survey carried out by The Times Higher in June and July found. The bullying ranged from being shouted and sworn at in front of others to having promotion blocked and being isolated from colleagues. Analysis of the written responses found that the RAE is perceived as putting increased pressure on university managers, which can lead to aggressive behaviour that filters down to departments.

Sue Harrington, a researcher on workplace bullying at the School of Psychology at Leicester University, said: "High pressure, high targets and competitive environments can lead to organisational bullying. Managers become much more task focused and autocratic and use behaviours that people perceive as bullying."

Many universities are more "aggressively focused" and competitive in the run-up to the 2008 RAE than during previous exercises, said Gillian Howie, a member of the Association of University Teachers' national executive. She said: "There's an explicit bullying that comes with aggressive management and then an implicit effect where people are responding to the environment and are feeling the pressure of it."

The AUT is pushing for universities to implement and publicise the equality code of practice for academics outlined in the funding councils' guidelines to universities on submissions. The final assessment criteria for the 2008 RAE are due to be published in January 2006.

'I was told I was a 1* and a no-counter...and made to feel worthless'

The upcoming research assessment exercise has exacerbated departmental pressures in one Russell Group university. "There is a very insidious vapour that sits on top of the department and limits your ability to act freely as an academic," said Alex (not her real name).

To boost the department's performance, the dean outlined a number of areas in which academics must conduct their research or face being ostracised. Alex was strongly advised to drop her research, which had been funded by smaller grants, because it did not fit comfortably with the school's themes. "I was told in no uncertain terms that if it doesn't count towards the RAE, then don't bother with these little lots of money." She was also, she says, "encouraged" to publish in big-name journals such as The Lancet.

Academics waste precious time trying to recalibrate work to fit the school's chosen areas of research so it appears to be valuable, she says. Alex has been passed over for promotion. "It feels as if I'm being marginalised in my department - like a child in a playground who is not wearing the right clothes."

Her university recently held a mock RAE to gauge departmental standards but it turned into an individualised exercise and led to name-calling. "I was told I was a 1* and a no-counter. It lowers your self-esteem and you are made to feel worthless." The university is trying to drag up its overall RAE score and "walking on bodies to get there", Alex says. Star researchers who were parachuted in to boost the overall RAE score are also problematic.

"They're brought in because of their research income but they do nothing to invest in future researchers. Sometimes they are so worked up and stressed that their behaviour is reprehensible. There's a hierarchy because of the RAE - counters, no-counters and stars and the power that goes with them. "Some of us are looking to leave and they make it feel like good riddance."

Published: 21 October 2005, Times Higher Education Supplement

One and a half years ago, one and a half years later...

Court of Appeal rules on meaning of qualifying disclosure - UK

The Court of Appeal has overturned part of the much criticised decision in Kraus v. Penna and has decided that it is enough for an employee reasonably to believe that a criminal offence or legal obligation exists when making a "qualifying disclosure" under the whistleblowing legislation.

Under the whistleblowing provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996, a qualifying disclosure is one which "in the reasonable belief of the person making the disclosure, tends to show", amongst other things, that a criminal offence has been committed or that a legal obligation has not been complied with.

In Kraus v. Penna, the Employment Appeals Tribunal held that, in a case where a whistleblower relies on a reasonable belief that the disclosure tends to show that a legal obligation has not been complied with, protection is lost if, as a matter of law, there is no legal obligation. The fact that the whistleblower reasonably believed the legal obligation existed did not matter.

The Court of Appeal has now overturned this point, stating that there is nothing in the whistleblowing provisions which requires the whistleblower to be correct in his reasonable belief that a criminal offence had been committed or that a legal obligation existed. Wall LJ stated that "the fact that (the whistleblower) may be wrong is not relevant, provided that his belief is reasonable and the disclosure to his employer is made in good faith".

This is clearly a sensible decision. As the Court of Appeal pointed out, there are sound policy reasons for this interpretation of the legislation as the purpose of the statute is to "encourage responsible whistleblowing". It would not be reasonable to expect every potential whistleblower to have a "detailed knowledge of the criminal law sufficient to enable them to determine whether or not the particular facts which they reasonably believe to be true are capable, as a matter of law, of constituting a particular criminal offence". The interpretation previously given had the potential to deter potential whistleblowers as they could lose protection from dismissal/detrimental treatment if it turned out that they were wrong to believe, however reasonably they held that belief, that a legal obligation existed or that a criminal offence had been committed.

