In a presentation Camilo Azcarate (University Ombuds Officer, Princeton University), Nicholas Diehl (Associate Ombuds, Princeton University), Howard Gadlin (Ombudsman, National Institutes of Health), and Patricia J. Lynch (Corporate Ombudsman, United Technologies Corporation) gave at the first annual International Ombudsman Association conference, held in April 2006, they cited ten characteristic behaviors of workplace bullies that managers need to be alert to:
A workplace bully:
1. is charming in public; this charm is used to seduce the victim with the aim of dominating and controlling.
2. spreads rumors in private to reduce the victim’s power and damage his/her reputation.
3. is apparently supportive in private but exposes the victim’s mistakes in public.
4. distorts reality to make him/herself look good and the victim look bad.
5. is hypocritical — says the right things but is exploitative and manipulative.
6. is evasive, does not provide straight answers, and gets angry when confronted.
7. is pompous and self-righteous and inflates his/her importance.
8. is passive-aggressive. For example, the bully withholds information and works to isolate the victim.
9. presents him/herself as a victim and blames others for his/her pain and suffering.
10. pretends to care, and humiliates the victim under the guise of caring.
From: http://streamlinetraining.blogspot.com
February 12, 2008
February 11, 2008
Warning: Mobbing is Legal, Work with Caution
Mobbing ExampleHayden Scott is seemingly successful. He is close with his family and works as a University Professor. He loves his work. Student feedback of his teaching is positive - he often receives appreciative thank you notes at the finish of classes. He goes beyond his job requirements to help his department and students succeed in their chosen profession.
After four years of dedicated service, Hayden prepared his tenure packet and presented it without trepidation. His first and third year reviews were positive and cited no deficiencies or areas of concern. He had authored a number of publications, presented at conferences, and provided service to his community and school. He was given no reason to believe his employment at the university was threatened.
It is at this point that Hayden’s life takes a turn. Hayden learns that what he had ignored for months is now going to haunt him.
Several months earlier Hayden felt certain students and colleagues were responding to him coolly and talking secretly about him. Doors were closed as he approached, conversations were interrupted when he entered a room, and he was not invited to “unofficial” faculty gatherings. He ignored this as he did not want to get involved in counterproductive workplace politics. His hope was the situation would dissolve itself when no attention was provided to fuel its continuation.
He soon learned his tenure was in question. Little explanation was given but the dean of the department stated that one professor seemed to sabotage his promotion. The dean and a union representative suggested he apply again the next year.
This defeat led Hayden to question what he had dismissed earlier. Through keeping alert to the politics of the office and researching his situation, Hayden learned he had been “mobbed”.
Mobbing Defined
According to Westhues (2002) mobbing “is an impassioned, collective campaign by co-workers to exclude, punish, and humiliate a targeted worker.” Namie and Namie (2000) name it bullying and define it as “the repeated, malicious, health endangering mistreatment of one employee by one or more employees” (p. 3). Whether termed mobbing, bullying, or verbal abuse the behaviors and results are to the same ends “to crush and eliminate the target” (Westhues, 2002).
Mobbing frequently involves the use of “harassing, abusive, and often terrorizing behaviors” (Davenport, Schwartz and Elliot, 1999, p. 34). Mobbing is seldom overt instead it thrives on the use of rumor, innuendo, making inappropriate jokes, and public discrediting (Davenport, Schwartz and Elliot, 1999; Namie and Namie 2000). What seems to traumatize the target the most are covert tactics used continuously and methodically. These methods often leave the target feeling as though mobbing is occurring, but without concrete evidence.
Mobbing Frequency?
Due to the lack of reporting, the number of mobbing victims is uncertain. Davenport, Schwartz and Elliot (1999) estimate that in the United States “well over 4 million people yearly, are, or may become, victimized by mobbing” (pg 25). According to Leymann (n.d.) one out of every four employees entering the labor market will risk being subjected to at least one period of mobbing of at least six months´ duration during his or her working career.”
