March 01, 2004
This is a letter to the McGill’s
workers, and not only, on: http://spop.addr.com
Warning: You might be transferred to the
McGill’s boiler room if you read the following!
Subject: Cruel and unusual (I hope!)
punishment at McGill University in Montreal, Canada
Dear Friends,
Discussion is difficult at McGill.
Instead of holding open elections, the university nominates departmental
chairs, deans, provosts and principals from behind closed doors (see “1”
below). Consequently, some administrators feel more equal than others and this
hinders even the most supposedly liberated debates in the Senate’s forum. It is
hard for the average professor or support staff member to speak their opinions
and concerns, for they are isolated by divide-and-conquer managerial policies.
The stress this causes is clear from the growing number of cases of depression
at McGill (see more in “2”). The big three unions—MAUT, MUNASA and MUNACA—,
isolated from the outside world, are patronized by the administration, and
their members feel neither respected nor protected.
We need to create a genuine internal
forum (see details below), uniting everyone who works here, to expose the
administration’s mistreatment of employees.
The Principal put on a good face when
she announced her decision to “comply with the CSST’s decree to implement a
harassment policy at McGill in ten days”.
She, Mr. Yalovsky and Mr. Vinet refused to reveal any details when the senators
asked about the circumstances behind this very unusual diktat. It was possible
to oppose the CSST’s ruling, however
the
Principal insisted she wouldn’t “argue”, and kept a very low profile. But the full story was soon revealed
in a student paper, concerning two brave people connected with a big external
union (Local 800 of the Service Employees’ Union), who decided to protect a
member of the managerial group (the puppet MUNASA), who was left to be harassed
by his bosses. This act is one of true cooperation between people
artificially divided in an institution where dictatorial management is used to
cultivate psychological terror. On their initiative, the CSST recently
intervened in the extremely bizarre case of abuse of a professional engineer,
who was forced to work in the extremely hot and noisy Central Boiler Room (see
more in the latest Daily or click on: http://www.mcgilldaily.com/view.php?aid=2398).
Perhaps this intervention prevented another suicide. Remember that not long ago
a couple of scientists died after the intrigues of McGill and the Gazette.
The top administrators directly responsible for such sadistic treatment are
never fired. Why not? (See opinion in “3” below).
We
need people at the top who will provide an example of integrity and dignity.
Many members of our community see only a lack of competence covered by
arrogance; many see only a “run for money and influence”.
It is totally unacceptable for our
Principal to break her promise, made at the last Senate meeting, to
inform the whole community about her latest policy on harassment, which was
imposed by the CSST to protect employees from psychological abuse by the
employer. The basic information about the purpose for this policy, with the
names and locations of the appointed Harassment Officers, was supposed to be
announced in her letter addressed to all McGill workers, but now she has played
a new trick—a minimal and selective distribution of the new harassment policy.
The Principal was very keen last September to e-mail everybody at McGill
(chattily, of course) about the departure of the Director of the McGill
University Relations Office, Kate Williams (http://www.spop.addr.com/b1.htm).
Yet now, her crucial change to McGill’s legal regulations concerning mental
safety is circulated only to a narrow circle of professors and top managers.
She doesn’t want to tell everyone at McGill about it. Why not?
The
text is interrupted here for reading the above-mentioned report in “The
McGill Daily” on: http://www.mcgilldaily.com/view.php?aid=2398.
Please treat this as an obligation, for we still have some workers at McGill
who are not aware of (or for opportunistic reasons don’t want to know about)
the low professional and moral qualifications of some McGill functionaries.
(continuation)
There is quite a history of manipulation and corruption at McGill. The Gazette of Feb. 24 brings back memories of vice-principal Samuel Freedman 20 years ago who put pressure on the former director of admissions, Mrs. Peggy Sheppard, a woman of great integrity. The V.P. was close to Liberal party fundraiser Leo Kolberg (later nominated to the Senate), and demanded that Sheppard admit to McGill the very poorly performing son of Liberal cabinet minister Robert Kaplan. Are the same party and McGill’s notables less corrupt today?
Well, look at the Principal: She fully supports the
enormous fees McGill paid its lawyers to put down Mrs. Sheppard. Even the Gazette
described the latter on Feb. 26 as “the hapless victim of a
McGill University establishment determined to make her pay for challenging the
unwritten rules of the old boys' network.” Instead of
distancing herself from previous policies, the Principal is sending a strong
message to our community that the corruption, arrogance and despotism of some McGill
notables can never be punished or openly criticized.
There’s not much chance of finding people as
determined as Mrs. Peggy Sheppard to challenge McGill’s controversial
policies in court. But we can try to improve the situation gradually, not by
costly lawsuits, but by creating a web forum to discuss and present openly all
controversial issues at McGill. The University presses belonging
to the administration (e.g. the Reporter, McGill News) are
censored. We need communication with more integrity.
McGill is lucky to have a talented programmer in the
Department of Physics who has created for free an excellent platform for
communication on the Internet for MUNACA members. They were dissatisfied
with the policies of their union leaders, and their straightforward critical
voices worked well but for a short time last year.
Successful social initiatives need to reach a
critical mass for further, self-fueled growth. And there needs to be noise.
There will be more chance of success if the voices of similarly concerned
academics as well as of support staff members are combined. Close
intellectual relations should be cultivated regardless of the strong
administrative pressure to maintain divisions. In fact, I am getting more
response from psychologically stressed academics and lower-ranking managers
than from my lowest paid MUNACA colleagues.
