For those of you who are interested, this Friday, 22 June at 10:00 a.m. there will be a repeat "performance" (a continuation of a hearing from 10 May) of a hearing before the Richmond Magistrates' Court in the matter of allegations of criminal witness intimidation by the University Secretary of Kingston University, Donald Beaton.
According to the allegations cited in a Court-issued summons, Mr Beaton allegedly attempted to intimidate likely witnesses to an Employment Tribunal proceeding against the University into turning over ALL EXISTING COPIES (including originals) of evidence in relation to an ongoing Tribunal case, thereby creating a potential for these copies to be destroyed, altered, or otherwise rendered unusable as evidence.
You are all invited to attend the hearing, at which Mr Beaton is, as I understand it, supposed to enter his plea.
Several questions remain to be decided - is witness intimidation perfectly legal if it occurs in connection with Employment Tribunal proceedings? And if it is NOT legal, will the Crown Prosecution Service then choose to take over the prosecution of this case from the alleged victims (former University lecturers)?
To read a copy of the Summons, link to: www.sirpeterscott.com
June 17, 2007
June 16, 2007
Unite against the bean-counters 1
Letter to the Editors, Times Higher Education Supplement, 15 June 2007
So research is being wrecked by "bean-counters", as your front page had it (June 1). Isn't it about time that public-service employees started to fight back against the absurd notion that the so-called reform of the sector is somehow progressive? Doesn't every public service worker now understand exactly how regressive the measures inflicted upon the sector in the name of modernisation are?
Reform is, in reality, a 19th-century Gradgrind utilitarianism married to a vicious Thatcherite backlash against the ideals of public service that have provided institutions such as universities with endless supplies of unpaid overtime in the past.
No more - demoralised staff will work to rule if they are treated as untrustworthy children. Students can expect to be met by increasingly angry and exhausted lecturers. "Reform" has taken some of the worst indignities suffered by the working class and visited them on middle-class public-service employees under cover of an entirely bogus notion of accountability.
To paraphrase the political philosopher Pierre Joseph Proudhon: to be reformed is to be watched, inspected, spied on, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom or the virtue to do so. Or, if you prefer the Orwellian version, as one of my colleagues put it so eloquently: "if you want a vision of the future, imagine a sandal stamping on a human face - for ever!"
Nick Haeffner, London Metropolitan University
So research is being wrecked by "bean-counters", as your front page had it (June 1). Isn't it about time that public-service employees started to fight back against the absurd notion that the so-called reform of the sector is somehow progressive? Doesn't every public service worker now understand exactly how regressive the measures inflicted upon the sector in the name of modernisation are?
Reform is, in reality, a 19th-century Gradgrind utilitarianism married to a vicious Thatcherite backlash against the ideals of public service that have provided institutions such as universities with endless supplies of unpaid overtime in the past.
No more - demoralised staff will work to rule if they are treated as untrustworthy children. Students can expect to be met by increasingly angry and exhausted lecturers. "Reform" has taken some of the worst indignities suffered by the working class and visited them on middle-class public-service employees under cover of an entirely bogus notion of accountability.
To paraphrase the political philosopher Pierre Joseph Proudhon: to be reformed is to be watched, inspected, spied on, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom or the virtue to do so. Or, if you prefer the Orwellian version, as one of my colleagues put it so eloquently: "if you want a vision of the future, imagine a sandal stamping on a human face - for ever!"
Nick Haeffner, London Metropolitan University
June 15, 2007
Going backwards: failing to change the workplace
Thirty years ago in the New South Wales’ (NSW) [Australia] Upper House, Premier Wran delivered his visionary Second Reading to establish the Anti-Discrimination Board, stating, "the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual is of paramount importance to governments. The principle that all human beings are born equal, have a right to be treated with equal dignity, and a right to expect equal treatment in society is a principle firmly upheld by my government."
NSW was the second Australian state to enact anti-discrimination law after South Australia, but it was the first to establish a dedicated Anti-Discrimination Board (ADB). Its role then was to conduct quasi-judicial inquiries into discrimination complaints and develop human rights policies. Today, the ADB's powers are in the investigation and conciliation of complaints.
Thirty years is a good passage of time for considering the impact of the ADB. Thirty years of changes in the workplace and in social attitudes across NSW, but to what end?
The most recent management book from Robert Sutton, Professor of Management at Stanford University entitled, The No Asshole Rule - Building a Civilised Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't, has been a bestseller in Australia. Its popularity attests to the fact that workplaces remain the number one location for bullying and discrimination. If so, what does this say about the effectiveness of the ADB?
Not much - last year, as with every year, most of the complaints to the ADB were made by women about sex discrimination in the workplace, 10 per cent were about individual males. Over half of the complaints do not even get looked at, either withdrawn or the ADB “declines” to investigate. Only 10 per cent end up in being publicly aired at the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT).
Two reports into the ADB by the NSW Law Reform Commission attest to the ADB’s failures. The first in 1999 recognised a "significant discrepancy between discrimination in theory and practice”. Professor Sutton observes that such "discrepancies", or bullying and discrimination, damages victims and batters bystanders.
