www.keele-hauled.com - PART 2

My discrimination case is one of disability, not race (though in a perfect world, there shouldn't be a any functional difference between the two). So why did I not take the case to the County Court under the DDA 1995? Well, for a large part of the time I was a research student at Keele University and demonstrably being discriminated against, educational establishments were exempt from the DDA.

This disgraceful loophole was initially allowed because the politicians drawing up this legislation determined that educational establishments already had the means to resolve disability discrimination issues. It soon became apparent, however, that this was a naive assumption, and a potentially fatal flaw to the legislation that was not amended until, I think, 2001, and even then not fully implemented until 2002.

The discrimination against me persisted after the law was amended but other problems made pursuing this legal route very difficult. The DDA has a time limit of six months. The University in one of its investigations took over twelve months to just look at the case - this is a common trick by Universities, to delay matters long enough for any legal response to be out of time. The University act 'intra vires', and so any legal challenge against them will often be rejected because 'all internal remedies' have not been exhausted. As I mentioned, my application to the European Court was rejected for a similar reason. The University has taken YEARS in which to fail to investigate my case, and I am effectively still in the student complaint process, and have been since 2000, therefore ineligible for legal action with regard to the case until this process is resolved (probably posthumously).

This is why the present and on-going discrimination case is so important. I am still effectively in a student complaint process (by definition, since the Adjudicator and the Visitor are involvevd). I knew that the process that the University was implemenmting was corrupt on a number of counts, but when they virtually ran headlong into a disability discrimination case it gave me the first opportunity to get elements of my case in front of a truly impartial and publicly monitored judge.

It may form the tiny key to open a very large can of worms, which is why the University are defending the case so ferociously.

Andy Terry - www.keele-hauled.com

'Awesome' teaching may be a dead end

A postdoctoral researcher who has been hailed as an "awesome" teacher by his students fears that he will be forced to leave higher education because career advancement is based too rigidly on research output.

Peter Saffrey, a postdoc in computer science at Glasgow University, spoke out to The Times Higher this week after we reported the case of Alan Jenkins, the Oxford Brookes professor who claimed this month that his career-long focus on teaching practice, which had earned him an international reputation, damaged his promotion prospects.

Dr Saffrey said he had been "actively seeking teaching responsibilities" at work.

"When the feedback forms were returned, my performance was very highly rated - the word 'awesome' was used more than once," he said.

"However, my publication record is not so 'awesome' and almost certainly not good enough to secure a permanent post," he said.

"This means that even though I have been officially rated an 'awesome' lecturer, no computing department in the country would give me a job as a lecturer. Isn't that a bit silly?"

Stressing that his grievance was not with his current employer, Glasgow, but with the sector as a whole, Dr Saffrey said: "It will probably mean that I end up working in the IT industry, which is sad because I really enjoy both teaching and research.

"I just can't write papers as fast as the system requires. It seems a shame that not ticking the right boxes will mean that my lecturing ability can't be put to good use."

Glasgow University declined to comment, beyond noting that Dr Saffrey had not applied for a post at the university.

A Glasgow spokesperson said that Dr Saffrey was not speaking specifically about his experience at Glasgow.

Another, more senior, UK academic, who asked not to be named, also told The Times Higher about her frustrations in being repeatedly denied promotion.

"Teachers are looked down on and not promoted or rewarded," she said. "I have been in a teaching position for more than a decade, and none of my faculty teaching colleagues has ever been promoted. We have been told on numerous occasions that a senior teaching position is not appropriate for us but is a means of removing weak researchers from the research assessment exercise to boost the ratings.

"So we have a position in my institution where those in a senior teaching position may or may not care about teaching and certainly do not engage in the scholarship, development or research of education.

"I have been rejected for promotion to senior lecturer on two occasions, and the excuses become flimsier each time. I have lost count of the times that I have been told that it will happen 'some time in the future' and that my participation in cross-institutional projects (worth in excess of £1 million) 'might' put me in a better position for promotion," she said.

