Eight employees of Gujarat university, who were in the good books of the vice-chancellor, were promoted yesterday afternoon but had to be back in their junior postings after three hours.
The eight 'favourite' employees were awarded promotions by the controversial V-C, Parimal Trivedi, against whom university staff have levelled 34 charges of corruption and nepotism.
However, in an instant reaction, 50 senior staffers who were being denied promotions for years on end went on a flash strike and sat on indefinite fast outside the V-C's office.
Finding himself at the receiving end, Trivedi cancelled the promotion orders and told the eight employees that they would have to wait till the high court gave its verdict in a related case.
From: http://www.khaleejtimes.com
February 10, 2008
February 08, 2008
Psychopath Checklist
1. GLIB and SUPERFICIAL CHARM -- the tendency to be smooth, engaging, charming, slick, and verbally facile. Psychopathic charm is not in the least shy, self-conscious, or afraid to say anything. A psychopath never gets tongue-tied. They have freed themselves from the social conventions about taking turns in talking, for example.2. GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH -- a grossly inflated view of one's abilities and self-worth, self-assured, opinionated, cocky, a braggart. Psychopaths are arrogant people who believe they are superior human beings.
3. NEED FOR STIMULATION or PRONENESS TO BOREDOM -- an excessive need for novel, thrilling, and exciting stimulation; taking chances and doing things that are risky. Psychopaths often have a low self-discipline in carrying tasks through to completion because they get bored easily. They fail to work at the same job for any length of time, for example, or to finish tasks that they consider dull or routine.
4. PATHOLOGICAL LYING -- can be moderate or high; in moderate form, they will be shrewd, crafty, cunning, sly, and clever; in extreme form, they will be deceptive, deceitful, underhanded, unscrupulous, manipulative, and dishonest.
5. CONNING AND MANIPULATIVENESS- the use of deceit and deception to cheat, con, or defraud others for personal gain; distinguished from Item #4 in the degree to which exploitation and callous ruthlessness is present, as reflected in a lack of concern for the feelings and suffering of one's victims.
6. LACK OF REMORSE OR GUILT -- a lack of feelings or concern for the losses, pain, and suffering of victims; a tendency to be unconcerned, dispassionate, coldhearted, and unempathic. This item is usually demonstrated by a disdain for one's victims.
7. SHALLOW AFFECT -- emotional poverty or a limited range or depth of feelings; interpersonal coldness in spite of signs of open gregariousness.
8. CALLOUSNESS and LACK OF EMPATHY -- a lack of feelings toward people in general; cold, contemptuous, inconsiderate, and tactless.
9. PARASITIC LIFESTYLE -- an intentional, manipulative, selfish, and exploitative financial dependence on others as reflected in a lack of motivation, low self-discipline, and inability to begin or complete responsibilities.
10. POOR BEHAVIORAL CONTROLS -- expressions of irritability, annoyance, impatience, threats, aggression, and verbal abuse; inadequate control of anger and temper; acting hastily.
11. PROMISCUOUS SEXUAL BEHAVIOR -- a variety of brief, superficial relations, numerous affairs, and an indiscriminate selection of sexual partners; the maintenance of several relationships at the same time; a history of attempts to sexually coerce others into sexual activity or taking great pride at discussing sexual exploits or conquests.
12. EARLY BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS -- a variety of behaviors prior to age 13, including lying, theft, cheating, vandalism, bullying, sexual activity, fire-setting, glue-sniffing, alcohol use, and running away from home.
13. LACK OF REALISTIC, LONG-TERM GOALS -- an inability or persistent failure to develop and execute long-term plans and goals; a nomadic existence, aimless, lacking direction in life.
14. IMPULSIVITY -- the occurrence of behaviors that are unpremeditated and lack reflection or planning; inability to resist temptation, frustrations, and urges; a lack of deliberation without considering the consequences; foolhardy, rash, unpredictable, erratic, and reckless.
15. IRRESPONSIBILITY -- repeated failure to fulfill or honor obligations and commitments; such as not paying bills, defaulting on loans, performing sloppy work, being absent or late to work, failing to honor contractual agreements.
16. FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR OWN ACTIONS -- a failure to accept responsibility for one's actions reflected in low conscientiousness, an absence of dutifulness, antagonistic manipulation, denial of responsibility, and an effort to manipulate others through this denial.
17. MANY SHORT-TERM MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS -- a lack of commitment to a long-term relationship reflected in inconsistent, undependable, and unreliable commitments in life, including marital.