Workplace performance also takes a dive with a decline in innovation, co-operation and morale. Then there is the cost of the victim’s ongoing retribution towards the employer. Corporate reputations can take a hard hit and prospective employees look elsewhere.
The second Law Reform Commission Report in 1997 relied on surveys of employers and employees who had dealt with the ADB. The results were not encouraging. Feedback was "very diverse, ranging from the extremely positive to the extremely negative". Participants stated that, "in the long run, it was often cheaper to settle a claim than to dispute it, whatever the merits of the case”. Whatever the merits? This sums up the ADB’s justice process - settlement through "conciliation".
Last year most complaints (33 per cent) looked at by the ADB were settled before, at, or after conciliation. The conciliation process involves the ADB acting as the third party, brokering a deal between the employer and employee.
The deal is the victim gets a payout, resigns, and withdraws their complaint. Employer insurance usually covers the payout, generally less than the statutory limit of $40,000. In return for the money, the victim signs a legal contract to withdraw the complaint and say nothing to anyone, especially the media.
This practice fails to prevent bullying and discrimination. In many cases the perpetrator remains in their job, perhaps transferred, rarely dismissed. Lip service replaces attitude change.
Take a look at one of the ADB's "successful conciliation" case studies:
A man who was a middle manager in the human services industry wanted to negotiate more flexible working arrangements so he could take care of his young children. He said that after he did this he was harassed and bullied by the manager … The man become very stressed, went on leave and made a complaint of carers' responsibilities discrimination to the board. The complaint was conciliated when the respondent agreed to pay him a separation payment and compensation totalling $10,000 in exchange for his resignation.
Whatever happened to the manager who "bullied and harassed" him for trying to take care of this young children? What did the company do to ensure this did not occur again?
This disturbing view of success was identified in the first Law Reform Commission Review Report which stated, "because the majority of complaints of discrimination are resolved at successful conciliation and because the outcomes reached at conciliation are private, conciliation precludes the development of community education initiatives and thus impedes efforts to promote awareness of, and compliance with, provisions of the ADB."
The ADB argues that the “intelligence” obtained from these confidential conciliated cases enables them to focus their prevention and education efforts.
According to ADB’s 2005-06 Annual Report, two highlights of their intelligence-driven education program were a state-wide colouring competition and information sessions for the deaf community. Education in the corporate sector amounted to three employer seminar programs and 645 in-house training sessions. The NSW Chamber of Commerce currently lists over 5,000 members. The ADB’s education and prevention impact is clearly limited.
Most workplaces have introduced programs to prevent discrimination and bullying. These are often based on information published by the ADB. During the conciliation process, employers point to these programs as evidence of how they proactively prevent bullying. Are they successful?
Professor Sutton writes, "posting them on a wall or Web site or talking about them are - alone - useless acts. And if these values are routinely violated and not steps are taken to enforce them, these hollow words are worse than useless … (as the) organisation and its leaders are seen as hypocrites which fuels cynicism and scorn.”
In the same Second Reading, Premier Wran, described a time when "people of any colour, race or sex are accorded equality without resort to the protection of the law". Thirty years later the protection afforded by the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board has dissipated into a bureaucracy obsessed with processes over people and payouts over prevention. Perhaps is time to revisit the former Premier's vision, at least as a starting point. Professor Sutton's No Asshole Rule might help as well.
From: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au
---------------------------------
It is obvious that many of the above apply to Higher Education.
NSW was the second Australian state to enact anti-discrimination law after South Australia, but it was the first to establish a dedicated Anti-Discrimination Board (ADB). Its role then was to conduct quasi-judicial inquiries into discrimination complaints and develop human rights policies. Today, the ADB's powers are in the investigation and conciliation of complaints.
Thirty years is a good passage of time for considering the impact of the ADB. Thirty years of changes in the workplace and in social attitudes across NSW, but to what end?
The most recent management book from Robert Sutton, Professor of Management at Stanford University entitled, The No Asshole Rule - Building a Civilised Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't, has been a bestseller in Australia. Its popularity attests to the fact that workplaces remain the number one location for bullying and discrimination. If so, what does this say about the effectiveness of the ADB?
Not much - last year, as with every year, most of the complaints to the ADB were made by women about sex discrimination in the workplace, 10 per cent were about individual males. Over half of the complaints do not even get looked at, either withdrawn or the ADB “declines” to investigate. Only 10 per cent end up in being publicly aired at the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT).
Two reports into the ADB by the NSW Law Reform Commission attest to the ADB’s failures. The first in 1999 recognised a "significant discrepancy between discrimination in theory and practice”. Professor Sutton observes that such "discrepancies", or bullying and discrimination, damages victims and batters bystanders.
Workplace performance also takes a dive with a decline in innovation, co-operation and morale. Then there is the cost of the victim’s ongoing retribution towards the employer. Corporate reputations can take a hard hit and prospective employees look elsewhere.