It’s a paradox that people can expose the dirtiest
details of their private lives on TV and radio shows, but are afraid to talk
openly about work-related problems. We must break down these artificial
psychological barriers so people can see and solve their job-related troubles.
It’s better than creating conspiracy theories.
Let’s hope that the proposed McGill Civic Forum,
on the Internet for the all workers (technically supported by this generous
and honest programmer), can help not only release our frustrations, but
also inspire us to improve life at McGill.
I suggest as
an opening topic: Proposing and discussing our own candidates for the
Principal’s position, which will relatively soon be open and the truly
qualified runners must be known in advance.
Yours sincerely,
Slawomir Poplawski
P.S. In the meantime we must
question our bosses as often as possible, and that is why last week I sent
the letter below to Mr. Robert Savoie, Executive Director of Human
Resources (enc1, 1a).
(1)
- It is sickening to see the inquisition-style
procedure used not to elect, but to re-establish one Departmental Chair, using
the questionable involvement of the Dean of the Engineered Faculty of
Manipulation for More Money or networked influence and less respect for people.
It seems that similarly questionable mechanisms of intimidating “the voters”
were used to re-establish the same Provost in last year’s “election” and would
be repeated for the Principal’s re-appointment.
(2)
- Compare http://www.spop.addr.com/WEBDEPR.html,
written over four years ago.
(3)
- Our top leaders hold the
same positions for years, and know too much about others’ risky business,
so firing one of them raises a possibility of painful revenge that could hurt
the rest. A parallel would be in parasitic gangs, whose members make
sure new candidates witness murders. Only costly mega trials can break their
solidarity.
- - - - - -
- - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -
-- - - -
enc.1
February 26, 2004
To: Human
Resources – McGill University, Montreal
Attention: Mr. Robert
Savoie – Executive Director fax: 3874
Subject:
Psychological harassment
Dear Mr. Savoie,
There are
different forms of harassment at McGill and finally the CSST recognizes that
there is psychological abuse cultivated by the administration.
I hope, Mr.
Savoie, that the University is obliged to eliminate from the beginning all
symptoms of this abuse including the disregard of some managers for the
concerns of others.
Not answering
written complaints is very often used as a way to manifest the power of
McGill’s notables and an unanswered letter to a director of Department of Pension Management, Mr. D’Agata (enc.1)
illustrates this quite clearly.
It is a good time
to act now and demand loudly an answer, but it is also good to wait longer for
a final response about the intended way organizing of the upcoming election by
this director. Does Mr. D’Agata admit that
presently there are undemocratic practices in his department or is he ordered
to ignore concerns which do not come from above?
Is he instructed
by HR directives to behave this way following the example of your other
director, Mr Real Tessier, promoting McGill’s way of treating subordinates (see
the latest Daily publication)?
Regards,
Slawomir
Poplawski
(slawomir.poplawski@mcgill.ca)
Mining, Metals
and Materials Engineering Department – Wong bldg. Room 1260, fax: 4492
- - - - -- - - -
- - --
(enc.1a)
February 17th 2004
Subject:
Changing undemocratic election procedure
To:
Department of Pension Management
Attention: Mr. John D’Agata – Director fax: 6889
Dear Mr.
D’Agata,
McGill employees have just been allowed greater transparency
by the Pension Plan administration than ever before. For the first time,
your office e-mailed an invitation to attend the Pension Plan Annual Meeting 2
˝ months before the event. We are also invited to “view the performance of the
various funds offered under the McGill University Pension Plan”, which will be
“updated on the Department of Pension Management’s website each month.”
Given the advance
notice, we can expect our members to be well prepared with pertinent questions
during the May Pension Plan’s meeting.
They should, as a result, receive fuller answers. That is the only way we can create
innovative and effective strategies for our pension investments.
However, the
changes are not enough unless basic changes are introduced before the next
election. Ms. Christine Halse informed
me your office controls the whole electoral procedure. Ms. Halse does not permit even the
candidates to participate at the final stage of counting the ballots. Her official explanation is that it would be
unfair for the public to know who was voting for whom!!
Why are the
members of your office entitled to know who is voting for whom? Ms. Halse asked me whether I knew McGill has
its very own—and different—electoral procedure. My answer was yes and I also presented to her an example of a
more just procedure used by the Secretary General’s office (NB. after my
extended “discussion” – in writing – with Mr. D.Pound from five years ago).
Ms. Halse ignored this important issue. However, I wish to ensure the
implementation of these fundamental changes (secret ballot and the public
presence at the final stage) in the next election. As the election is so soon, I request your
written answer within three working days.
If these changes are ignored then we should use other methods.
At stake is the
respect for “Robert’s rules” which guard the basic rights in democratic
society. Consider also the
vulnerability of many managers working on contracts and consequently without
job security. How can they feel secure
knowing copies of their signed votes are stored somewhere at McGill?
This situation is
particularly significant in the case of the next election. Any manager, feeling particularly
vindictive, will be able to treat the choice between a very loyal manager from
the Payroll Office and the external person “de facto” thrown out from
McGill as a test of loyalty for the present establishment.
Regards,
Slawomir Poplawski (from Mining, Metals and Materials
Department, fax: 4492 or e-mail:
slawomir.poplawski@mcgill.ca)