More people today than ever hold university degrees and college diplomas than before in our educational history. It is said that at some point in the future, 70% of all jobs will require some type of post-secondary education. More than one in five Ontarians have at least one university degree, and approximately one third completed training at a community college level. Students graduating from post-secondary institutions are fraught with problems of student debt. Others have trouble finding work in their field.
At the same time, we hear about employers crying out about a so-called 'skills shortage'. We hear that hundreds of thousands of civil servants, professionals, tradespersons, etc. are all going to be retiring in the next ten years and somebody has to replace them! The facts look grim. People are having less children. That means there will be fewer workers to support those who end up retiring in the years to come. Skills development is a major issue with many employers in both the public and private sectors. However, how come many services continue to provide what is at best mediocre responses to these problems?
For some of this, I blame the situation on 'consumerism'. In the past twenty-five years, consumers of a variety of types of services, ranging from addictions, to social services, to mental health to employment supports, have wanted and deserved a greater say in how these services are shaped and delivered. In fact, during the 1990's the move went to the point of hiring unqualified consumers to actually provide many of these same services that we generally expect to received from trained individuals. Consumers who were unable to succeed academically have decried what they referred to as 'credentialism' and pushed for the emphasis on 'life experience' as an actual criteria upon which to make hiring decisions, as opposed to actual skills for the job. People who lived in poverty can best help others who live in poverty. People with mental health problems can best help others with mental health issues, and the list goes on.
When somebody with any type of credential accidentally slips through the hiring process, movement leaders soon try to find a way to get rid of them, on the grounds that somebody with a disability that actually has legitimate credentials couldn't really be disabled or really couldn't be truly disadvantaged. While it is true that a lower percentage of persons with disabilities, for example, have completed college and university than their non-disabled peers, but the numbers among persons with disabilities are not insignificant. So throughout the 1990's, consumers were hired in a broad range of jobs to provide support services to other consumers, counselling, advocating on their behalf and to set up consumer-run initiatives, like drop-in centres and such. However, most of these programs -- though funded -- were not successful in capturing true consumer representation at the political level, or developing programs that truly met the needs of the whole population of consumers they were to serve.
Please do not take this as an anti-consumer rant, as the concept of hiring consumers in various positions is a good one, but required skills, qualifications and expectations of these positions should not differ whatsoever from the requirements for positions open to non-consumers. In discussing this with various consumer leaders in Ontario, I have still not ascertained from any of them how "life experience" can be measured objectively in a way to contribute to one's candidacy for a paid position. What about your "life experience" itself makes you more qualified to be an accountant? What about "life experience" and how it applies to your capability in handling a multi-million dollar budget and programming objectives? If you were a recovering alcoholic, does this make you more capable of running a large residential program for addiction treatment services?
In any kind of job, we set out what we require the worker to do on a regular basis and some tasks that may be done on an infrequent basis, and what types of skills or training we might expect in the individual at the minimum to fill these duties. For example, if you are looking for an administrative assistant for your non-profit organization that provides supportive housing to people, what skills and qualities might you look for in such an individual? I would expect that this person have excellent oral and written communication skills, significant skills in organization, training and experience in working with Windows business applications, good listening skills, and the ability to use accounting software and to manually re-check figures down to a monthly trial balance. A radical consumer perspective would say this person must be homeless or have been homeless, which to me is not as important as having those other above skills.
Why is it important to consumer groups that people have "been there"? They want people who have empathy and understanding toward their client group. They do not want to have people serve them that have bad attitudes and prejudice against people in their 'group'. Empathy is an important trait to have, but empathy does not necessarily come strictly from "being there" and even among those who have been there, this does not make them necessarily "empathetic". I have been in positions of authority that involved the hiring of personnel, as well as dealing with personnel issues and policies. In one agency where I was in charge of human resource issues, I successfully made an argument to the board to create a job sharing arrangement for the position of its executive director. This type of arrangement was practically unheard of at the time, as the board naturally would want a full-time executive to oversee its $2.5 million budget and 14 ongoing initiatives. The existing executive director wanted to temporarily reduce her hours as she had young children at home and the person with whom she would share her duties was somebody who was seeking greater challenges within the organization. At the time, I had no children. However, this executive director was a fine worker and did have children and it was important for her psychologically to seek a better 'work-life' balance. This would lead to her 'in office' hours to be even more productive, knowing that she had more time for her family.