Who Mobs
The literature is particularly critical of the perpetrators of mobbing. According to Namie and Namie (2000) those who instigate mobbing tend to be bullies, who try to dominate people in nearly every encounter. They are described as “inadequate, defective, and poorly developed people” (Namie and Namie, 2000, p. 14). They tend to be unpredictable, angry, critical, jealous, and manipulative (Davenport, Schwartz and Elliot, 1999; Namie and Namie 2000). Finally, Glass (1999) describes them as representing “everything bad” (p. 239).
Targets of Mobbing
An individual can be mobbed regardless of age, race, religion, gender, or rank within an organization (Davenport, Schwartz and Elliot, 1999; Namie and Namie 2000; Leymann, n.d.). Though any person is susceptible to being mobbed, those individuals who are devoted, loyal, creative, organized, cooperative and experienced professionals, seem to be at a higher likelihood to experience mobbing (Davenport, Schwartz and Elliot, 1999).
It is suggested that particularly creative individuals may often be subjected to mobbing because they promote new ideas which may challenge others (Davenport, Schwartz and Elliot, 1999). Mobbing may begin out of jealousy over the superior competence of the target, envy over the targets social skills or envy regarding the positive attitude of the target that attracts colleagues to them (Namie and Namie, 2000). At times mobbing is done as a bully revels in animosity, gaining pleasure from the excitement that it creates, giving the bully what Westhues (2002) calls “the euphoria of collective attack”.
Why do Targets Endure
It may be questioned why a person would stay in a job in which she/he is being mobbed. Mobbing victims often stay because they love their work (Davenport, Schwartz and Elliot, 1999). They feel a sense of identity, competence, and commitment to what they do.
It is perhaps the targets commitment to the job that leaves him/her ill prepared for the mobbing experience. Targets dedicated to their work may rely on their superior efforts to move ahead and gain recognition, in lieu of tracking the politics of the job. Targets tend to be empathic, just, and fair people (Namie & Namie 2000: Auerbach, 2001), who naively believe if they don’t fight back against mobbing and continue to excel in their work, the perpetrator will lose interest and stop or that others will recognize the work they do and disbelieve the rumors and lies being told. This lack of knowledge about mobbing leaves the target little time to build the necessary survival networks to combat the problem (Davenport, Schwartz and Elliot, 1999).
The Price the Target Pays
At the beginning of the mobbing experience the target may choose, as Hayden did, to ignore the problem. However; as the alienation of being mobbed continues, the target may find that he/she is less productive, creative, and self questioning. Mobbing can leave the target’s life in turmoil (Glass, 1999), feeling embarrassed, frustrated and untrusting. Symptoms may include crying, sleep difficulties, lack of concentration, high blood pressure, gastrointestinal problems, excessive weight loss or gain, depression, alcohol or drug abuse, avoidance of the workplace, and/or uncharacteristic fearfulness (Namie & Namie, 2000; Davenport, Schwartz and Elliot, 1999). For some the degree of symptoms may become severe and include severe depression, panic attacks, heart attack, other severe illnesses, accidents, suicide attempts, violence directed at third parties and symptoms of PTSD (Namie & Namie, 2000; Davenport, Schwartz and Elliot, 1999). These symptoms may lead the target to feel who they are as a person is being stripped away.
As emotional and psychological changes take place often physical difficulties follow. Those mobbed have been found to experience reduced immunity to infection, heart attacks as well as numerous other health problems (Davenport, Schwartz and Elliot, 1999). According to Leymann (n.d.) roughly ten to twenty percent of those mobbed in his study seemed to contract a serious illnesses or committed suicide.
Changes take place in relationships inside and outside of work. When the target fails to “bounce back” from the impact of being mobbed, family and friends may begin to abandon the target (Namie & Namie, 2000). According to Westhues (2002) “Not infrequently, mobbing spelled the end of the target’s career, marriage, health, and livelihood.”
All of the psychological, physical and relationships changes will likely lead to financial difficulties. Paid time off from work, doctor appointments, therapy, as well as medications may be required.