18. JUVENILE DELINQUENCY -- behavior problems between the ages of 13-18; mostly behaviors that are crimes or clearly involve aspects of antagonism, exploitation, aggression, manipulation, or a callous, ruthless tough-mindedness.
19. REVOCATION OF CONDITION RELEASE -- a revocation of probation or other conditional release due to technical violations, such as carelessness, low deliberation, or failing to appear.
20. CRIMINAL VERSATILITY -- a diversity of types of criminal offenses, regardless if the person has been arrested or convicted for them; taking great pride at getting away with crimes.
From: http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath_2.htm
February 03, 2008
May not be aware of the implication
Trade unionists may not be aware of the implications of the legal ruling in the Weaver v NATFHE racial discrimination case 1987, which was upheld by the EAT and Lord Justice May at the Court of Appeal. The judgement was that complainants of harassment (racist/sexist or any other form) were not eligible for union assistance because the complaint threatened the tenure of the harasser and the union was under an obligation to protect members' tenure. This ruling applied irresepective of the merit of the complainants case. This policy is still the extant precedent for harassemtn cases (and bullying) and applies to all trade unions. For the reports of the Tribunals and the extensive documentation submitted to these Tribunals visit www.legalferret.net
The above was received as a post to this blog.
The above was received as a post to this blog.
UCSF dean is fired, cites whistle-blowing - US
Dr. David A. Kessler, dean of the UC San Francisco School of Medicine, said Friday that he was fired from his post after raising questions about alleged financial improprieties at the school, one of the nation's most prestigious.
Kessler, formerly a high-profile commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, said he was asked to resign in June and to keep his concerns private. He refused, he said. "I couldn't resign quietly," Kessler said in an interview with The Times. "I wasn't going to do that."
In a statement, UCSF Chancellor Dr. J. Michael Bishop acknowledged that Kessler had been fired on Thursday and that he had appointed Dr. Sam Hawgood as interim dean. He also said two separate reviews -- one by university officials and another by an outside accounting firm -- "found no evidence of financial irregularities" at the medical school and concluded that it was in "very strong financial condition."
Bishop, who personally wooed Kessler to come to UCSF in 2003, did not provide a reason for the termination but said in the statement that Kessler's appointment was at will, "meaning Dr. Kessler held the appointment at the pleasure of the chancellor."
Officials from the campus and the University of California Office of the President declined to comment further. Kessler said he was told by Bishop this summer that the university wanted to seek "new leadership." He said Friday that he believes he was fired for blowing the whistle on financial irregularities.
Kessler said he was asked to clear out his office by the weekend. He said he will remain a tenured professor of pediatrics and epidemiology. Kessler, who stressed that he still has great respect for the work done at UCSF, would not address whether he would challenge the firing.
As FDA chief, Kessler was well-known nationally for his aggressive regulatory approach, particularly his campaign against the tobacco industry and teen smoking. Before taking over at UCSF, he was dean of the Yale University School of Medicine.
Kessler said UCSF officials from the time of his recruitment misled him about the financial health of the so-called central medical school, which provides funds available for use by the dean. Kessler provided The Times with several internal memos, financial spreadsheets and letters to support his contention.
The central fund's financial health affects the school's ability to remain competitive, recruit prominent faculty and launch innovative research. According to a financial spreadsheet dated April 5, 2007, supplied by Kessler, the school's finance unit projected that the central medical school would run out of money in the 2008-09 fiscal year. By June 2011, it is projected to have negative net assets of $49 million.
According to financial estimates given to Kessler in June 2003, the school was projected to have revenue of $46 million to $47 million each year. In reality, Kessler said, the school's revenue was far below $40 million every year since he arrived, except in fiscal year 2006 because of a one-time patent settlement. "If you had $47 million a year, you wouldn't be in a hole," Kessler said in an interview.
In a letter dated July 5, 2007, Bishop acknowledged to Kessler that the financial data provided to him during his recruitment "did not accurately portray funds available to the dean for discretionary use. In retrospect, I can see how these presentations might have misled you and influenced your decision to accept the offer from UCSF. I regret this circumstance and apologize on behalf of the university."
Kessler himself came under university scrutiny for alleged financial irregularities. In January 2005, an anonymous source contended he "spent or formally committed all of the reserves of the dean's office and has also incurred substantial long-term debt in the form of lavish salary increases and exponential growth in new, highly compensated faculty and staff directly reporting to him."