I remember long after this initiative passed and she since returned to her full-time duties. She wondered why I was able to understand her needs, when I had no children at the time and wasn't concerned about daycare issues and so forth. I responded that as chair of human resources my responsibility is to our employees and to maximize their productivity and support a 'work-life' balance. For her, the issue was children. For somebody else, it may be the care of an elderly parent. For another person, it may be a disability issue. I do not have LIVE these issues in order to understand how they relate to that person's happiness and productivity within the organization. As human resource chair, I took the term resource seriously. How an organization sets up, designs and designates its human resources effects how services are delivered to those in need.
In another example, I have experience as a person with a disability. I know how it affects me, as well I know how I am best accommodated regardless of the type of job I am doing. However, a colleague of mine may also have experience as a person with a disability; her experience may have reflected even more negatively on her life or more positively than my issues did on mine. How does a potential employer of either of us justify hiring one or the other of us based on "life experience" as the primary factor when indeed both of our perspectives, while both valid, differ substantially from one another? Even two people with the same disability deal with their issues in completely different ways ... I've met many examples of the "angry blind man", as well as the "passive user of a scooter" (that didn't think social issues were important to her life). Again, both perspectives are important, but neither addresses how much skill either of these people have in doing a particular job.
What this "life experience" issue does is politicize the positions and make them open to a form of favourtism and bias, based solely on the opinions and political views of those doing the interviewing and hiring. I have heard from women who did marvellous work in the community for victims of rape and post-traumatic stress disorder, but who were turned away from prospective positions on a board or on staff because they did not believe Karla Homolka was completely innocent of her crimes, or that they did not share the sexual orientation of the key leader in the organization. I have nothing against persons with different political opinions or people with different sexual orientations; it is just that none of these things determine whether you can do or not do a particular job. People in these situations certainly do have a right to an opinion, but an opinion does not equal expertise.
For example, there was once a program where people who dropped out of high school were solicited to sit on a panel and write a report on how to keep people in school until they graduate. I don't think it is necessary to be a high school drop-out to provide expertise in this area, although I do feel high school drop-outs can contribute their opinions and experience to an expert panel that has training and knowledge in educational and curriculum matters to explain how their school experience could have been made different for them to encourage them to stay. Then the experts can translate that experience, while continuing to consult with the drop-outs and others with an interest in the issue, to re-formulate the school experience to make it better for everybody.
But unfortunately, this is not what we're getting. We have untrained mental health consumers providing counselling to other mental health consumers, many of whom could be quite fragile at that point in their lives. Some consumers do not believe in psychiatry and medicine, for example, for the treatment of mental health issues ... while this belief is not necessarily without grounds, it is risky to pursue this option with somebody who may be better in an environment where trained professionals can work with them. These same untrained consumers go to boards, councils and policy meetings to try to get more money for theirs and other similar organizations by trying to make the argument that consumers have some kind of "preference" to work with other consumers. This assertion is of course not backed up by research, but should be considered suspect once in funder's hands ... although it is never questioned in the way it should be, or are funders pushing for any kind of quality control.
Again, I am not saying people who have problems should not be delivering services to people of the same experience. Many independent living centres have developed a broad range of services for persons with disabilities and at least half of their staff must be persons with disabilities. From the want ads for many jobs in the independent living centre, they do expect some type of credentials as well as some "direct experience in working with persons with disabilities". Boston University's Centre for Psychiatric Rehabilitation has as its director a person who is trained as a Psychiatrist, but he has also been diagnosed as having schizophrenia. Jean Campbell runs a large consumer-controlled research and evaluation network and she is endowed with a PHd, as well as being a consumer herself. Mary Ellen Copeland has written a number of books on coping with various mental health issues, and has herself advanced to a Master's Degree. However, this does not seem to be the case here in Ontario, where anti-education and anti-credentialism continue to rule the roost.