"I no longer believe any of these promises. In the meantime, there are constantly moving goalposts, and we work towards a goal to be told after the work has been done that it is inappropriate for promotion. At the same time, we watch research colleagues in their meteoric rise through the ranks to professorhood. Focusing on teaching is a death blow for the career, while institutions slavishly conform to the RAE."

From: Times Higher Education Supplement, Phil Baty, 24 August 2007

Dignity: A Universal Right

The U. S. Declaration of Independence asserts that “all men are created equal.” Many have struggled with the meaning of that phrase. While people are easily seen as unequal in health, wealth, looks, talent, skill, and other qualities, we obviously exhibit a wide range of differences. Our differences are in fact a source of the delight we take in each other.

The Declaration of Independence tasked the nation not only with protecting life and liberty but also with embodying fairness and justice. While people are equal not in their endowments or attainments, they have intrinsic value as human beings, in their dignity.

---

1. adj. a condition in which the dignity of all people is honored and protected
2. n. a person who advocates for a dignitarian society, one whose conduct and attitudes are dignitarian

---

Each of us has an innate sense that we have the same inherent worth as anyone else. Every religion teaches us so. We experience this as a birthright—a cosmic fact that cannot be undone by any person, circumstance, institution, or government.

That is why rankism is experienced on the deepest level as an affront to dignity. Like any animal vulnerable to being preyed upon, we’re supersensitive to threats to our well-being. We’re alert to subtle attempts to determine our relative strength, from “innocent” opening lines such as “Who are you with?” to more probing queries regarding our ancestry or education.

In proclaiming a right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” the Declaration of Independence touched on making dignity a fundamental right. Liberty means freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control. Therefore, the right to liberty, by militating against rankism, affords a large measure of protection to our dignity. Likewise the right to pursue happiness is meaningless in the absence of the dignity inherent in full and equal citizenship.

Given the remarkable achievements of the identity-based liberation movements, it’s not unrealistic to imagine a day when everyone’s equal dignity will be as self-evident as everyone’s right to own property or to vote.

From: http://www.breakingranks.net/weblog/dignity

Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Predation

If you are reading this, the chances are that someone or something has given you a clue that you might find the key to a profound mystery in a mental illness known as Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Maybe it was only yesterday. If so, you are probably still reeling from the discovery that you weren't imagining things, that something is wrong with a certain person in your life, and that your experience with him or her isn't unique.

Maybe all your life they've made you feel like a tethered bird, never allowed to feel good about yourself. Or maybe you have a sense of foreboding that comes through in bad dreams because it seems that this person, for no known reason, is out to get you.

But who would believe it? You yourself can't believe it. You've had to keep pinching yourself, because Why would anyone do that? Especially this person. And why would he or she do that to you? It defies reason. Which makes it the perfect crime = the one no one believes. Because it goes against nature. And because it has no possible motive.

Yet, when you think twice, it's stupid to doubt that such things happen. The daily news proves that they do. For we could ask the old Why-would-anyone-do-that? question about every rape, every random murder, every child molestation, every random act of vandalism.

They are abundant proof of the FACT that some people need no motive. They act out of pure malice. They do it just to do it. In fact, jurisprudence has long recognized the motive of pure malice.

Some people hurt you because hurting others makes them feel good. It makes them feel good in the same way that eating makes a starving person feel good. It makes them feel good in the same way that a narcotic makes a person in pain feel good.

Just as hungry people like eating and just as pained people like taking narcotics, they like hurting you. They need to hurt you. Just as a hungry person needs food and a person in pain needs a narcotic. That's what you are to them, food, as to a vampire, or a punching bag to transfer their pain to. For, they are predators.

From: http://narc-attack.blogspot.com/

Ten laws every employer needs to know

There are many employment laws that employers need to comply with, not to mention a mass of tax and health and safety regulations. Many of these employment laws are long-standing, while others are newer and some even change annually, such as the minimum wage. But employers still make mistakes about even the most basic and established of these. Every mistake is potentially costly but some can be threatening not only to the sanity of business owners or managers but to the survival of the business itself.

Here, starting with the beginning of employment and finishing with termination, are the key employment laws that businesses need to comply with. Following these basic principles should keep most employers out of serious trouble, most of the time.

