Outside work

I don't have a problem with the idea that a university is entitled to have the full attention of its full-time staff.

There are, however, two situations where I am not happy:

1. Where authorisation for outside work is by grace and favour — and it's inequitably doled out; and
2. where the school or faculty is happy for staff to wear their fingers to nubbins, if it's in the service of a "consultancy" where the university takes an inordinate share of the proceeds followed by the faculty taking an inordinate share.

I don't think that there are simple solutions to either circumstance.

Regarding 1: Challenging any entrenched system of favouritism is difficult — at best. At worst it's 'bug on the windscreen' time. A potential hurdle is that the beneficiaries of the inequities may take personal offense to the challenge of the inequitable system. At its worst, staff members opposing the inequities may be subjected to bullying and harassment (and mobbing).

2, however, has within it some more tractable elements. It must be remembered that work expectations for consultancies where the University is getting its cut(s) are simply workload matters. Full credit must be attributed to that work.

These few comments hardly provide a template for addressing the problems of outside work matters. If confronted by such matters, contact your union for tailored advice.

You do not win by struggling to the top of a caste system,

you win by refusing to be trapped within one at all.

—Naomi Wolf (b. 1962)

Back of the truck

In a recent (non-university) case in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, an employee dismissed for allegedly passing "in confidence" bargaining strategy documents to his union sought reinstatement.

In the decision, Deputy President Ives made it clear that:

The Applicant’s explanation to the effect that as, in his view, the material that he passed to the [union] concerned or affected him and that he was, as a consequence, somehow relieved of any obligations relating to the maintenance of confidentiality is, at the least, misconceived and in no measure does it mitigate liability for his actions.

The termination was not overturned.

From time-to-time I'm approached with suggestions that there are management documents that I might like to see: If it isn't public, hasn't been sent to me or sent to a member and if it's clearly confidential, then I don't want it provided in that way. There are other ways and I don't want to see a member's neck stuck out.

The matter of Godwin Grech and the email did not motivate me to address this topic. That situation does offer, however a cautionary tale to those who traffic in such material.

It wasn't too long ago that public universities were, relatively, open books. That time seems to have passed. More and more matters seem to be decided behind closed doors. That, in turn (Freedom of Information and Right to Information Acts notwithstanding), has led to a view that unless disclosure is specifically authorised, then it's prohibited. That, however, is a topic for another day.

Beware of the person who can't be bothered by details.
—William Feather (1908 - 1976)