This does not only apply at the local level but also at the provincial and federal level as well. An experiment people can try is to ask the paid leadership of consumer-based organizations what levels of education they have and if they claim nothing beyond high school (or even nothing beyond grade ten or eleven), ask again how they feel they developed the skills to do the work they are doing. If they are doing legal research, this takes training. If they are doing financial management and budgetary planning, this also takes training. If they are doing public relations and advocacy, this also takes training. If they are developing a skills-based course, and are attempting to evaluate its effectiveness, this also requires training. No amount of "personal life experience" in the world is going to teach people how to do these essential elements of a job.
One does not need to look very far to learn that many (though not all) of these organizations provide mediocre services and advocacy work. I personally do not feel I am represented as a person with a disability by any of the mental health and most of the cross-disability groups although a few of the cross-disability groups are starting to "get it" and understand what a democratic process is about and what inclusion really means. For example, I enjoy working with ODSP Action Coalition, Citizens with Disabilities - Ontario, Canadian Association of Professionals with Disabilities, as well as a few more traditional groups that are attempting to develop and broaden their democratic processes. The leadership of these organizations structure themselves into committees which everybody with a disability can join and everybody's voice gets heard on a near consensus basis. While not a disability organization, but utilizing a 50% structure of persons with disabilities on all committees, the work being done on the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act is also very broad-based, representative and has the set-up to bring in broad public input into its deliberations.
But what is mediocrity? Mediocrity is a consumer offering 'self-help' group meetings, where the facilitator often does not show up and if they do, they do not know how to truly facilitate discussion and maintain confidentiality of their proceedings. I once managed a small consumer group here in the Niagara Region that was set up for both families and consumers and some of my members attended meetings and events held by other groups, both in the region and the province. In the small meetings, discussions tended to go off course. People's private information somehow accidentally gets disclosed or discussed in other groups. At the provincial level, a workshop on board development ended up to be a rant on how the gays and lesbians empowered themselves, as the facilitator for this workshop walked around the room smoking a cigarette. I've also heard of cases where people were seeing these consumer leaders for "counselling", often coming back more confused ... often they were told they should be going off their drugs or seek so-called "naturopathic therapies". While I have nothing against these choices, these choices need to be delivered and explained by a professional person and monitored as they are chosen.
People who are paid to facilitate these groups must have training in human behaviour, as well as how to deal with people who may be in deeper need than what the group situation can offer. Psychologists and social workers that operate these types of groups have this training. Others do as well, but most "consumer" leaders don't. Just as I, as a Licensed Paralegal, has to know the difference between the type of work I can competently assist or represent a client with ... and what work I either should or must refer to another Licensed Paralegal or Lawyer. As part of being licensed, regulated and accountable, you are ensuring that a consumer of service is receiving the right type of service and is getting it from the most competent provider. For example, many of my colleagues in the legal profession - Paralegal or Lawyer - know very little about human rights law, so they refer to me. I, in turn, refer them work in provincial offences or bankruptcy matters. Other times, economics rules and Lawyers refer to Paralegals that specialize in certain areas because the law office cannot complete a certain type of file economically (e.g. an accident benefit claim that does not have a tort component, a landlord/tenant issue).
I also speak up a lot at Coalitions, meetings, councils, position papers, etc. While I do not disclose private or confidential matters of clients, I generally speak of how people are affected by a certain law or policy. I talk to my clients too on important matters and register their concerns. For example, many of my clients cannot work at all, so I do talk a blue streak about how this group of disabled persons is being discriminated against. This does not include me, as I consider myself in the labour force, just not happy being self-employed (though the work I do is fine). I continue to speak of single people with disabilities, even though I am married with children. I speak of those with additional income sources, such as private pensions, EI, etc. and how unfairly they are treated. For me, I only push the CAP-D agenda and the need for more accountable services.
In employment, for example, our only national mental health consumer group thinks it is fine to replicate a program of somebody else's creation, BUILT Network, and develop and enhance its growth across the province. But, did any of you who have mental health problems ever get asked by anybody about the type of work you want to do? Of course not. BUILT Network, while suitable for mildly disabled individuals who are job ready and possibly high school educated who may know their way moderately around a computer, is not suited for everyone. This will not get people with higher education and professional qualifications into their careers. It will not help those for whom only self-employment is an option, nor will it help people that require a substantial amount of job coaching. For those entering call centre type careers, this is high risk ... most of those jobs have high turnover and for many employees in this type of work, they find it stressful - particularly somebody with problems to begin with.