The second Law Reform Commission Report in 1997 relied on surveys of employers and employees who had dealt with the ADB. The results were not encouraging. Feedback was "very diverse, ranging from the extremely positive to the extremely negative". Participants stated that, "in the long run, it was often cheaper to settle a claim than to dispute it, whatever the merits of the case”. Whatever the merits? This sums up the ADB’s justice process - settlement through "conciliation".
Last year most complaints (33 per cent) looked at by the ADB were settled before, at, or after conciliation. The conciliation process involves the ADB acting as the third party, brokering a deal between the employer and employee.
The deal is the victim gets a payout, resigns, and withdraws their complaint. Employer insurance usually covers the payout, generally less than the statutory limit of $40,000. In return for the money, the victim signs a legal contract to withdraw the complaint and say nothing to anyone, especially the media.
This practice fails to prevent bullying and discrimination. In many cases the perpetrator remains in their job, perhaps transferred, rarely dismissed. Lip service replaces attitude change.
Take a look at one of the ADB's "successful conciliation" case studies:
A man who was a middle manager in the human services industry wanted to negotiate more flexible working arrangements so he could take care of his young children. He said that after he did this he was harassed and bullied by the manager … The man become very stressed, went on leave and made a complaint of carers' responsibilities discrimination to the board. The complaint was conciliated when the respondent agreed to pay him a separation payment and compensation totalling $10,000 in exchange for his resignation.
Whatever happened to the manager who "bullied and harassed" him for trying to take care of this young children? What did the company do to ensure this did not occur again?
This disturbing view of success was identified in the first Law Reform Commission Review Report which stated, "because the majority of complaints of discrimination are resolved at successful conciliation and because the outcomes reached at conciliation are private, conciliation precludes the development of community education initiatives and thus impedes efforts to promote awareness of, and compliance with, provisions of the ADB."
The ADB argues that the “intelligence” obtained from these confidential conciliated cases enables them to focus their prevention and education efforts.
According to ADB’s 2005-06 Annual Report, two highlights of their intelligence-driven education program were a state-wide colouring competition and information sessions for the deaf community. Education in the corporate sector amounted to three employer seminar programs and 645 in-house training sessions. The NSW Chamber of Commerce currently lists over 5,000 members. The ADB’s education and prevention impact is clearly limited.
Most workplaces have introduced programs to prevent discrimination and bullying. These are often based on information published by the ADB. During the conciliation process, employers point to these programs as evidence of how they proactively prevent bullying. Are they successful?
Professor Sutton writes, "posting them on a wall or Web site or talking about them are - alone - useless acts. And if these values are routinely violated and not steps are taken to enforce them, these hollow words are worse than useless … (as the) organisation and its leaders are seen as hypocrites which fuels cynicism and scorn.”
In the same Second Reading, Premier Wran, described a time when "people of any colour, race or sex are accorded equality without resort to the protection of the law". Thirty years later the protection afforded by the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board has dissipated into a bureaucracy obsessed with processes over people and payouts over prevention. Perhaps is time to revisit the former Premier's vision, at least as a starting point. Professor Sutton's No Asshole Rule might help as well.
From: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au
---------------------------------
It is obvious that many of the above apply to Higher Education.
- The significant discrepancy between discrimination in theory and practice, and that such "discrepancies", or bullying and discrimination, damages victims and batters bystanders.
- Whatever happens to bully managers? What does the university do to ensure this does not occur again?
- Posting anti-dicrimination and anti-bullying policies on a wall or Web site or talking about them are - alone - useless acts. If these values are routinely violated and not steps are taken to enforce them, these hollow words are worse than useless, as the university and its managers are seen as hypocrites which fuels cynicism and scorn.
June 12, 2007
Watchfull eyes...
Anonymous said:
Has anyone heard of a probationary period that lasted 15 months, just because one challenged the manager's lies? With the full support of the human resources and under the watchfull eyes of UCU local representative.
Has anyone heard of a probationary period that lasted 15 months, just because one challenged the manager's lies? With the full support of the human resources and under the watchfull eyes of UCU local representative.
June 08, 2007
Snippets...
...According to a national poll conducted by the Employment Law Alliance, 44 percent of American workers reported having worked for an abusive supervisor... The issue is apparently gaining the attention of lawmakers around the country, with 13 states currently considering legislation to address workplace abuse.
Based on model legislation drafted by David Yamada, president of the nonprofit New Workplace Institute in Boston and professor of law at Suffolk University Law School, the new legislation aims to give severely bullied employees the right to sue the bully or the company, if it fails to stop the bullying...
From: New Hampshire Business Review
--------------------------
Workplace bullying affects ‘at least one employee in 10’
...Bullying in work affects at least 10% of employees and tackling the problem can improve companies’ performances, a conference heard yesterday... The trade union Unite told delegates at the meeting in Cardiff that the current shortage of skilled labour across Wales highlights an increasing need for organisations to adopt a zero tolerance approach to bullying. Companies should also have anti-bullying and harassment policies in place. Bullying in the workplace costs the UK economy £2bn each year through sick pay, staff turnover and loss of production, according to Unite...