From: Work Place Law

Research Assessment Exercise - UK

Anonymous post to this blog:

'Let the RESEARCH ASSESSMENT EXCERCISE account for scientific misconduct. Top UK universities are getting away with data manipulation and with double counting.'

Behind every fascist and incompetent academic manager there is a serial bully...

Bosses Who Bully

If you think bullies only lurk in playgrounds, think again. Adult bullies are ubiquitous, cropping up as supervisors in organizations around the globe. In laboratories and other scientific settings, the inherent imbalance of power between trainees and their supervisors can set the stage for workplace bullying. "Bullying thrives in situations where the perpetrators are both powerful and frightening, and those around them too scared to challenge," writes physician and career counselor Anita Houghton, M.D., in BMJ Careers.

There are other reasons why science is a fertile breeding ground for bullies. "People in certain fields rise up the managerial chain by being experts," says sociologist Gini Graham Scott, Ph.D., author of A Survival Guide for Working with Bad Bosses: Dealing with Bullies, Idiots, Back-Stabbers, and other Managers from Hell (American Management Association, 2006). "Science is one of those fields. You can have supervisors who are brilliant in their work as scientists but who don't necessarily have people skills. They may not have management training or an understanding of how to work with employees. Also, in scientific laboratories, there isn't always a human resources person to go to, and there may be few opportunities for oversight. If someone complains, there are likely to be repercussions, and the person can be blacklisted."

If you're a science trainee whose boss is a bully, the challenges and risks, to both your professional and your personal life, are formidable, and your options are usually limited. But if you recognize this phenomenon, there are ways to minimize its adverse effects.

Barbara's experience

Barbara,* currently a postdoc, acquired what she now calls "emotional scars" while earning her doctoral degree. Even though the experiences occurred several years ago, she still can't put them out of her mind. She was a Ph.D. student in biology working in a laboratory at a European university when she was bullied by her bosses.

"It felt like the slave trade," she says. Her advisor, one of two co-directors in the lab, was enraged when he learned that Barbara had moved in with her boyfriend. "If you are planning to have children," he said, "I should know it so you can leave the lab now." Barbara had no such plans--but when one of her labmates became pregnant, the advisor started assigning the woman less and less work, isolating her from her peers. "You became pregnant, and that's the last thing you do in my lab," her advisor told her. The woman resigned.

While Barbara was writing her dissertation, the other co-director told her he needed help running some experiments for a project that would be published in a top-tier journal. When she told him that she was already stretched thin finishing her doctoral work and applying for postdocs, he got angry. He demanded that she think about it overnight and return to his office the next day. Barbara returned and told him that she simply didn't have the time. "You don't understand, Barbara," he said. "I'm not making you an offer; I'm telling you that you are going to do these experiments." Because she was close to finishing her degree and didn't want it derailed, she felt as though she had no choice. She took on the additional work.

Her advisor also asked her to share authorship of her papers with people who had nothing to do with the work. When she questioned the dubious ethics, he made it clear that she wasn't in a position to negotiate. "This is my lab, Barbara; if you don't like my rules, you can go straight to the door," her advisor told her, not for the first time. Other students suffered similar indignities. "Both of them were controlling, possessive, and had no problems threatening students to get what they wanted," Barbara says.

People like Barbara--on the first rung of their career ladders--often have no choice other than to "grin and bear it" when faced with a bully in the workplace, says Scott, who often consults on workplace relationships…

A study in the British Medical Journal estimates that workplace bullying affects up to 50% of the workforce in the United Kingdom at some time in their working lives, with annual prevalence rates of 38%. Statistics from a workplace bullying advice line suggest that 90% of cases in the U.K. involve a manager bullying a subordinate; 8% involve peer-to-peer bullying; and in 2% of cases, subordinate(s) bully managers. Perpetrators are equally likely to be male or female, but targets are more likely to be female.

A study published in the Postgraduate Medical Journal focused on doctors who work in a research environment. The investigators surveyed 259 doctors who had registered on Doctors.net.uk--the largest Web site for doctors in Europe--and found that more than half reported having been bullied in the form of threats to their professional status and personal standing.