Did anybody ask ME what I wanted? Of course not. Nor is there a detailed evaluation of the program carried out by an external body with no interest in the results. BUILT Network is not the only program that is guilty of mediocrity and promotion of mediocrity; many job programs are developed so that participants do not enter jobs that pay more than $8 - $10/hour. BUILT Network is just following where the money is, as opposed to what consumers really want and need, much like other programs. I said the same about the Job Bus, ODSP, Ontario Works, etc. It is easier to put your eggs in one basket and not challenge the status quo by truly improving the lives of your consumers. A large component of these programs must be advocacy, but unfortunately, this is sadly lacking - possibly because many of these organizations are based as charities, or because the people running them do not know how to effectively "bite the hand that feeds them, but still get fed".
But unfortunately, as long as the public and those served by the various programs passively accept less than satisfactory and services that are not consumer-based, individualized services, the majority of people needing these types of supports will continue to be without service or receiving ineffective service. It is important now to look at what qualifications these jobs require, hire better trained and skilled staff and invite professionals with disabilities, skilled immigrants, older persons with significant experience in these areas, and our labour market needs will be more than met ... until then, we are wasting too many people who are now wasting their lives on OW, ODSP or in low-paid jobs that do not take their skills into account or even pay their bills ... while some others continue to work in jobs that are well over their heads and remain accountable to nobody.
Showing posts with label credentials. Show all posts
Showing posts with label credentials. Show all posts
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
THE BULLY IN THE WORKPLACE
Many of us remember being taunted in school or watching others going through the same. At the time, we view those initiating the taunts as bigger and tougher than the rest of us. These people pushed their weight around on the school property and tried to rule the roost, as one might say. Those who were their unfortunate victims were often told to ignore the bully of the bunch, or to throw their fists back at 'em. Some of these victims grow up to recall their childhood years as traumatic in many ways and have developed low self-esteem, eating disorders and trouble forming and staying in relationships due to trust issues. However, most believe they escaped the bullies when they left the school yard; unfortunately, this is not the case.
The school yard bullies (and others who grow up to emulate them) only grow up to carry on their tirade in the workplace. This leads to the newest concept in bullying that is only beginning to gain recognition: workplace bullying. While it is not certain how many workers are or have been subjected to bullying in their jobs, a recent edition of Canadian Business estimated this is a costly enterprise. It is estimated that in terms of annual costs, loss of productivity, reliance on social benefits, legal costs, cost of staff turnover, among other direct bearers of cost, workplace bullies create an annual bill of approximately $24 billion.
How does workplace bullying take place? Workplace bullies can act in a very subtle manner, whereas they target the worker by exclusion, the initiation of rumours, forming an "in group" of workers and colleagues to build an alliance against the worker, as well as providing anything from confusing direction and supervision to outright removal of key job responsibilities. This process is designed to make the worker fail, targeting the worker for even further harassment and victimization as a result of the alleged failure.. These next steps can include forced attendance of the worker at "meetings" at which their performance becomes the target of ridicule and attack, personal criticisms of the worker are aired and encouraged to be aired in front of other co-workers and colleagues. The worker becomes blamed for all real or imagined ills of the organization to such a point where it seems that the worker has no remaining redeeming qualities. This treatment often continues to the point where the worker is isolated from others, offered little or no support and eventually, the treatment given results in the worker either quitting or taking "sick leave". It doesn't usually end there, as often the bully makes it difficult for the worker to access employment insurance benefits, short or long-term disability benefits from the workplace and often times, will try as they might to prevent that worker from obtaining another job.