In July, the University of California said it was unable to substantiate any of the allegations against Kessler. Kessler, 56, led the FDA from 1990 to 1997. During his tenure, he made a point of addressing issues that affected the lives of average consumers, saying he would not cater to special interests. He targeted misleading food labels and unsubstantiated advertising claims, and sought to allow earlier access to treatment for catastrophic diseases, including AIDS.
Most important, perhaps, were his efforts to investigate practices of the tobacco industry. He sought to regulate nicotine like any other drug, urging dramatic action on how cigarettes were sold and advertised. Critics charged that the high-profile leader was motivated by politics and publicity, and that he was overzealous in his testing of new products. He was also criticized for overbilling the government for expenses and repaid about $850.
As UC San Francisco wooed Kessler in 2003, he said he asked many questions about the school's finances, wanting to know if he'd have the necessary resources.
"I was just doing due diligence," he said. "I was trying to do my job. . . . In our work, when you recruit somebody, if a place is in deficit or has problems financially, that's the time when you negotiate with the university for additional resources. "This place looked in OK shape," he said.
Kessler said he relied upon detailed financial information shared with him by Jaclyne W. Boyden, who was then the medical school's vice dean for administration and finance. In a letter dated March 31, 2003, she said the dean's office had about $50.6 million in available funds in 2001-02 and was projected to receive about the same amount the following year.
That June, the school provided him with updated figures showing revenue was actually $46.4 million in 2001-02 and projecting revenue of $47.1 million in 2002-03. But in December 2004, after Kessler had hired his own chief financial officer, he said he received new financial statements that greatly troubled him. The actual revenue in 2001-02 was only $28.3 million and revenue in 2002-03 was less than that.
"I get the December spreadsheet and I say, 'What's going on here?' " he said. "This thing looks all negative now." Not using university funds, Kessler said he brought in an attorney, R. Nicholas Gimbel, to review the situation. In August 2006, Gimbel wrote a letter to university officials questioning the school's honesty with Kessler.
"The actual historic and projected revenue of the School of Medicine was substantially less than what was presented to Dr. Kessler during his recruitment," Gimbel wrote.
In May 2007, University Counsel Jeffrey A. Blair wrote a letter refuting Kessler's allegations. "There is no evidence that any revenue was misreported in any audit or official financial statement," Blair wrote. "Dean Kessler simply chooses to ignore the facts and irresponsibly asserts that they depict 'financial incompetence,' 'cooking the books,' and 'double booking' gift revenues. These are provocative accusations to be sure, but ones that are simply not supported by the facts."
When Kessler was hired, he was given a salary of $540,000 a year, a one-time relocation allowance of $125,000, plus his first six months rent. He also received a low-interest home loan up to $1.8 million, and he was reimbursed for his family's moving costs from Connecticut.
On his termination, Kessler's offer letter calls for him to receive $25,000 per year of service as dean, which amounts to $100,000. As a tenured professor, he will earn $325,000 per year.
From: Los Angeles Times
Kessler, formerly a high-profile commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, said he was asked to resign in June and to keep his concerns private. He refused, he said. "I couldn't resign quietly," Kessler said in an interview with The Times. "I wasn't going to do that."
In a statement, UCSF Chancellor Dr. J. Michael Bishop acknowledged that Kessler had been fired on Thursday and that he had appointed Dr. Sam Hawgood as interim dean. He also said two separate reviews -- one by university officials and another by an outside accounting firm -- "found no evidence of financial irregularities" at the medical school and concluded that it was in "very strong financial condition."
Bishop, who personally wooed Kessler to come to UCSF in 2003, did not provide a reason for the termination but said in the statement that Kessler's appointment was at will, "meaning Dr. Kessler held the appointment at the pleasure of the chancellor."
Officials from the campus and the University of California Office of the President declined to comment further. Kessler said he was told by Bishop this summer that the university wanted to seek "new leadership." He said Friday that he believes he was fired for blowing the whistle on financial irregularities.
Kessler said he was asked to clear out his office by the weekend. He said he will remain a tenured professor of pediatrics and epidemiology. Kessler, who stressed that he still has great respect for the work done at UCSF, would not address whether he would challenge the firing.
As FDA chief, Kessler was well-known nationally for his aggressive regulatory approach, particularly his campaign against the tobacco industry and teen smoking. Before taking over at UCSF, he was dean of the Yale University School of Medicine.