From: http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk
--------------------------
Conflict in the workplace 'surprisingly common'
Disagreements and bad feelings among employees should be tackled by managers, according to a new survey. The head of employment law at the law firm Eversheds, Martin Warren, said his firm's study had found widespread conflict, some of which occurred on a regular basis.
He told BBC Radio Five Live's Wake Up To Money programme that a fifth of survey respondents thought disagreements fostered better performance but that most employees did not like it. Key grievances cited in the report were people who passed others' work off as their own and those who would not work as a team. People who simply liked to be disruptive to colleagues formed another concern and bullying was found to be common.
"One of the other issues of the research is the important role of middle management in spotting it early and taking steps to resolve it, because a degree of conflict is probably good for the employer but if it gets out of hand it clearly disrupts," he said...
From: http://www.clickajob.co.uk
-------------------------------
The Commission for Racial Equality “appalled” by racism in the workplace figures - UK
New data released by the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) shows that racism in the workplace “is still rife”. The CRE have released data showing 43% of 5000 complaints over a six month period were linked to employment.
Employers are warned that they are risking paying out millions of pounds of compensation and missing out on talent by failing to extend the same rights and working conditions to all employees. Common grievances made by ethnic minority employees to the CRE Information Assistance Centre (IAC) include allegations of workplace bullying, inability to secure interviews and lack of career progression.
The CRE’s Code of Practice on Racial Equality in Employment states that employers are legally responsible for any unlawful racial discrimination or harassment by their agents, contractors or workers in the course of their employment. Under the Race Relations Act, an act of discrimination or harassment by a worker in the course of his or her employment is treated as having been committed by the employer as well as by the worker, whether or not the employer knew about it and approved of it...
From: http://www.workplacelaw.net
Based on model legislation drafted by David Yamada, president of the nonprofit New Workplace Institute in Boston and professor of law at Suffolk University Law School, the new legislation aims to give severely bullied employees the right to sue the bully or the company, if it fails to stop the bullying...
From: New Hampshire Business Review
--------------------------
Workplace bullying affects ‘at least one employee in 10’
...Bullying in work affects at least 10% of employees and tackling the problem can improve companies’ performances, a conference heard yesterday... The trade union Unite told delegates at the meeting in Cardiff that the current shortage of skilled labour across Wales highlights an increasing need for organisations to adopt a zero tolerance approach to bullying. Companies should also have anti-bullying and harassment policies in place. Bullying in the workplace costs the UK economy £2bn each year through sick pay, staff turnover and loss of production, according to Unite...
From: http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk
--------------------------
Conflict in the workplace 'surprisingly common'
Disagreements and bad feelings among employees should be tackled by managers, according to a new survey. The head of employment law at the law firm Eversheds, Martin Warren, said his firm's study had found widespread conflict, some of which occurred on a regular basis.
He told BBC Radio Five Live's Wake Up To Money programme that a fifth of survey respondents thought disagreements fostered better performance but that most employees did not like it. Key grievances cited in the report were people who passed others' work off as their own and those who would not work as a team. People who simply liked to be disruptive to colleagues formed another concern and bullying was found to be common.
"One of the other issues of the research is the important role of middle management in spotting it early and taking steps to resolve it, because a degree of conflict is probably good for the employer but if it gets out of hand it clearly disrupts," he said...
From: http://www.clickajob.co.uk
-------------------------------
The Commission for Racial Equality “appalled” by racism in the workplace figures - UK
New data released by the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) shows that racism in the workplace “is still rife”. The CRE have released data showing 43% of 5000 complaints over a six month period were linked to employment.
Employers are warned that they are risking paying out millions of pounds of compensation and missing out on talent by failing to extend the same rights and working conditions to all employees. Common grievances made by ethnic minority employees to the CRE Information Assistance Centre (IAC) include allegations of workplace bullying, inability to secure interviews and lack of career progression.
The CRE’s Code of Practice on Racial Equality in Employment states that employers are legally responsible for any unlawful racial discrimination or harassment by their agents, contractors or workers in the course of their employment. Under the Race Relations Act, an act of discrimination or harassment by a worker in the course of his or her employment is treated as having been committed by the employer as well as by the worker, whether or not the employer knew about it and approved of it...
From: http://www.workplacelaw.net
Academics Face Sack for Objecting to Laughing at the Disabled!
By Ciaron O'Reilly, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Today I attended a solidarity vigil for Gary MacLennan outside his QUT (Queensland University of Technology) disciplinary hearing. Gary and a fellow QUT academic John Hookam, are facing disciplinary hearings and possible dismissals, for objecting to a PhD project entitled "Laughing at the Disabled". Check the link below for background on the case: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEucGUEQFwA
I first met Gary in the 1970's in Brisbane, he had arrived in Brisbane at a time when "Laughing at the Irish" (Irish jokes were at their height in the '70's) and shooting them in the streets were dovetailing in his native north of Ireland. Gary was one of the courageous voices under the Bjelke Petersen state government that suppressed free speech (thousands of arrests from '77-'80) and systematic police corruption.