Most workplace bullies are serial bullies. A colleague they might have counted on yesterday to jointly deride and attack the original worker may be chosen as their next target. Why? Because after they can bully the original worker no more, the bully has to find somebody else to taunt and victimize. Very often, workers, one by one, are taunted and bullied in succession until they are all out of the organization and the bully can replace them with his or her "friends" and "allies" to help them keep their jobs. Bullies are always the winners in 93% of the cases studied by the Workplace Bullying Institute, a think tank organized by Gary and Ruth Namie. That means, the bully is the one that gets to stay in the organization and their jobs often become even more secure, and it is not uncommon for them to even get promoted. If the bully is the chief executive officer or president of the firm, it is more than likely their board of directors is either complicit with the bullying or ignorant of it. Complaints by targets of bullying are too often overlooked or disregarded, as the bully usually possesses enough charisma to continue to manipulate how a situation is viewed.
Who are these bullies? In general, bullies tend to be persons who are generally incompetent in the positions they occupy. They may lack the requisite education or management skills to work successfully with other people or to operate even the most basic tenets of the business. As my husband often reminds me, "They want to wear the uniform, but not take the responsibility". Often, they are jealous of their targets and are constantly fearful that their targets will expose their overall incompetence. Bullies are also often, though not always, involved in unethical conduct - meaning, they may be misusing company money for personal purposes, hiring friends and relatives, operating afoul of environmental or professional regulations that may govern the organization they manage. Non-profit organizations are just as likely as private sector organizations to engage in bullying behaviour, though there are more checks and balances in place for private companies. Bullies bully simply because they can. Because non-profit organizations do not have substantial regulatory authority over them, this invites those prone to behave in this manner to join such organizations and eventually destroy them.
Who are the targets? Those who are most often targeted by bullies are individuals who demonstrate a high level of loyalty and ethical commitment to their workplace. They are usually high performers, higher than average in intelligence and work performance measures. The bullies can readily pick them out because they will not likely engage in a task that may be viewed as unethical, illegal or bordering on fraud. The target may be asked to exercise their signing authority, for example, to write a cheque for an unapproved purchase or to cover questionable expenses incurred by the bully or his or her associates. I've seen this happen in non-profit organizations when it becomes apparent that board members are getting paid, or lavish expense accounts are being covered for activities of a diffuse necessity for the organization. The bully hopes that if the organization gets targeted for review or audit that they can point to the target, esp. if the target -- fearful for their job - complies. If the target does not comply or refuses to participate, the bullying escalates. I've seen situations where a target refuses to sign a cheque for a questionable expense, only to be followed by a quick removal of the target as a signing authority - presumably to be replaced by somebody who will spend the organization's money in the manner the bully prescribes.
What happens to the targets? After the bullying gets to a certain point, most targets end up leaving the organization by quitting, being forced out or by taking a "disability leave". The unfortunate thing is that the bully and the organization are seldom held responsible for their actions. If the bully continues the manage the non-profit, the services may continue to be offered in an albeit mediocre manner. Despite this, the bully may be able to convince a few editors and outsiders that what they are doing is truly innovative and change-driven, when in fact, it is the same old same old. People may be afraid to speak up or complain because of the strong personality of the bully, or because they fear they will be cut off from receiving any services at all. I've seen situations where individuals using the services of an organization chose to spoke up, only to be accused of something outrageous like theft or assault, with only the bully and perhaps one or two of his or her associates to "back it up". Because there is little accountability for non-profit organizations, such organizations can basically do whatever they want to anybody they want. Even the limited oversight provided by the Charities Directorate tends to focus its efforts on fundraising practices, as opposed to how people are treated within and by the organization. Further, evaluation of actual services by the charitable sector tends to be completed 'internally' and has little or no external comparison to truly measure the effectiveness of the services provided.
The reason I know all of this is because I been there. When I worked in the charitable sector, I was always honest in my reporting practices. If I didn't meet targets, I said so. If I did, I provided documentation and external opinions to support it. However, because there is not a stringent oversight program set up by funders or better yet, an independent government agency (as incompetent non-profits can always keep switching funders and rely exclusively on projects that have no measurable objectives, e.g. "consumer satisfaction surveys" tend to be organized for a positive bias) - nobody really knows how well non-profit programs are actually working. In a business, accountability is built in. It's called the "free market". If a business hires and supports an incompetent manager, sooner or later it will pay. When an incompetent manager is a bully and "friend" of the owners, the person's job description usually gets shifted as opposed to having them removed. Many times, the bully will eventually be removed if there is a change in ownership or management or if the person does cause damage to the business itself. But in the non-profit sector, the incompetent person stays forever.