Kessler said UCSF officials from the time of his recruitment misled him about the financial health of the so-called central medical school, which provides funds available for use by the dean. Kessler provided The Times with several internal memos, financial spreadsheets and letters to support his contention.
The central fund's financial health affects the school's ability to remain competitive, recruit prominent faculty and launch innovative research. According to a financial spreadsheet dated April 5, 2007, supplied by Kessler, the school's finance unit projected that the central medical school would run out of money in the 2008-09 fiscal year. By June 2011, it is projected to have negative net assets of $49 million.
According to financial estimates given to Kessler in June 2003, the school was projected to have revenue of $46 million to $47 million each year. In reality, Kessler said, the school's revenue was far below $40 million every year since he arrived, except in fiscal year 2006 because of a one-time patent settlement. "If you had $47 million a year, you wouldn't be in a hole," Kessler said in an interview.
In a letter dated July 5, 2007, Bishop acknowledged to Kessler that the financial data provided to him during his recruitment "did not accurately portray funds available to the dean for discretionary use. In retrospect, I can see how these presentations might have misled you and influenced your decision to accept the offer from UCSF. I regret this circumstance and apologize on behalf of the university."
Kessler himself came under university scrutiny for alleged financial irregularities. In January 2005, an anonymous source contended he "spent or formally committed all of the reserves of the dean's office and has also incurred substantial long-term debt in the form of lavish salary increases and exponential growth in new, highly compensated faculty and staff directly reporting to him."
In July, the University of California said it was unable to substantiate any of the allegations against Kessler. Kessler, 56, led the FDA from 1990 to 1997. During his tenure, he made a point of addressing issues that affected the lives of average consumers, saying he would not cater to special interests. He targeted misleading food labels and unsubstantiated advertising claims, and sought to allow earlier access to treatment for catastrophic diseases, including AIDS.
Most important, perhaps, were his efforts to investigate practices of the tobacco industry. He sought to regulate nicotine like any other drug, urging dramatic action on how cigarettes were sold and advertised. Critics charged that the high-profile leader was motivated by politics and publicity, and that he was overzealous in his testing of new products. He was also criticized for overbilling the government for expenses and repaid about $850.
As UC San Francisco wooed Kessler in 2003, he said he asked many questions about the school's finances, wanting to know if he'd have the necessary resources.
"I was just doing due diligence," he said. "I was trying to do my job. . . . In our work, when you recruit somebody, if a place is in deficit or has problems financially, that's the time when you negotiate with the university for additional resources. "This place looked in OK shape," he said.
Kessler said he relied upon detailed financial information shared with him by Jaclyne W. Boyden, who was then the medical school's vice dean for administration and finance. In a letter dated March 31, 2003, she said the dean's office had about $50.6 million in available funds in 2001-02 and was projected to receive about the same amount the following year.
That June, the school provided him with updated figures showing revenue was actually $46.4 million in 2001-02 and projecting revenue of $47.1 million in 2002-03. But in December 2004, after Kessler had hired his own chief financial officer, he said he received new financial statements that greatly troubled him. The actual revenue in 2001-02 was only $28.3 million and revenue in 2002-03 was less than that.
"I get the December spreadsheet and I say, 'What's going on here?' " he said. "This thing looks all negative now." Not using university funds, Kessler said he brought in an attorney, R. Nicholas Gimbel, to review the situation. In August 2006, Gimbel wrote a letter to university officials questioning the school's honesty with Kessler.
"The actual historic and projected revenue of the School of Medicine was substantially less than what was presented to Dr. Kessler during his recruitment," Gimbel wrote.
In May 2007, University Counsel Jeffrey A. Blair wrote a letter refuting Kessler's allegations. "There is no evidence that any revenue was misreported in any audit or official financial statement," Blair wrote. "Dean Kessler simply chooses to ignore the facts and irresponsibly asserts that they depict 'financial incompetence,' 'cooking the books,' and 'double booking' gift revenues. These are provocative accusations to be sure, but ones that are simply not supported by the facts."
When Kessler was hired, he was given a salary of $540,000 a year, a one-time relocation allowance of $125,000, plus his first six months rent. He also received a low-interest home loan up to $1.8 million, and he was reimbursed for his family's moving costs from Connecticut.
On his termination, Kessler's offer letter calls for him to receive $25,000 per year of service as dean, which amounts to $100,000. As a tenured professor, he will earn $325,000 per year.