Namie estimates that nearly three out of four bullied individuals ultimately lose their position, which suggests that perpetrators aren't often held accountable for their actions. In many cases, victims are blamed; other times, the situation is written off as a personality conflict between two or more people…

Bullies exist because the workplace culture supports them. "The incentives to challenge bullying behavior are far outweighed by the incentives to keep your head down," writes Houghton. "This creates an aggressive culture that continues because it selects people who can survive in it--people who are likely to be thick-skinned and aggressive themselves. These people in turn provide role models for the up-and-coming generation."

From: http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org - 22 September 2006

Irene S. Levine is a freelance journalist whose work has appeared in many of America's leading newspapers and magazines. Trained as a psychologist, she works part-time as a research scientist at the Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research in Orangeburg, New York, and she holds a faculty appointment as a professor of psychiatry at the New York University School of Medicine. She resides in Chappaqua, New York.

Faculty Perspective: Malfeasance in academe and its danger for democracy

'America faces a crisis over the lack of ethics and morality among elected officials, police, business executives and religious leaders. Academics so far are largely shielded from the public "tar brush" but they know about similar woes in their own profession, noted for example in the book "Leasing the Ivory Tower" by L. C. Soley. Conspicuous eruptions of academic administrative crime and corruption were reported in recent news stories by NPR and CNN regarding the University of California's Los Alamos National Laboratory and Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Lincoln Laboratory. Those reporting the story observed that American universities were as deviant as other institutions in American society. Notice that the "Persons of the Year" recognized by Time magazine were the three whistleblowers who exposed government malfeasance and business corruption.

The pervasiveness of this societal ill is being revealed through the ongoing sexual abuse scandal at the U.S. Air Force Academy. The academy administration had successfully conducted the usual cover-ups and had intimidated the victims. Fortunately, outside oversight in the form of the secretary of the Air Force is now finally exposing the fraud.

At U-M, many faculty and staff know of malfeasant acts inflicted by employees within the University's administration. Instances of malfeasance such as theft of intellectual property, plagiarism, conversion of resources, penalization for efforts to maintain academic standards, or bringing attention to creation of false information and documentation have been covered up by the administration. Investigation reveals that these cover-ups occur regularly, they are successful, and they have become a staple of the administrative underworld. U-M is a significant case study because of its large number of influential alumni and huge administrative appetite for the overhead from federal funding.

Policy statements do exist ostensibly for faculty and staff to protest and rectify malfeasant disregard for the public trust, but such statements are no better than practice and oversight procedures that are not implemented. In practice University administrations are no more capable of policing themselves than is Wall Street. Grievance procedures are whitewashes constructed to shield administrative perpetrators and to deflect federal investigations that could be conducted by the Office of Research Integrity at educational institutions that receive federal funding. Malfeasance could lead to suspension of federal funding with its vital overhead. For whistleblowers there is no protection of due process in these internal proceedings. They are exposed to retaliation, retribution, harassment, intimidation and surveillance by the university administration in defense of the indirect cost revenue stream. In the late 1980s, the Financial Affairs Committee of the Senate Assembly made repeated requests to the central administration for an accounting of indirect cost funds without result...

In my own case, I developed a proposal for funding an undergraduate educational initiative. The idea along with most of the text was plagiarized by an administrator and submitted to the foundation that I had identified. The plan was funded, but I was excluded from its implementation. An internal U-M investigation orchestrated by the Office of the Vice President of Research purported that the two documents were similar (they were identical except for some omissions of what I wrote), but that such was not of consequence to the U-M administration...

Because I protested this immoral behavior, I received retaliations including reduced salary, removal from traditional teaching duties, loss of teaching assistants and graders, removal from student advisory positions, assignment of excessive work loads, loss of laboratory equipment and space, and insulting treatment by the administration.

I brought a lawsuit that is still pending, and the U-M administration has now proposed its settlement offering me money for early retirement if I sign a gag order. I reject this payment to hide the abiding malfeasance of my own alma mater. The general counsel now asks me to propose a settlement that mimics my original proposal. This has been done, with no result as yet. Meanwhile, I have developed some serious stress-induced medical problems. As part of a campaign of unrelenting retaliation, U-M officials refuse to grant me medical leave despite requests from my physician for necessary diagnosis and treatment.