Gary, myself and many of our friends were victims of Political arrests, bashings, police raids and harrassment during this period. Gary has taught for over 32 years at QUT where he is celebrated as an inspirational teacher.
The "Laughing at the Disabled" PhD had been passed by the ethics committee and had exploited two adults with disabilities, setting them up to be humiliated in a country pub. Gary and John expressed opposition at the PhD presentation and later wrote an article for "The Australian" newspaper see:
http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,
21695011-12332,00.html?from=public_rss
These acts are the basis of the discplinary action. In a Kafkaesque twist they have been accused of "bullying" by those who bully the disabled for entertainment.
Today's hearing was held behind closed doors with no defense counsel. "Queenslander of the Year" aboriginal academic Chris Sarra http://www.abc.net.au/message/news/stories/s1126447.htm
attended the hearing to advocate for Gary.
The actions raise questions about attitudes to people with disabilities, free expression and natural justice. These questions are not being explored in the disciplinary hearing but were explored in a forum outside the hearing today. These issues need to be explored inside QUT and outside. The sacking of these courageous academics will not advance this exploration.
Today I attended a solidarity vigil for Gary MacLennan outside his QUT (Queensland University of Technology) disciplinary hearing. Gary and a fellow QUT academic John Hookam, are facing disciplinary hearings and possible dismissals, for objecting to a PhD project entitled "Laughing at the Disabled". Check the link below for background on the case: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEucGUEQFwA
I first met Gary in the 1970's in Brisbane, he had arrived in Brisbane at a time when "Laughing at the Irish" (Irish jokes were at their height in the '70's) and shooting them in the streets were dovetailing in his native north of Ireland. Gary was one of the courageous voices under the Bjelke Petersen state government that suppressed free speech (thousands of arrests from '77-'80) and systematic police corruption.
Gary, myself and many of our friends were victims of Political arrests, bashings, police raids and harrassment during this period. Gary has taught for over 32 years at QUT where he is celebrated as an inspirational teacher.
The "Laughing at the Disabled" PhD had been passed by the ethics committee and had exploited two adults with disabilities, setting them up to be humiliated in a country pub. Gary and John expressed opposition at the PhD presentation and later wrote an article for "The Australian" newspaper see:
http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,
21695011-12332,00.html?from=public_rss
These acts are the basis of the discplinary action. In a Kafkaesque twist they have been accused of "bullying" by those who bully the disabled for entertainment.
Today's hearing was held behind closed doors with no defense counsel. "Queenslander of the Year" aboriginal academic Chris Sarra http://www.abc.net.au/message/news/stories/s1126447.htm
attended the hearing to advocate for Gary.
The actions raise questions about attitudes to people with disabilities, free expression and natural justice. These questions are not being explored in the disciplinary hearing but were explored in a forum outside the hearing today. These issues need to be explored inside QUT and outside. The sacking of these courageous academics will not advance this exploration.
June 07, 2007
These things happen...
Anonymous said:
I've just read The Criteria at: http://bulliedacademics.250free.com/divestors_of_people.html and in particular "7. Staff are demorilised [sic], de-skilled or demoted." Ah, how that rings true!
The names and disciplines in the examples below are fictionalised, but parallel exactly what happens in certain universities that, since I still need to pay the mortgage, I shall not name. I suspect that many of you may find these to be familiar stories.
Dr T, well published (journal papers, a Harvard Press text book listed in Encarta), is told that, instead of teaching macroeconomics in which he has a PhD and considerable experience at his previous institution, he will have to teach marketing. He knows absolutely nothing about marketing, has never taught marketing, has absolutely no interest in marketing ... however, his head of school tells him the every member of staff should be prepared and willing to teach across the whole gamut of the school's curriculum. So he does ... and spends money on text books to keep a week ahead of the students, since he's never been offered any professional development opportunities to support him in his new role. He notices that the 'school bullies' are, on the other hand, never required to "teach across the whole gamut of the school's curriculum".
The following year Dr T is asked to teach human resource management (about which of course he knows nothing), and the year after that to teach needlework and clean the toilets. A once promising career in tatters. Pompous colleague Mr W, meanwhile, with very little background in macroeconomics is, on request, allowed to teach ... yes, you're way ahead of me there ... macroeconomics.
Dr R has pulled in a research grant for 223k euros. He informs his head of school, who replies contemptuously: "So what do you want? a pat on the head?"
Plain ol' Mr F, who does not have a degree (but then neither does his head of school), is suddenly named on the school web pages as "Dr F" and elevated to 'Director of Research' (though he does not have a single research publication to his name).
Dr L is putting together a major international conference on the political history of the Democratic Republic of Congo, 1960 to 2003. His colleague Dr J, who is black Congolese from Katanga province and a well published expert on the political history of the DRC (his father served in the 1960 administration of Patrice Lumumba), is told by Dr L that there is no role for him in this conference and that any paper he submits will be discarded unread.