Mobbing: Legal Solutions
Certainly, each case of mobbing will have different legal merit depending on the client, the employer, the abuse and a variety of other factors. First, consider recourse through internal complaint channels and through formal systems. Some employers may empathize with the target and work to help the situation. Human resource representatives may intervene and attempt mediation. While this may seem a useful path, keep in mind that the human resource department works for the employer. Their primary interest is the employer. Do not allow the client to become overly optimistic or see this as the end to the battle, this may be one more step in a long and painful process. Therefore, Davenport, et al (1999) observe that as a counselor it will be critical to have attorney referrals available that specialize in workplace issues (Davenport, Schwartz and Elliot, 1999). However, enlisting a lawyer may be the start of a protracted, uphill battle often with little chance of success.
An attorney should be able to determine if the actions of the perpetrator are illegal, which mobbing seldom is, or if the actions fall under discrimination, harassment, or hostile work environment (Davenport, Schwartz and Elliot, 1999; Namie & Namie, 2000). Should the actions of the perpetrator be deemed mobbing and legal, work with the client to plan a useful course of action.
Harassment or discriminatory treatment-if unrelated to gender, race, age or any other title seven protected categories are not dealt with under current US law (Namie & Namie, 2000). Clients advised by an attorney that they have a case of illegal conduct must still be helped in understanding what this means, and in gaining support for the prolonged battle that may lay ahead.
An attorney can help prepare a client for conversations by providing language that may keep them out of trouble. Such language may allow the target to express him/herself in an assertive way in language that is free of rancor and vitriol.
Mobbing: Possible Counseling Interventions
The authors have developed a number of suggestions to help the targets of mobbing. First, assist the target in enlisting support. It will be important to develop relationships and ways to talk about mobbing events without exhausting people with the details or emotions of the situations. Mobbing occurs over time and it is helpful for the target to explain to those around him/ her that this will not be over in a month’s time but may continue for years. Knowing this may help supporters understand that this is not a one-time event and that long term support is required with this type of abuse.
Second, it will be helpful to assist the client in grieving the losses amassed. The client may need to grieve the loss of a promotion, a job, or a career due to mobbing. The loss of relationships, self-confidence and self also may need to be grieved.
Third, consider helping the target assess the possible financial impact of mobbing - attorney fees, health costs, mental health costs, lost days of work, and possible loss of a job. Reviewing finances and planning for various eventualities is one facet of help that cannot be overlooked.
Fourth, help the client evaluate what is going on from an outsider’s perspective and to consider an escape plan. It may be viewed as a defeat by the client to look for another job, but this could be the healthiest choice. If the client seeks other opportunities, it will be necessary to build a resume and prepare for interviews. A counselor can assist in framing the language of the resume and the way the client talks about the workplace in a professional manner.
Fifth, the counselor may help the target focus on skills useful outside the job. Minimizing time at the workplace can help alleviate stress. Volunteering for organizations that bring out other talents, and build relationships outside the work environment may help one to find new areas of interest that might provide a more developed identity which incorporates the values and interests as well as skills of the client.
Finally, helping the client gain perspective about pursuing a negotiated settlement or a legal resolution may be the most important work of a counselor. Are the target’s needs for fairness and justice outweighed by the price paid for challenging an often smug, hurtful culture that will likely outlast any lone individual’s campaign for justice?
From: http://www.counselingoutfitters.com/Housker.htm
February 10, 2008
Nepotism 2: Natural progression
They have known each other for twenty years. So when one of them became a manager, the friend was promoted to Principal lecturer.
They have known each other for a long time, so when one resigned the other stepped into the position of VC.
She did everything that was expected from her, even lied, but in the end was rewarded with a promotion for the loyalty shown.
From a junior administrative position in the Faculty, was promoted without merit to a senior managerial position.
She was his girlfriend and he made sure she ended up running her own department.
They have known each other for a long time, so when one resigned the other stepped into the position of VC.
She did everything that was expected from her, even lied, but in the end was rewarded with a promotion for the loyalty shown.
From a junior administrative position in the Faculty, was promoted without merit to a senior managerial position.
She was his girlfriend and he made sure she ended up running her own department.
Nepotism 1: University employees promoted for 3 hours!
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
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 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)