From: Los Angeles Times
A few notes on the abuse of occupational health procedures
"Whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad" - Euripides
Over the past few years I have listened to many cheerless stories of individuals who have exposed unacceptable practices within universities and hospitals. The institutional response is almost formulaic.
A frequent part of the common experience is the abuse of occupational health procedures. Following an incident this week involving a colleague, I have summarised some aspects of UK occupational health law below.
Most of these individuals started with the belief that their institutions would assume responsibility for upholding their own rules of conduct. They assumed that responses would be honest, colleagues and professional bodies would behave honorably, and that someone would take responsibility for the safety of the product (whether that product is a drug, honest science, open academic discourse or care of individual patients).
In reality, most are projected into an Alice in Wonderland world of sham procedures, collusion, lies and bullying. Many become ill (see the case of Dr Z), and some die. Distress signals are used by poor managers to invent "health concerns" and to avoid rational discussion about genuine problems. That hospitals and medical schools abuse their staff through health mechanisms is indicative of deep immorality within these institutions. The process usually starts as an apparent expression of genuine concern about the health of the employee.
Sadly, psychopathic administrators and medical leaders are rarely subjected to psychiatric or medical evaluation.
Employees should almost never agree to an employer's "offer" of health evaluation under these circumstances. When such evaluation takes place, it should only be for the benefit of the employee. Any assertion by the employer that they must have any right of access to health information is illegal and constitutes serious bullying.
Aspects of the relevant law is summarised from these sources: a) Occupational Health Law, 4th Edition, Diana M Kloss ISBN 0632-064978, b) Medical Ethics Today: Its Practice and Philosophy, Veronica English, Gillian Romano-Critchley. 2002 2nd Ed. BMJ Books, ISBN 0727917447
Over the past few years I have listened to many cheerless stories of individuals who have exposed unacceptable practices within universities and hospitals. The institutional response is almost formulaic.
A frequent part of the common experience is the abuse of occupational health procedures. Following an incident this week involving a colleague, I have summarised some aspects of UK occupational health law below.
Most of these individuals started with the belief that their institutions would assume responsibility for upholding their own rules of conduct. They assumed that responses would be honest, colleagues and professional bodies would behave honorably, and that someone would take responsibility for the safety of the product (whether that product is a drug, honest science, open academic discourse or care of individual patients).
In reality, most are projected into an Alice in Wonderland world of sham procedures, collusion, lies and bullying. Many become ill (see the case of Dr Z), and some die. Distress signals are used by poor managers to invent "health concerns" and to avoid rational discussion about genuine problems. That hospitals and medical schools abuse their staff through health mechanisms is indicative of deep immorality within these institutions. The process usually starts as an apparent expression of genuine concern about the health of the employee.
Sadly, psychopathic administrators and medical leaders are rarely subjected to psychiatric or medical evaluation.
Employees should almost never agree to an employer's "offer" of health evaluation under these circumstances. When such evaluation takes place, it should only be for the benefit of the employee. Any assertion by the employer that they must have any right of access to health information is illegal and constitutes serious bullying.
Aspects of the relevant law is summarised from these sources: a) Occupational Health Law, 4th Edition, Diana M Kloss ISBN 0632-064978, b) Medical Ethics Today: Its Practice and Philosophy, Veronica English, Gillian Romano-Critchley. 2002 2nd Ed. BMJ Books, ISBN 0727917447
- The physical occupational health (OH) records technically belong to the employer, but the employer has no right of control or access to the information therein.
- OH doctors should have an agreement their employer with regard to confidentiality of records. If the doctor leaves the company, records remain the property of the employer, but should be passed to a new doctor or nurse with the same obligations. If an employee moves to another employment, OH records can only be transferred to the new employer with consent.
- Employers cannot enforce terms in contracts of employment stating that employees must provide copies of medical records.
- OH doctors have a duty of confidence which is the same as that for any other doctor. For example, if an OH physician were to reveal to the human resources department (without permission) that an employee has a drink problem the doctor could be sued for damages. Secretarial staff who have access to confidential information share these obligations.
- According to the General Medical Council there are restricted circumstances under which information could be conveyed by a doctor:
- The patient explicitly consents.