The academic community is fast becoming another societal institution steeped in moral or ethical decline. The situation must be addressed, and integrity be restored with transparent oversight. The abuse and intimidation against faculty and staff whistleblowers must be terminated. There is historical similarity between Academe and Church. Both were long regarded the seed bank of society's moral values. Now the legal experience gained in the archdiocese scandals may loom over university cover-ups. Both Church and university are averse to negative publicity and public pressure. Public exposure of malfeasance is the effective corrective mechanism. Hence herculean efforts may be required. A Freedom of Information Act request filed in federal court asking for a listing of all lawsuits, settlements, gag orders and the details of the employment of all outside legal counsel seems a good way to start...'

From: The University Record Online - University of Michigan, April 2003
-------------------------
A relatively old story but many of the issues raised concern many academics today.

Beware: danger at work - psychopathic colleagues

They're charming and plausible, but they hide a dark secret. Kate Hilpern on psychopathic colleagues and why there are more of them than you might imagine. - Monday September 27, 2004 - The Guardian

If you've ever secretly harboured thoughts that a colleague - or even your boss - behaves like a psychopath, you may be closer to the truth than you dared to imagine. A study has found that there are far more sub-criminal psychopaths - self-serving, narcissistic schemers who display a stunning lack of empathy, but are not criminally inclined - at large in the population than had previously been thought. Some even end up in managerial positions.

"The world of unfeeling psychopaths is not limited to the popular images of monsters who steal people's children or kill without remorse," explains Robert Hare, a professor emeritus at the University of British Columbia in Canada, who conducted the study. "After all, if you are bright, you have been brought up with good social skills, and you don't want to end up in prison, so you probably won't turn to a life of violence. Rather, you'll recognise that you can use your psychopathic tendencies more legitimately by getting into positions of power and control. What better place than a corporation?"

"Corporate psychopaths" tend to be manipulative, arrogant, callous, impatient, impulsive, unreliable and prone to fly into rages, according to Professor Hare. They break promises, and take credit for the work of others and blame everyone else when things go wrong. "Psychopaths are social predators and like all predators they are looking for feeding grounds," he says. "Wherever you get power, prestige and money, you will find them."

But with today's employers increasingly focusing on anti-bullying policies, how do they get away with it? Paul Babiak, an organisational psychologist, explains that psychopaths have the ability to demonstrate the traits that the organisation wants and needs, as well as coming across as smooth, polished and engaging. They can appear to employers to be the perfect manager. "The psychopath is the kind of individual that can give you the right impression, has a charming facade, can look and sound like the ideal leader, but behind this mask has a dark side," he says. "It's this dark side of the personality that lies, is deceitful, is manipulative and that bullies other people."

Dr Babiak claims to have dealt with corporate psychopaths who not only demonstrate the defining characteristics of lack of remorse and empathy, but also enjoy causing others pain. "I have seen individuals fire people and take great pleasure in doing it," he says...

In some organisations, corporate psychopaths pose a threat not only to individuals, but also to the entire workforce, according to Dr Babiak. They build up a power base and turn everyone in the organisation paranoid, everyone becomes afraid of everyone else and the work culture begins to reflect the personality of the leader.

Dr Babiak adds that bullying isn't the only characteristic displayed by the corporate psychopath. "Many even promote fraud in the organisation and steal the company's money," he says. Recent research by accountants MacIntyre Hudson demonstrates just how much of a concern to companies this is. Almost four out of 10 business owners in Britain view the possibility of fraud - particularly being ripped off by one of their own employees - as the single biggest threat to their company, the study found.

In an attempt to root out such undesirable employees, Dr Babiak and Prof Hare have teamed up to design a test aimed at enabling companies to detect corporate psychopaths before they can do serious damage in the workplace. The "Business Scan 360" test will assess managers who come across as ideal corporate leaders, but who may carry psychopathic traits. Colleagues and a supervisor of the person being tested will be asked to fill in a detailed questionnaire that considers four aspects of the subject's personality - anti-social tendencies, organisational maturity, interpersonal relations, and personal style.