These things happen. You know they do as well as I know they do, because we all know of people to whom these things have happened. The media occasionally publish a couple of column-inches on surveys of generic bullying, on university teachers quitting to become gas fitters, on low morale among academics ... but, to my knowledge, there has never been a thorough investigative report on what *really* happens in our institutions. We need courageous journalists to publish alternative league tables based on well-researched and prominently publicised cases such as those I've fictionalised above and they're all true, believe me. Let's see how that would impact on student recruitment.
Yes, by all means the THES ... but for heaven's sake don't be half-hearted about it! don't let it be just a couple more column-inches this week to be forgotten about by next week. And who reads the THES anyway? We do ... and we don't need to be told what we already know. So where should we be looking for such stories? The Daily Mail, Channel 4, The Voice, The Independent, TimeOut, and wherever else it will be read by a wider public ... and a wider public that crucially includes those 18 year olds who are deciding where they will study next year. Those 18 years olds who might feel short-changed if taught macroeconomics by Mr W or Congolese political history by Dr L ... or needlework by sad and broken Dr T.
I've just read The Criteria at: http://bulliedacademics.250free.com/divestors_of_people.html and in particular "7. Staff are demorilised [sic], de-skilled or demoted." Ah, how that rings true!
The names and disciplines in the examples below are fictionalised, but parallel exactly what happens in certain universities that, since I still need to pay the mortgage, I shall not name. I suspect that many of you may find these to be familiar stories.
Dr T, well published (journal papers, a Harvard Press text book listed in Encarta), is told that, instead of teaching macroeconomics in which he has a PhD and considerable experience at his previous institution, he will have to teach marketing. He knows absolutely nothing about marketing, has never taught marketing, has absolutely no interest in marketing ... however, his head of school tells him the every member of staff should be prepared and willing to teach across the whole gamut of the school's curriculum. So he does ... and spends money on text books to keep a week ahead of the students, since he's never been offered any professional development opportunities to support him in his new role. He notices that the 'school bullies' are, on the other hand, never required to "teach across the whole gamut of the school's curriculum".
The following year Dr T is asked to teach human resource management (about which of course he knows nothing), and the year after that to teach needlework and clean the toilets. A once promising career in tatters. Pompous colleague Mr W, meanwhile, with very little background in macroeconomics is, on request, allowed to teach ... yes, you're way ahead of me there ... macroeconomics.Dr R has pulled in a research grant for 223k euros. He informs his head of school, who replies contemptuously: "So what do you want? a pat on the head?"
Plain ol' Mr F, who does not have a degree (but then neither does his head of school), is suddenly named on the school web pages as "Dr F" and elevated to 'Director of Research' (though he does not have a single research publication to his name).
Dr L is putting together a major international conference on the political history of the Democratic Republic of Congo, 1960 to 2003. His colleague Dr J, who is black Congolese from Katanga province and a well published expert on the political history of the DRC (his father served in the 1960 administration of Patrice Lumumba), is told by Dr L that there is no role for him in this conference and that any paper he submits will be discarded unread.
These things happen. You know they do as well as I know they do, because we all know of people to whom these things have happened. The media occasionally publish a couple of column-inches on surveys of generic bullying, on university teachers quitting to become gas fitters, on low morale among academics ... but, to my knowledge, there has never been a thorough investigative report on what *really* happens in our institutions. We need courageous journalists to publish alternative league tables based on well-researched and prominently publicised cases such as those I've fictionalised above and they're all true, believe me. Let's see how that would impact on student recruitment.
Yes, by all means the THES ... but for heaven's sake don't be half-hearted about it! don't let it be just a couple more column-inches this week to be forgotten about by next week. And who reads the THES anyway? We do ... and we don't need to be told what we already know. So where should we be looking for such stories? The Daily Mail, Channel 4, The Voice, The Independent, TimeOut, and wherever else it will be read by a wider public ... and a wider public that crucially includes those 18 year olds who are deciding where they will study next year. Those 18 years olds who might feel short-changed if taught macroeconomics by Mr W or Congolese political history by Dr L ... or needlework by sad and broken Dr T.
June 03, 2007
‘Divestors of People’©
‘Divestors of People’© is a standard awarded to Higher Education institutions that excel in mismanaging, bullying, and harassing their staff.
The criteria are:
1. Lack of strategy to improve the under-performance of the institution. This does not exist, is not clearly defined, or is not communicated to staff.
2. There is lack of coherent investment in staff development.
3. Whatever strategies exist to manage staff, these are implemented to promote cronyism, incompetence, favoritism, or inequality, and to disguise management failures
4. The capabilities managers need to learn and manage staff are not defined. Managers received little or no training to improve their communication, behaviour and people skills.
5. Managers are ineffective in leading, managing, and developing staff. High levels of over-management or under-management.
6. Staff are not encouraged to take ownership and responsibility through involvement in decision-making. There is no accountability and transparency in the decision making process.