1. Anti-discrimination

Under our anti-discrimination laws, employers cannot pick and choose between job applicants on the basis of sex, race, disability, sexual orientation, religion or equivalent belief, or age. Huge amounts of compensation can be awarded against employers where they discriminate in this way and they can find themselves failing to win central or local government contracts because they are marked down in the assessment regimes. Of course, employers can refuse to employ applicants under the minimum school-leaving age (broadly age 16), as it is generally illegal to employ them except for in part-time or holiday work. Employers must also refuse to hire applicants who cannot demonstrate that they have the right to work in the UK under our immigration laws; knowingly employing illegal immigrants could cost you a heavy fine. Once employment is underway, there must be pay equality between men and women, part-time and full-time workers and fixed-term and permanent staff.

2. Employment contracts

Many employers still fail to meet their legal obligation to issue written statements of employment particulars to new employees, even though this law has been around since 1963. There are a number of areas the statement must cover - too numerous to list, but you can read more here - all laid down by law, and it must be provided within eight weeks of employment starting. The Government-sponsored Business Link website has an easy to use software tool that will write a legally compliant statement for you in no more than half an hour. Many problems will be avoided if employers take the time to get this right, as the written statement will avoid later arguments about what the employee’s package and the disciplinary process is. The old adage of a stitch in time saves nine later comes to mind. Any subsequent changes to the statement must be confirmed in writing within four weeks.

3. Family-friendly rights

Using New Labour-speak, this is the collective term for rights such as paid maternity leave. Maternity pay rights have of course just been significantly increased and a form of swapping of unused maternity leave between mothers and fathers is on the cards. In addition, there is also the right to take unpaid time off to care for a child or other dependent in case of emergencies, which many employers do not understand at all. Then there is the right for parents of young or disabled children (and soon for carers of dependent adults) to request so called “flexible working” - which is to say, shorter or different hours. An employer has to give such a request reasonable consideration, but the employee has to submit a reasoned request in writing and the arrangement must be proposed on a permanent (as opposed to temporary) basis. If there is a reduction in working time, the employer is entitled to proportionately adjust salary.

4. Working time

Under the working time laws, employees are subject to a maximum average working week of 48 hours (40 if under age 18), a maximum of 13 hours work in any one day, and are entitled to one whole day off a week on average. Employers should also have a system for monitoring working time to ensure compliance. Employees can of course opt out of the 48-hour limit but this has to be in writing and they can cancel it at any time on three months notice. They are legally protected against victimisation.

5. Holidays

While the working time laws entitle employees to four weeks paid leave a year, there is no general right to have paid leave on public holidays, contrary to popular belief. However, changes are being made to the working time laws to increase the amount of annual leave to 28 working days a year, which is intended to allow employees paid time off on public holidays or paid time off in lieu from 2009.

6. Anti-harassment

Every employer must take effective measures to ensure his employees are not subject to verbal or physical bullying or harassment (particularly but not exclusively sexual harassment) from their bosses, fellow workers or customers or suppliers. This can even extend to out of work activities. Legal cases in the Employment Tribunal for constructive dismissal, sexual discrimination and workplace “stress” resulting from this are increasing. Criminal prosecutions against the harasser (for example, for assault) are also possible: at least one sexual harasser has been jailed. So employers need to take this very seriously.

7. Business sales and outsourcing

When an employer sells all or part of his business, or outsources a function it has previously conducted in-house, this will probably amount to a transfer of an undertaking. Under the transfer of undertakings law (“TUPE”), the employees working in the business or relevant part or function will transfer to the new owner or outsource provider on their existing contracts, and they have the right to be informed in advance. Any breach of the law will give rise to legal claims, including potentially for unfair dismissal.

8. Changing terms and conditions of employment

Many employers think they can change terms and conditions of employment by giving (say four weeks) prior written notice. But it is a centuries old legal principle that a contract can only be changed by a negotiated agreement. So giving notice of change can only work legally in two cases. First, where the matter in question is outside the contract (such as a discretionary benefit-in-kind) or, second, where the contract expressly allows it to be changed by the employer by this method. If none of these routes is open to the employer, it can always serve the correct notice to terminate the contract, but that then counts as a “dismissal”.