But the idea is not to smoke out these people and give them the boot, insists Prof Hare. "Some organisations would value some of the traits, such as being remorseless and manipulative. Used-car salesmen, for example, will probably need to be cut-throat," he says. "The major problem is that psychopaths get into organisations as they interview well and can convince people that they are right for the job. But as soon as the person is hired all sorts of problems start."

...Corporate psychologist Ben Williams agrees that the corporate psychopath is at large in management throughout Britain. "But I would argue that there are fewer than in the past because we now have laws against discrimination and unfair behaviour," he says.

Others disagree. The quickly changing corporate world is increasingly susceptible to the psycho in a suit, Dr Babiak believes. The old, staid, bureaucratic organisation filled with rules, policies and procedures was too frustrating and unattractive to the psychopath, he says. "Now, because the pace of business has accelerated so much, only organisations that move fast can survive. It also makes it more fun to work there, not just for you and I, but for the psychopath as well."

Not all corporate psychopaths get away with their antics, however. Alan Ross recalls working for a particularly mercenary one in an investment bank. "I was just out of university and she almost screwed me up completely," he says. "She had ambitions to move into a new area of work and did this primarily by getting her researchers - us - to translate and plagiarise equity research from all the continental banks and sell it as her own research. This proved highly successful and she was getting a name for herself as an expert."

Just before she was offered a major job in her new "expert" role, however, Ross decided to put an end to her reign of terror. "First we supplied a dossier to a magazine, which duly printed an exposé of her. Finally, to rub it right in, we sent copies of the article to every fund manager she ever had dealings with - ie all the bank's best and wealthiest customers. Job done - she was suspended pending an investigation and then sacked."
-----------------------

From the online profile of Robert Hare, Professor Emeritus and expert on the Psychopath:

'...clinicians who use these manuals [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders] look for symptoms in people over 18 and not otherwise psychotic who since age 15 have shown a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others. Among these behaviors, the person has done at least three of the following:

• failure to conform to lawful social norms,
• deceitfulness,
• impulsivity or failure to plan ahead,
• irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
• reckless disregard for safety of self or others,
• consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations,
• lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent about having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.'

Hiding the truth by Sheffield University - Exam Fraud

'... This website shows why there is a need for anonymous marking, the flaws of the anonymous marking system that was present when I was a student. It shows how it failed to protect me, the failings of anonymous marking. What I also show is a better system.

The government is very keen to get people to go to university. During my search for information for this article I have inspected several university prospectuses. For some reason no university prospectus mentions the issues discussed on this site. No prospectus mentions that they may (or may not) have staff who can abuse the power to hinder your progress and if they do the university takes no action against them.

There is information that I hope all bodies representing students can use to gain fairer marking and a better appeals system. The information here is material that Sheffield university has tried to stop coming out publicly...

What is anonymous marking?

Under a system of anonymous marking candidates’ names are supposedly not meant to be visible to examiners. Candidates are meant to put an anonymous candidate number on them so in theory the examiners don’t know who the candidate is. This website shows the flaws in the sysstem...

I can see students of white origin- especially in medicine is “what evidence do you have of racism or examiner bias? It doesn‘t exist.” Undergraduate education in courses allied to medicine takes place in the NHS. Well consider the words of Sir John Blofield QC the high court judge “the NHS is riddled with institutional racism” is damning.

I can also see students, especially in medicine, saying that it isn’t in the interests of a university to fail a student on purpose. It is always, without exception, in the interest of the university that students should pass exams. People who engage in discriminatory practices are contravening the university’s interests and add their colleagues workload. Unfortunately the link between knowledge and behaviour is not always so obvious. If it were so, then no person would ever smoke, take drugs etc. For example how many doctors smoke?

What is written in this site is partially based on my experiences at Sheffield university. It may (or may not) be possible that similar things have happened at other universities. In July 2003 the Times Higher ran a story called Almost 40% fail to comply with race laws...

It is not just in medicine where racism/bias can occur. On 24 November 2000 the Steel Press Issue 36, 24th November 2000 ran a story called Racist Slur Exposed. This article described how Sheffield university law lecturer Margaret Wilkie was accused of marking derogatory and offensive reference to black people twice in lectures. The Steel Press had heard a tape in which she made a remark about a “nigger” and referred to Nigeria as a White man’s grave. Note that people like Wilkie may assess students...