Targets often suffer the ill effects of bullying for a long time. Many become depressed, hypervigilant, anxious and distrusting of their own observations of reality. Many times, this transforms into physical illness, such as bowel complaints, difficulties in sleeping or staying asleep, headaches, fatigue, visual disturbances, arthritic pain, back problems and many have even developed chronic conditions later on after many years of being unable to "get over" the bullying, such as diabetes, heart problems and even in a few cases, cancer. Most targets are reluctant to re-enter the workforce and many do not work again, or they become trapped as "self-employed" perpetually. Those that do work again tend to steer far away from their previous station in the workforce, often accepting jobs that are far beneath their level of skill and education. Workplace bullying substantially increases the demands on the tax dollars for health care, social services and in some cases, emergency housing and prison. Families often split up, leading to more pressure in the courts and impacts on any children of the marriage.
In my practice, I meet with different targets of workplace bullies. Many choose to take legal action, but unfortunately, litigation against the employer may only result in a cash settlement for "time in lieu of notice". Punitive damages against the employer are rare, as the proof rests with the plaintiff to prove the employer acted in a high-handed and deliberate manner in the termination itself. The law may take prior behaviour into account, but the most this will do for a target is to increase the number of weeks owed in "lieu of notice". If the person quit their job because the workplace environment was poisonous and hostile, the worker must prove this fact as well to receive damages for what is known as 'constructive termination'. In these circumstances, it is often better for a worker to hang on until they actually get terminated, unless they can prove 'constructive termination'. However, there is case law, which I will not detail here, that does provide a standard and reasonable "tests" for a plaintiff attempting to prove 'constructive termination'. But nevertheless, the legal process is arduous, slow and by its nature, adversarial. Quite often, the bullied worker has become so weakened by their experience, that re-experiencing the same in a legal setting may be too much for them. Unfortunately, bullies know this - which is why they carefully choose their style of harassment and try to maintain tight control of the workplace (to avoid unexpected witnesses in the plaintiff's favour, for example).
What can be done about workplace bullying? To me, whatever is done must put the full financial and legal culpability on the shoulders of the person or persons responsible for the bullying or who otherwise knew about the bullying but did little or nothing to stop it. Companies and non-profits should not be allowed to hide behind the corporate veil. Bullies should not be allowed to continue in their employment with the company. Financial compensation should be provided to the target for not only lost earnings, but for counselling services, relocation, finding a new job or vocation, as well as any medical care that may not otherwise be covered under OHIP. Targets of workplace bullies should not have to turn to Ontario Works or its disability program, Ontario Disability Support Program, as neither program can even pretend to cover lost wages. Usually what follows going on these programs, especially Ontario Works, is bankruptcy, loss of one's home, loss of one's health and a downward spiral that only makes it more difficult to get oneself back up. Why should a target of workplace bullying be re-victimized after they were forced out of their job, and quite often - their vocation?
While businesses can be more tightly monitored through industry standards and regulatory bodies (and individual bullies be more closely monitored and regulated through the same), non-profit organizations and their management should be licensed and regulated because they do not have the same market pressures that businesses have, thus they don't have an incentive to keep costs down and incompetence to a minimum. At the present time, anybody even with a grade six education can show up and get hired as an executive director. While this sounds facetious, quite often this person has a brother, a spouse or a close friend on the board of directors. While technically this is not accepted, it goes on all the time. The job of executive director goes to somebody they know and like (or can convince people that they do indeed have qualifications they do not in fact possess such as claiming prior business experience), rather than somebody that can do the job.
