The Dead Parrot

No matter how plainly an obligation, duty or prohibition is enumerated, there will be managers who will deny their applicability to the most obvious facts. (I can't seem to get Monty Python's Dead Parrot sketch out of my head — "it's restin'... it's stunned...it's pinin' for the fjords". Nice plumage, though.)

Disputing the obvious is a tactic older than industrial relations itself. The Python's sketch will be 40 this year. And denial is certainly not new in the university sector. What I think is new, however, is the seeming willingness of some senior academic officers (i.e. Deans and above), to play the game. (Vice-Chancellors, happily, still seem to refrain.)

I haven't noticed an apologetic demeanor — sometimes seen in human resources staff. It's as if it's a proof of authority to be able to bring reality itself to heel.

This is my very subjective impression, but it seems to me that while only a few years ago senior officers sought to remain above the industrial fray; the current trend (albeit a shallow slope) seems to be in the other direction.

Previously insulated by the protections of WorkChoices and other regulations of the sector, some may have failed to notice that, occasionally, those who play the denial card find a inconvenient bump at the end. "Truth will out"?

Sometimes.

At a picnic nobody cares that you're a
four-star chef de cuisine —
if you're the guy that forgot the sandwiches.
—Yllib Ybnad (b. 1948)

Agreements

Agreements (whether individual, local or all-encompassing) often become mired in flowery, aspirational language — promising nothing, prohibiting nothing, empowering no one. But worse is when the 'language' goes to management and the 'flowers' to the staff.

In any agreement every sentence should define something, impose some duty or obligation, prohibit some action, or qualify one of these. Agreements that don't are monuments to the failure of those negotiations (or consultations). And, also problematically, they deceive the unwitting or inattentive into thinking that there's a useful understanding.

Common pitfalls:

• Unimplemented 'statements of purpose' are useless.
  
• Agreeing to agree in the future is a waste of ink and paper. (You either have an agreement or you don't.)
  
• "May" is not a synonym for "shall."
• The phrase, "best endeavours" (or an equivalent) doesn't suggest a meaningful undertaking.
• Agreeing on fuzzy modifiers, such as, "significant," "substantial," or "major" is likely to be the the last agreement you have about them.
  
• Commitments without time-frames aren't.
  

Sentences should be shorter rather than longer.

Lists are good, but if they're not exhaustive, that should be clear. Similarly, if they're ordered, that too should be clear.

Until everything is agreed, nothing is agreed — and I strongly suggest that your union sees it as early as possible. And, as with anything else that's written, there must be an opportunity to reflect before it's done.

Good luck.

It's not what we eat but what we digest
that makes us strong;
not what we gain but what we save
that makes us rich;
not what we read but what we remember
that makes us learned;
and not what we profess but what we practice
that gives us integrity.
—Francis Bacon, Sr (1561-1626)

Acquiescence

Qui tacet consentire vidétur — Silence gives consent.

Your position description and even your contract of employment can change without your explicit approval — if your silence (in the face of changes) offers that consent.

Most changes in duties aren't particularly worrisome. Indeed, some are welcome. And, I am not suggesting that every change to your position description requires your agreement. This is about changes that should have your explicit agreement — but don't get it. That's particularly true of changes that are out of keeping with the nature of the job for which you were hired, and, thereby, may affect your contract of employment.

If a change is proposed that you're willing to accept (but only temporarily), then it's useful to have an explicit understanding. And that usually means specifying an ending date or event. But whether explicit or not, make sure that the passage of time doesn't demonstrate what the words didn't — that the change was permanent.

If you're worried, have the Union assist in clarifying the duration of the change.

It's also possible to confirm, unwittingly, "temporary" matters as permanent. For example, if in an annual performance review you refer to your stellar performance of tasks unilaterally added by your boss, that submission might be taken to indicate your acceptance of those duties.

It is a stupid goose that listens to the fox preach.
—French proverb