The dispute at Sheffield- did the “anonymous marking” system protect me? A case study.

Unfortunately I had a long dispute there summarised by a few events. Most of these letters have been read in several courts or they have been quoted in newspaper articles so they are in the public domain. Those marked with * have come out in court or are in court documents or judgments.

2 February 1998 the letter from the Commission for Racial Equality to me. “Mr. Page, (the undergraduate dean) states that the medical school does not monitor failure rates but seems to have a belief, (possibly divine) that their procedures are free and fair from racial bias.”

11 May 1998 “It appears to me that some people do not want him to carry on his medical studies.” Dr Rao consultant. It was partly on the basis of this letter that an examination decision was overturned even with anonymous marking. However I only managed to do this because I had managed to get hold of information that usually only the university had hold of. Students normally didn’t have this information.

2 July 1998 the then Registrar and Secretary sent a memo to all departments saying "A recent case has highlighted the danger to the University's reputation of dealing with personal matters on university headed note-paper...

This must be because of Professor Mortimer from Hull York University Medical School falsely accusing me of being a drug taker on the basis of my exam papers. I note that she is the Deputy Chief Examiner for the Royal College of Psychiatrists. If such a person can falsely accuse an ethnic minority student of being a drug taker on the basis of exam papers I wonder how many times the UK medical royal colleges have falsified exam results? She is also the external examiner for the University of Birmingham department of psychiatry.

19 July 1999 “This does raise some important issues about the conduct of University examinations and courses.” Richard Allan MP for Sheffield Hallam- then of the House of Commons Select Committee of Education and Employment...

On 12 January 2001 I was due to face a review panel- it was adjourned as we had lodged an appeal and that was outstanding. In response to a direct question from Richard Price- then solicitor from Howells solicitors and now of Richard Price and Company (ceased trading) Weetman admitted that he personally selected the medical school’s documents. When you read Richard’s letter you will see how selective Weetman was. He manipulated evidence and procedures.

Weetman has preached about standards that the GMC sets. Consider regulation 51 - one of their rules states “You must be honest and trustworthy when writing reports, completing or signing forms, or providing evidence in litigation or other formal inquiries. This means that you must take reasonable steps to verify any statement before you sign a document. You must not write or sign documents which are false or misleading because they omit relevant information. “

Do the words practice what you preach come to mind? When it suits them they will apply the rules to the hilt. When it doesn’t they won’t...

Thoughts to ponder on

I have often wondered since the 1 June 1998 decision came out how many people have been failed on purpose? How many people have appealed and been refused unjustifiably? What would have happened if I hadn’t kept the information? I have also wondered what sort of justice does a university like Sheffield administer when an external examiner- Professor Mortimer- can falsely accuse a student of being mentally ill and taking drugs and yet they make the student re-sit?

...My advice to anyone who does not have a white English name is not to go to any university where they do not unconditionally return assessments back to candidates when marked. Always ask what safeguards they have, no matter what level-GCSE, A level etc. YOU are the consumer, it is your right to choose...'
--------------------------
Read it all at: http://www.examfraud.co.uk

You may also wish to read: THE COMMISSION FOR RACIAL EQUALITY INVESTIGATION into Sheffield Medical School, by The United Kingdom Council for Human Rights

We are in your hands Sally Hunt...

'So it was close run and Sally Hunt has been appointed with only 52% of votes after a recount when Peter Jones' votes were redistributed.

The three candidates were apparently not allowed to be present during the count... It is unclear why not? In whose interests would it be for them not to be present?

The 52% indicates that members are not convinced about Sally being the leader of the only union that academics can turn to when they are bullied.

We have a leader who refused to engage with issues of work place bullying. Who did not engage with issues on her blog and publish any comments that were posted up. Who does not have a strong mandate for leadership...

However as leader she has an awesome responsibility and will maybe explain to those of us who are targets of bullying why, although she seemed to like stories, she did not want to engage with our story. We are in your hands Sally Hunt...'

From anonymous post to this blog.
-------------------------------------
Also:

'Sally Hunt is elected first general secretary of UCU - Sally Hunt has been elected as the first general secretary of the University and College Union.

The union was formed on 1 June 2006 following a merger between the Association of University Teachers (AUT) and the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE).