9. Dismissal

There are three key laws to comply with here. First, there is a legal minimum notice period, which is one week after one month’s employment, rising from the end of the second year at the rate of one week for each completed year up to 12 weeks notice after 12 years employment. Second, employees’ dismissed after 51 weeks employment can claim for “unfair dismissal”, which currently could cost an employer up to around £70,000 compensation. To successfully defend an unfair dismissal claim, the employer must satisfy an Employment Tribunal that it had a legally good reason for dismissing the employee and that it acted reasonably. Third, the employer must follow a mandatory three-step dismissal process or automatically be guilty of unfair dismissal. The 3 steps are: (1) written notice stating why the employer is considering the employee for dismissal; (2) a formal meeting to discuss the matter with the employee (and his/her companion); (3) a right of appeal against dismissal.

10. Redundancy

Genuine redundancy is a fair reason for dismissal, but employers still need to act legally reasonably and follow the three-step process to avoid being guilty of unfair dismissal. Redundant employees are of course entitled to notice or pay in lieu, and redundant employees with two or more years service will also be entitled to (tax-free) statutory redundancy pay, which rises to a maximum of £9,300 for 20 years service. If the employer is proposing 20 or more redundancies in a 90-day period, there has to be a 30-day period (90 days in which 100 or more redundancies are proposed) of information and consultation before any of this happens. An extra penalty of up to 90 days pay will be payable to the affected employees if the employer defaults.

From: http://business.timesonline.co.uk

Most of the training they get to become managers is futile

Wayne Hochwarter, a Florida State University business professor who has studied workplace dynamics extensively, has a theory on why there are so many bad managers: A lot of them were promoted because they were competent at their former job - say, selling cars - but don't have a clue how to manage other people selling cars.

Then, most of the training they get to become managers - which isn't a lot, because training budgets are shrinking everywhere - is futile.

"They do not train them to effectively interact with people," Hochwarter said. "They train them to know who to call if Charlie slips in the warehouse and breaks his ankle."

Fast Facts:

What the study found

Wayne Hochwarter, a professor at Florida State University's business school, oversaw a recent study of more than 700 workers and their opinions on how their bosses treated them.
Among the findings:
- 31 percent said their supervisor gave them the "silent treatment."
- 37 percent said their supervisor failed to give credit when due.
- 39 percent said their supervisor failed to keep promises.
- 27 percent said their supervisor made negative comments about them to other employees or managers.
- 24 percent said their supervisor invaded their privacy.
- 23 percent said their supervisor blames others to cover up mistakes or to minimize embarrassment.

From: http://www.sptimes.com/2007/08/18/
Business/Now_the_rank_and_file.shtml

Nobody should have to work with a jerk - USA

If you are thinking about making a career change, check with eBossWatch to make sure that you won't be stuck working for an abusive or bad boss. Search for the boss or company that you are considering working for, and see how other employees have rated that boss.

http://www.ebosswatch.com/

Now can we please have the English/British version for universities?

www.keele-hauled.com

My name is Andy Terry. I am 50 years old, and have been fighting against Keele University to clear my name for over six years.

After complaining about poor supervision and Departmental support, I was sacked on 4th May 2001. Apart from this having no rational reason behind it - it certainly would have been dismissed by an Employment Tribunal had I been allowed to go to one - the University failed to follow its own regulations by not issuing a four week warning about this. Much more importantly, however, the withdrawal was based upon the non-submission of an upgrade document by the 25th October 2000. I have documentary evidence that clearly shows that this work was not actually due until 20th November 2000 at the earliest.

This spurious date had been invented by Dr. Precilla Choi, together with a number of other equally spurious dates, and was just one of many instances of workplace bullying that I encountered from her. My Supervisor, Dr. Mike Boulton, had been sent copies of the agreement for submission of this work, and must have been well aware of the true date of submission, but continued to pressure me into this series of unsupported dates. Despite submitting drafts of this work to Dr. Boulton, he and Dr. Choi were both aware that my Mother had died only a few months prior to this, but this served only to increase the pressure that they put on me.