- Some circumstances where the doctor shares information with other health professionals caring for that patient
- Parliament requires disclosure (notifiable diseases, RIDDOR reporting of injuries at work, and more worryingly "terrorism legislation")
- Disclosure may be made to a statutory regulatory body for investigation into a health professional's fitness to practice (it is worrying that the GMC would see fit to incorporate such a provision without detailed qualification)
- Disclosure is in the public interest, e.g. to the police about a serious crime
- If consent is provided, it can later be withdrawn. Consent should be in writing for the protection of the doctor or nurse. Consent should clarify exactly what records may be passed over - not simply "all records". The OH doctor can refuse to accept partial consent if that would be misleading through omission. An OH doctor should not communicate with the patient's own doctor without consent.
- Guidance from the Nursing and Midwifery Council (2002) is more coherent with greater emphasis on the purpose for which information was supplied: "To trust another person with private and personal information about yourself is a significant matter. If a person to whom that information is given is a nurse, midwife or health visitor, the patient or client has a right to believe that this information, given in confidence, will only be used for the purposes for which it was given and will not be released to others without their permission".
- Mere attendance at the OH department does not imply consent.
- Even if an employer is facing legal action by an employee, OH records should not be disclosed to the employer without consent or a court order.
- An occupational health doctor may find that an individual is somehow unfit for a job or that the employee is in danger. This does not justify a breach of confidence. If the danger is to others there may be a case for breach of confidence, but even then this requires very careful deliberation.
- Per the Faculty of Occupational Medicine's Guidance on ethics: "Occasionally the occupational physician ....may find that an individual is unfit for a job where the safety of other workers or the public is concerned. He should then take great care to explain fully why he thinks the disclosure of unfitness is necessary.... Where this is not obtained the occupational physician is faced with an ethical dilemma..... Ultimately, the safety of other workers and the general public must prevail..."
- Occupational health doctors should not become involved in advising employers on the validity or otherwise of sickness absence of an employee. They can however (in consultation with the employee) advise management on potential changes required to the conditions of employment. The doctor may also advise the employer about future employability but without providing clinical details of sickness to the employer.
- Some occupational health records may be of direct relevance to the employer (for example where the employer has a legal requirement to monitor toxic substances). Those records should be maintained separately from other records. Conveying of such records also requires consent.
January 30, 2008
News from Kingston University, UK
1. During the past 10 years how many formal grievances have been raised by employees? How many employees have raised such grievances?
Answer: 36 grievances have been raised by 28 people.
2. Of those grievances appealed to the level of Vice Chancellor, how many appeals were successful?
Answer: None (although one was partially upheld).
3. Of those grievances appealed to the level of Board of Governors, how many appeals were successful?
Answer: None.
4. Of those grievances appealed (i.e. beyond the level of Personnel to the Vice Chancellor and/or Board of Governors), how many employees launching such appeals are still employed by the University?
Answer: Two.
5. Of those employees dismissed on any grounds, please provide the percentage of these employees who were members of ethnic and/or religious minorities.
Answer: The University does not record employees religion. The percentage of employees who were members of ethinc minorities was 57% (4 out of 7).
6. Of all employees dismissed on any grounds, please provide the percentage of these who were non-British born.
Answer: 28% (2 out of 7).
7. Of all employees hired since 1998, what is the average length in years/months of employment of such employees?
Answer: From the data the University has recorded from 1998 the overall average length of employment in years/months is 3 years 1 month.
8. Of the above average length of employment, what is the figure for employees who are members of ethnic/religious minorities?
Answer: The University does not record employees religion. The average length of employment for employees who are members of ethnic minorities is 2 years and 10 months.
9. Of the above average length of employment, what is the figure for employees who are non-British?
Answer: The average length of employment for employees who are non-British is 2 years and 8 months.
Answer: 36 grievances have been raised by 28 people.
2. Of those grievances appealed to the level of Vice Chancellor, how many appeals were successful?
Answer: None (although one was partially upheld).
3. Of those grievances appealed to the level of Board of Governors, how many appeals were successful?
Answer: None.
4. Of those grievances appealed (i.e. beyond the level of Personnel to the Vice Chancellor and/or Board of Governors), how many employees launching such appeals are still employed by the University?
Answer: Two.
5. Of those employees dismissed on any grounds, please provide the percentage of these employees who were members of ethnic and/or religious minorities.
Answer: The University does not record employees religion. The percentage of employees who were members of ethinc minorities was 57% (4 out of 7).
6. Of all employees dismissed on any grounds, please provide the percentage of these who were non-British born.
Answer: 28% (2 out of 7).