Perhaps, there can be a law that people vying for this type of work must have a minimum level of education, as well as training specifically in human resources, finance and ethical conduct. Think this is not possible? If people that do what I do can be licensed, insured and have to follow a code of conduct, even though I can honestly say I do not earn anything ... thanks to the present government's meanderings .. so can they! To me there is absolutely NO difference between a worker in a non-profit organization that provides services and looks after money and people, than what I do. If the person is found to be bullying or committing some other offence, they can be subject to complaint and disciplinary process, possibly losing their license or being fined and/or suspended for a period of time. A manager or ED who is not a member of another licensing body can then be forcibly put off the job. If the organization continues to protect them? That organization can immediately lose all of its funding, government contracts and other privileges, such as charitable status.
Some of the above recommendations may sound tough and hard-hearted, but this is what the real world works like in an ethical private sector company, particularly one that is regulated by an outside body such as financial services, insurance, securities, etc. Yes, there are certainly companies in these sectors that do include bullies - but it becomes visible more frequently and can indeed quickly become unprofitable, thus producing the pressure necessary to remove the problem. If somebody is attracting a number of lawsuits to a private firm as a result of being a bully, this hurts for-profit companies more than non-profit organizations. Private sector companies do have other challenges, which can be addressed in other ways (such as tougher employment law enforcement, workplace safety and environmental regulations). It is almost like taking a choice between two evils.
In my view, it is BECAUSE of the lack of accountability and lack of workplace expectations in any organization that invites the abuse of workplace bullies. If a company has a reason to fear consequences for example for keeping a workplace bully or allowing such behaviour to continue, they will be more careful in applying human resource policies and ensuring people are protected as much as possible from this kind of internal strife. If workplace leaders and managers had a reason to fear consequences of poor conduct, then they will be more likely to ensure they perform professionally and treat their co-workers and subordinates with respect. If a bully wants to barge their way into a workplace because they want to wear the uniform, but not take the responsibility, they will think twice about even trying if they know they must be licensed, follow a code of ethics and be insured, etc. before they can even be hired in such a job. This certainly will not get rid of all workplace bullying, but will reduce it substantially enough so that there will be less targets and those that do exist will have real remedies as opposed to what happens now, where they are forced to be re-traumatized again and again as they struggle to basically survive.
Your thoughts?
The school yard bullies (and others who grow up to emulate them) only grow up to carry on their tirade in the workplace. This leads to the newest concept in bullying that is only beginning to gain recognition: workplace bullying. While it is not certain how many workers are or have been subjected to bullying in their jobs, a recent edition of Canadian Business estimated this is a costly enterprise. It is estimated that in terms of annual costs, loss of productivity, reliance on social benefits, legal costs, cost of staff turnover, among other direct bearers of cost, workplace bullies create an annual bill of approximately $24 billion.
How does workplace bullying take place? Workplace bullies can act in a very subtle manner, whereas they target the worker by exclusion, the initiation of rumours, forming an "in group" of workers and colleagues to build an alliance against the worker, as well as providing anything from confusing direction and supervision to outright removal of key job responsibilities. This process is designed to make the worker fail, targeting the worker for even further harassment and victimization as a result of the alleged failure.. These next steps can include forced attendance of the worker at "meetings" at which their performance becomes the target of ridicule and attack, personal criticisms of the worker are aired and encouraged to be aired in front of other co-workers and colleagues. The worker becomes blamed for all real or imagined ills of the organization to such a point where it seems that the worker has no remaining redeeming qualities. This treatment often continues to the point where the worker is isolated from others, offered little or no support and eventually, the treatment given results in the worker either quitting or taking "sick leave". It doesn't usually end there, as often the bully makes it difficult for the worker to access employment insurance benefits, short or long-term disability benefits from the workplace and often times, will try as they might to prevent that worker from obtaining another job.
Most workplace bullies are serial bullies. A colleague they might have counted on yesterday to jointly deride and attack the original worker may be chosen as their next target. Why? Because after they can bully the original worker no more, the bully has to find somebody else to taunt and victimize. Very often, workers, one by one, are taunted and bullied in succession until they are all out of the organization and the bully can replace them with his or her "friends" and "allies" to help them keep their jobs. Bullies are always the winners in 93% of the cases studied by the Workplace Bullying Institute, a think tank organized by Gary and Ruth Namie. That means, the bully is the one that gets to stay in the organization and their jobs often become even more secure, and it is not uncommon for them to even get promoted. If the bully is the chief executive officer or president of the firm, it is more than likely their board of directors is either complicit with the bullying or ignorant of it. Complaints by targets of bullying are too often overlooked or disregarded, as the bully usually possesses enough charisma to continue to manipulate how a situation is viewed.