7. Staff are demorilised, de-skilled or demoted. The working environment is toxic.
8. Lack of improvements in managing people is chronic.
9. The working environment shows high levels of work-related stress.
10. Internal grievance procedures are used selectively by managers - against staff. Some managers are untouchable despite their failures.
11. Staff report high levels of bullying and harassment by managers. Fear prevails among the silent majority.
12. The governing body is detached from the staff and is in the same bed with the management. Governors show no visible interest in the affairs of the staff.
Nominations are open to all staff in all universities. Institutions qualify for the ‘Divestors of People’© award if they meet at least 50% of the above criteria and this can be verified by at least two different staff members from the same organisation. Nominators can remain anonymous.
The criteria are:
1. Lack of strategy to improve the under-performance of the institution. This does not exist, is not clearly defined, or is not communicated to staff.
2. There is lack of coherent investment in staff development.
3. Whatever strategies exist to manage staff, these are implemented to promote cronyism, incompetence, favoritism, or inequality, and to disguise management failures
4. The capabilities managers need to learn and manage staff are not defined. Managers received little or no training to improve their communication, behaviour and people skills.
5. Managers are ineffective in leading, managing, and developing staff. High levels of over-management or under-management.
6. Staff are not encouraged to take ownership and responsibility through involvement in decision-making. There is no accountability and transparency in the decision making process.
7. Staff are demorilised, de-skilled or demoted. The working environment is toxic.
8. Lack of improvements in managing people is chronic.
9. The working environment shows high levels of work-related stress.
10. Internal grievance procedures are used selectively by managers - against staff. Some managers are untouchable despite their failures.
11. Staff report high levels of bullying and harassment by managers. Fear prevails among the silent majority.
12. The governing body is detached from the staff and is in the same bed with the management. Governors show no visible interest in the affairs of the staff.
Nominations are open to all staff in all universities. Institutions qualify for the ‘Divestors of People’© award if they meet at least 50% of the above criteria and this can be verified by at least two different staff members from the same organisation. Nominators can remain anonymous.
June 02, 2007
And the ritual continues...
a) First this:
b) Then this:
The Unkindly Art of Mobbing
From Academic Matters: the Journal of Higher Education, OCUFA, Fall 2006, pp. 18-19. Ken Westhues describes how academics can gang up on unpopular colleagues — and alerts readers to the signs that an academic "mobbing" is in the works.'... If the target refuses to leave or acquiesce, the mobbing may escalate to a formal outburst of aggression. Mobbers seize upon a critical incident, some real or imagined misbehavior that they claim is proof of the target’s unworthiness to continue in the normal give and take of academic life. A degradation ritual is arranged, often in a dean’s office, sometimes in a campus tribunal. The object is to destroy the good name that is any professor’s main resource, to expose the target as not worth listening to. Public censure by the university administration leaves the target stigmatized for life. Formal dismissal with attendant publicity is social elimination in its most conclusive form...' [http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/unkindlyart.htm]
c) And then, the icing on the cake:
Real academic freedom
Academics should be free to call into question our most cherished beliefs - to slaughter a whole herd of sacred cows, if that's what is required. Critical inquiry is the starting point for stable and enduring knowledge about the world, and that often means upsetting people.
But academic freedom doesn't mean that academics can say whatever they like, whenever they like. Academic freedom doesn't mean freedom to swear at their students in class, just as it doesn’t mean freedom to behave badly at dinner parties. There are certain standards and restrictions that academics should be expected to comply with, given their position as professional - and adult - members of society.
So that is why the case of Sal Fiore, a senior lecturer in computing at Wolverhampton, sacked for criticising his employers online, is not really an academic freedom issue. In an online discussion forum, Fiore linked Wolverhampton to bullying allegations, and he also conributed to a blog, 'Bulliedacademics.blogspot.com', discussing his university. Heretical books are one thing, but this is an academic behaving like his students on Facebook, who moan about people they don't like.
Academic freedom means something very specific: the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. This is inherently valuable, and can be exempted from normal administrative and professional regulations. The deputy director of a company would not expect to keep his job if he criticised the ideas of the top director. This is not the case in academia, a sphere based on the free contest of ideas. But an academic could expect the sack if he criticized his boss's hair colour or personality, which is not a matter of ideas at all, but merely a matter of bad behaviour.
So defend academic freedom - for academics that know the difference between ideas and tittle tattle. [Speaking our mind.]
d) Further:
'...At a practical level, every professor should be aware of conditions that increase vulnerability to mobbing in academe. Here are five:
• Foreign birth and upbringing, especially as signaled by a foreign accent;
• Being different from most colleagues in an elemental way (by sex, for instance, sexual orientation, skin color, ethnicity, class origin, or credentials);
• Belonging to a discipline with ambiguous standards and objectives, especially those (like music or literature) most affected by postmodern scholarship;
• Working under a dean or other administrator in whom, as Nietzsche put it, “the impulse to punish is powerful”;
• An actual or contrived financial crunch in one’s academic unit (according to an African proverb, when the watering hole gets smaller, the animals get meaner)...'