Ms Hunt secured just over 52% of the vote after the second round of counting and was duly declared UCU general secretary by the returning officers this morning. She will take up the post on 1 June 2007. The other candidates were Peter Jones, UCU member and Roger Kline UCU head of equality and employment rights. The turnout was just under 14% (13.95%)...

From: UCU web site

So here are some more figures: AUT + NATFHE = UCU, i.e. a combined membership of well over 100.000 union members. From the scrutineers report we read the following:

Number of ballot papers despatched: 116,512
Number of ballot papers returned: 16,715
Number of invalid papers: 465
Therefore number of valid votes counted: 16,250

Sally Hunt, after distribution of votes has a total of: 8463 votes, compared to second placed Roger Kline on 7117.

Draw your own conclusions but one of them may be that the pre-election campaigns were hardly exciting and relevant to some of us. None of the three candidates made workplace bullying in academia a significant part of their pre-election agenda. We will never know how many of the 465 invalid papers had something written on them against workplace bullying. A new era for our union in the fight against workplace bullying in academia?

A Nation of Bullies - Australia

When people talk of bullies, often the first image that comes to mind is of a school yard thug beating up some poor nerd and stealing his lunch money. However, new IR laws and Federal Government contempt for workers, has seen the incidents of Workplace bullying sky rocket.

What’s bullying? Well, the most common definition appears to be words to the effect of: In all its forms it’s basically an abuse of power, by someone who is stronger eg physically, mentally, socially, financially, towards someone who is less able to protect themselves. The target is unable to assertively block the bully’s abusive behaviours.

Workplaces have a natural hierarchical structure which has always been open to abuse, however in the past, workers rights have been protected to varying degrees. Under Howard’s royal rule, these rights have been dismantled, leaving employees more vulnerable to bullying.

Super bully buster, Evelyn Field lists the following as causes for workplace bullying:

- The fact that the bully believes that they can get away with it, and generally they can.

- The organisational system either promotes equality and a ‘fair go for all’, or it condones the abuse of power. It is scared to confront and resolve conflicts, it minimises the impact of bullying or it basically believes that bullying is effective, eg as a cheap form of redundancy.

- The target may be a quiet achiever, who may not have developed socially assertive skills to confront the bully and persist in reporting the incidents to the appropriate persons with power.

- The loud-mouthed, insecure, generally less competent bully, who has poor leadership skills, lacks any desire to inspire employees and believes in using a verbal horsewhip to get a job done. They may be doing what everyone else is doing to survive. They may be hiding something which they do not want exposed. They manage to suck up to the boss who sees him/her as a ‘good chap.’

University Of Wollongong’s Diana Kelly, has done extensive research and concluded:

Considerable evidence points to an increase in workplace bullying, in large part as a consequence of competitive pressures, the predominance of business values and concomitantly, the declining legitimacy ascribed to fairness and social justice. In Australia, there have been some institutional efforts to identify, penalise, and reduce the incidence of bullying through Occupational Health and Safety legislation in some states, but recent employment relations legislation (WorkChoices) will have the effect of countering such measures. In particular the new legislation has the capacity to enhance and extend labour market disadvantage.

If that’s not reason enough to make changes, perhaps this statistic will do the trick :

Using international research, The Beyond Bullying Association, estimates that between 400,000 and two million Australians will be harassed at work (in 2001), while 2.5 to 5 million will experience workplace harassment at some time during their career.Workplace bullying has serious economic effects on Australian organisations. A recent impact and cost assessment calculated that workplace bullying costs Australian employers between $6 - $36 billion dollars every year when hidden and lost opportunity costs are considered.

My work as a Clinical Counsellor brings me in contact with an interesting cross section of society. During the last 5 years, I’ve noticed an increase in the incidents of people negatively affected by workplace bullying. I have no doubt that this is a direct response to the Howard Government’s war on everyday working Australians via loss of Union power and new IR laws. Employers are being held less accountable, and employees are paying the price. Howard has always depicted himself as being for the ‘Aussie Battler’, and in fact the new term ‘Howard’s Battlers’ was born. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. ‘Howard’s Battlers’ are being sodomised whilst big business’s collective scrotums slap wildly against Howard’s chin.

From: The Dead Roo