Emails show that Dr. Precilla Choi - a primary source of my harassment - was indicating to colleagues as early as 1st November 2000 that I was to be withdrawn from the University on the basis of non-submission of my upgrade document, even though this was some 20 days before its due date, and only a matter of three months after the death of my Mother. Nice person.

The withdrawal was never rescinded, and the University then set about constructing a new withdrawal, based upon the most spurious of evidence, and without anyone being aware that I should not have been sacked the first time - a factor that must have coloured the opinions of those involved in my second sacking. This second sacking was to all intents and purposes, a kangaroo court - something for which the University has failed to give any satisfactory explanation.

More information at: http://www.keele-hauled.com/index.htm

Truth is stranger than fiction

Anonymous, A Campus Conspiracy (Impress Books, Exeter, UK, 2006) Click here for reviews of this comic account, reminiscent of C. S. Lewis's That Hideous Strength, of administrative mobbing in a British university. The target here is sixty-year-old Harry Gilbert, Professor of Christian Ethics at St. Sebastian's College.

Especially in two ways, this novel captures recurrent themes in the real-life mobbing cases I have studied. First, once Gilbert is on the wrong side of the administration, the complaints about him come in one after another; he is always under the gun; defending himself consumes his waking hours. Second, accusations of sexual impropriety are central to the eliminative process (a student named Lisa falsely accuses Gilbert of trying to seduce her).

In two other ways, this novel is distant from the mobbing cases in my research. First, Gilbert's accuser is a manipulative liar who knows exactly what she is doing; in most of the mobbing cases I have studied, truth is threatened less by deliberate falsehood than by hysteria and moral panic, and outcomes hinge on how small events are interpreted. Second, this novel ends in the manner of Lucky Jim, with its protagonist heading off to a better job — in Gilbert's case a distinguished professorship in an American college enamoured of the trappings of English aristocracy. Few real-life mobbing targets escape so handily.

I find none of the characters in this novel easy to admire. In a cruel counterattack, for instance, Gilbert's wife plays a practical joke to humiliate the dean who has persecuted her husband; the dean then has a nervous breakdown. In this novel, academic life comes across as a pompous, petty parasite on society at large, one that only a fool would take seriously.

By Kenneth Westhues, from: Novels About Academic Mobbing

RAE reject aims to log views of excluded - UK

An academic branded "research inactive" because his work will not be submitted for next year's research assessment exercise is forming a support group for other academics left out in the cold.

Launching an appeal in the letters page of today's Times Higher, Vic Truesdale, a professor of biogeochemistry at Oxford Brookes University, has invited academics "unexpectedly excluded from the RAE" to contact him by e mail at castaway@brookes.ac.uk

"There could be many of us who could do with some mutual support, and in any case somebody should be counting us and logging the insult," he writes.

Next year's RAE is expected to be the most selective ever, with some universities attempting to improve their research ratings by submitting only a small core of researchers, instead of including all their active researchers. There are reports that some universities are excluding even high-quality researchers as they attempt to second-guess the type of research the RAE judging panels will favour.

In the last RAE, in 2001, the work of about 50,000 researchers, out of 116,000 full-time academic staff, had their work submitted. Many claim that exclusion stigmatises academics and damages their careers.

Professor Truesdale said that the RAE "reduces the diversity of intellectual pursuit" and "moulds scientists into automatons".

"I suppose that in the big planning games, as in battle-planning, generals cannot be concerned with the plight of individual soldiers; they are merely cannon fodder," he said. "I want to register the plight of the individual, and to ask the question as to whether you think the cannon-fodder model is appropriate in a 21st-century democracy."

And the letter in Times Higher Education:

May I ask academics who have found themselves unexpectedly excluded from the research assessment exercise to write to me at: castaway@brookes.ac.uk. It seems to me there could be many of us who could do with some mutual support, and in any case somebody should be counting us and logging the insult. I will report back findings if people could describe their predicament as well as add permission for me to disclose information according to the Data Protection Act. This would be handled sensitively.

Vic Truesdale, Professor of biogeochemistry, Oxford Brookes University
----------------
From: Times Higher Education Supplement