[http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/unkindlyart.htm]
b) Then this:
The Unkindly Art of Mobbing
From Academic Matters: the Journal of Higher Education, OCUFA, Fall 2006, pp. 18-19. Ken Westhues describes how academics can gang up on unpopular colleagues — and alerts readers to the signs that an academic "mobbing" is in the works.'... If the target refuses to leave or acquiesce, the mobbing may escalate to a formal outburst of aggression. Mobbers seize upon a critical incident, some real or imagined misbehavior that they claim is proof of the target’s unworthiness to continue in the normal give and take of academic life. A degradation ritual is arranged, often in a dean’s office, sometimes in a campus tribunal. The object is to destroy the good name that is any professor’s main resource, to expose the target as not worth listening to. Public censure by the university administration leaves the target stigmatized for life. Formal dismissal with attendant publicity is social elimination in its most conclusive form...' [http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/unkindlyart.htm]
c) And then, the icing on the cake:
Real academic freedom
Academics should be free to call into question our most cherished beliefs - to slaughter a whole herd of sacred cows, if that's what is required. Critical inquiry is the starting point for stable and enduring knowledge about the world, and that often means upsetting people.
But academic freedom doesn't mean that academics can say whatever they like, whenever they like. Academic freedom doesn't mean freedom to swear at their students in class, just as it doesn’t mean freedom to behave badly at dinner parties. There are certain standards and restrictions that academics should be expected to comply with, given their position as professional - and adult - members of society.
So that is why the case of Sal Fiore, a senior lecturer in computing at Wolverhampton, sacked for criticising his employers online, is not really an academic freedom issue. In an online discussion forum, Fiore linked Wolverhampton to bullying allegations, and he also conributed to a blog, 'Bulliedacademics.blogspot.com', discussing his university. Heretical books are one thing, but this is an academic behaving like his students on Facebook, who moan about people they don't like.
Academic freedom means something very specific: the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. This is inherently valuable, and can be exempted from normal administrative and professional regulations. The deputy director of a company would not expect to keep his job if he criticised the ideas of the top director. This is not the case in academia, a sphere based on the free contest of ideas. But an academic could expect the sack if he criticized his boss's hair colour or personality, which is not a matter of ideas at all, but merely a matter of bad behaviour.
So defend academic freedom - for academics that know the difference between ideas and tittle tattle. [Speaking our mind.]
d) Further:
'...At a practical level, every professor should be aware of conditions that increase vulnerability to mobbing in academe. Here are five:
• Foreign birth and upbringing, especially as signaled by a foreign accent;
• Being different from most colleagues in an elemental way (by sex, for instance, sexual orientation, skin color, ethnicity, class origin, or credentials);
• Belonging to a discipline with ambiguous standards and objectives, especially those (like music or literature) most affected by postmodern scholarship;
• Working under a dean or other administrator in whom, as Nietzsche put it, “the impulse to punish is powerful”;
• An actual or contrived financial crunch in one’s academic unit (according to an African proverb, when the watering hole gets smaller, the animals get meaner)...'
[http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/unkindlyart.htm]
Union officials investigate bullying at business school - Wales, UK
The extent of bullying at a Welsh university is being investigated by union officials. The University and College Union has issued questionnaires to all its members in the University of Glamorgan Business School.UCU secretary for Wales Margaret Phelan said she and other officials would be meeting the university’s vice-chancellor Professor David Halton later this month to discuss the issue.
“We have sent out a questionnaire. It asks a number of questions about the business school including bullying,” Ms Phelan confirmed. “We are meeting with the vice-chancellor and can’t say anything more until then.’’
Gwyn Smith, UCU branch secretary for the university and a senior lecturer in the business school, said around half of the school’s 100-plus staff were union members. “Questionnaires have gone out from our regional office. It was a single issue about bullying and to see the extent of the problem,” he said.
Mr Smith was also unable to give more details until discussions with management had been held. Glamorgan Business School is the largest business school in Wales and is highly regarded across the UK. It has worked with companies including Hyder, Bosch, British Airways and London Underground.
The questionnaires sent out by the UCU follow a formal investigation into allegations of bullying, sexual and racial harassment and serious financial irregularities at the business school in 2003. Those allegations were made by an anonymous whistle-blower and were investigated by retired Exeter University academic, Professor Edward Abel.
Peter Crofts, head of marketing and student recruitment, said there had been no allegations of bullying at the business school in the past 12 months. He said, “The university is carrying out its own staff survey in a couple of months so we are disappointed that the UCU is carrying out its own niche survey.”
From: http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk
------------------------------
Applause. Braaaavvooooooo. Yeah! Even more interesting that a retired professor was given the task and seems to have discovered something. So why is it that this particular university gets union interest and not others? Are there no union members in other universities? Yes, OK, we are a bit cynical. If the union wants to be taken seriously, then it should follow up on the above and expand the investigations into abuses occuring in other universities. If UCU wants some credibility, then it should follow up and not make this an isolated case. How bad does something have to get before they take notice?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)