7. Of all employees hired since 1998, what is the average length in years/months of employment of such employees?
Answer: From the data the University has recorded from 1998 the overall average length of employment in years/months is 3 years 1 month.
8. Of the above average length of employment, what is the figure for employees who are members of ethnic/religious minorities?
Answer: The University does not record employees religion. The average length of employment for employees who are members of ethnic minorities is 2 years and 10 months.
9. Of the above average length of employment, what is the figure for employees who are non-British?
Answer: The average length of employment for employees who are non-British is 2 years and 8 months.
January 27, 2008
January 24, 2008
Thirty academic mobbing cases since 2005
Below, in alphabetical order, are 30 academics whose troubles, as reported in the press or on the web, appear to fit the definition of workplace mobbing. Reviewing these cases is useful for understanding the variety of origins of the phenomenon and the different ways cases play out.
- Jury refuses to convict Sami Al-Arian (University of South Florida); he is eliminated anyway
- Jonathan Bean on guard, surviving at Southern Illinois (Carbondale)
- Jerry Becker and Elisabeth Reichert in board presentation at SIUC
- Stephen Berman is ousted from University of Saskatchewan
- At Sheffield, Aubrey Blumsohn is forced out, starts blog
- Student Seung-Hui Cho goes postal at Virginia Tech, 33 dead
- Firestorm over Ward Churchil at University of Colorado
- Suicide of David Clarke at Southern Illinois (Carbondale)
- At last, Jean Cobbs vindicated at Virginia State
- Dramatist George Cron is ousted from Missouri State
- Shiraz Dossa goes to conference, is mobbed, keeps job (St. Francis Xavier University)
- Christopher Dussold's resistance at Southern Illinois (Edwardsville)
- Mohammed Elmasry retires at Waterloo — mobbing aborted
- Jews mob a Jew: Norman Finkelstein gone from DePaul
- Redress for Joan Friedenberg at Southern Illinois (Carbondale)
- Ouster of Frank Glamser and Gary Stringer at Southern Mississippi
- Biswanath Halder cybermobbed at Case Western Reserve, goes postal
- Hector Hammerly (Simon Fraser University) is dead
- Filmmakers John Hookham and Gary MacLennan suspended from QUT for newspaper article
- Harassment of Gabrielle Horne continues at Dalhousie
- K C Johnson alive and kicking at Brooklyn College
- Biology professor Robert J. Klebe files suit (UTHSC San Antonio)
- David Mullen suspended for words at Cape Breton University
- Physician Nancy Olivieri still battling in court (University of Toronto)
- Lethbridge administrators attack Tom Robinson for his website
- John Soloski fighting back at University of Georgia
- Successful mobbing of Harvard President Lawrence Summers
- Medaille College settles with Therese Warden & Uhuru Watson
- James D. Watson broken for breaking a taboo (Cold Spring Harbor Lab)
- Supreme Court victory for Wanda Young (Memorial of Newfoundland)
Once a bully always a bully? Dealing with the perpetrators
There's no shortage of statistics to paint what is a rather bleak picture of bullying in the UK. According to the Andrea Adams Trust, a global workplace bullying charity, as many as 18.9 million working days are lost to bullying every year and up to a half of all stress-related illnesses are a direct result of bullying.
Even more worrying is that, despite legislation designed to stamp out the problems, the trend appears to be on the up.
When the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) last tested the waters in 2006, they found as many as 20 per cent of respondents had experienced some kind of harassment or bullying over a two-year period. This is an increase of 7 per cent since the 2004 survey.
The Association for Coaching (AC), a not-for-profit organisation that carried out a joint survey with the Trades Union Congress and CBI, also found that just under half of employees have witnessed workplace bullying, indicating that the incidences of bullying might actually be higher then the 'reported' figures represent.
Marie Strebler, a senior research fellow from The Institute for Employment Studies, says the issue is made even more confusing given that bullying doesn't lend itself to a legal definition but the statistics indicate loud and clearly that the problem is rife, alive and well in organisations across the UK today...
Read the rest at: http://www.hrzone.co.uk
January 23, 2008
Speak out on bullying
9 November 2007
I have been a target of workplace bullying in the university where I work. I have been so ill with stress that I have taken time off work. When I returned I was ignored by colleagues, my grievance unresolved. The union rep who was supposed to be supporting me blamed me for the lack of progress in my case.
If you know someone being bullied, then speak out. It's not a spectator sport.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)