Who are these bullies? In general, bullies tend to be persons who are generally incompetent in the positions they occupy. They may lack the requisite education or management skills to work successfully with other people or to operate even the most basic tenets of the business. As my husband often reminds me, "They want to wear the uniform, but not take the responsibility". Often, they are jealous of their targets and are constantly fearful that their targets will expose their overall incompetence. Bullies are also often, though not always, involved in unethical conduct - meaning, they may be misusing company money for personal purposes, hiring friends and relatives, operating afoul of environmental or professional regulations that may govern the organization they manage. Non-profit organizations are just as likely as private sector organizations to engage in bullying behaviour, though there are more checks and balances in place for private companies. Bullies bully simply because they can. Because non-profit organizations do not have substantial regulatory authority over them, this invites those prone to behave in this manner to join such organizations and eventually destroy them.
Who are the targets? Those who are most often targeted by bullies are individuals who demonstrate a high level of loyalty and ethical commitment to their workplace. They are usually high performers, higher than average in intelligence and work performance measures. The bullies can readily pick them out because they will not likely engage in a task that may be viewed as unethical, illegal or bordering on fraud. The target may be asked to exercise their signing authority, for example, to write a cheque for an unapproved purchase or to cover questionable expenses incurred by the bully or his or her associates. I've seen this happen in non-profit organizations when it becomes apparent that board members are getting paid, or lavish expense accounts are being covered for activities of a diffuse necessity for the organization. The bully hopes that if the organization gets targeted for review or audit that they can point to the target, esp. if the target -- fearful for their job - complies. If the target does not comply or refuses to participate, the bullying escalates. I've seen situations where a target refuses to sign a cheque for a questionable expense, only to be followed by a quick removal of the target as a signing authority - presumably to be replaced by somebody who will spend the organization's money in the manner the bully prescribes.
What happens to the targets? After the bullying gets to a certain point, most targets end up leaving the organization by quitting, being forced out or by taking a "disability leave". The unfortunate thing is that the bully and the organization are seldom held responsible for their actions. If the bully continues the manage the non-profit, the services may continue to be offered in an albeit mediocre manner. Despite this, the bully may be able to convince a few editors and outsiders that what they are doing is truly innovative and change-driven, when in fact, it is the same old same old. People may be afraid to speak up or complain because of the strong personality of the bully, or because they fear they will be cut off from receiving any services at all. I've seen situations where individuals using the services of an organization chose to spoke up, only to be accused of something outrageous like theft or assault, with only the bully and perhaps one or two of his or her associates to "back it up". Because there is little accountability for non-profit organizations, such organizations can basically do whatever they want to anybody they want. Even the limited oversight provided by the Charities Directorate tends to focus its efforts on fundraising practices, as opposed to how people are treated within and by the organization. Further, evaluation of actual services by the charitable sector tends to be completed 'internally' and has little or no external comparison to truly measure the effectiveness of the services provided.
The reason I know all of this is because I been there. When I worked in the charitable sector, I was always honest in my reporting practices. If I didn't meet targets, I said so. If I did, I provided documentation and external opinions to support it. However, because there is not a stringent oversight program set up by funders or better yet, an independent government agency (as incompetent non-profits can always keep switching funders and rely exclusively on projects that have no measurable objectives, e.g. "consumer satisfaction surveys" tend to be organized for a positive bias) - nobody really knows how well non-profit programs are actually working. In a business, accountability is built in. It's called the "free market". If a business hires and supports an incompetent manager, sooner or later it will pay. When an incompetent manager is a bully and "friend" of the owners, the person's job description usually gets shifted as opposed to having them removed. Many times, the bully will eventually be removed if there is a change in ownership or management or if the person does cause damage to the business itself. But in the non-profit sector, the incompetent person stays forever.
Targets often suffer the ill effects of bullying for a long time. Many become depressed, hypervigilant, anxious and distrusting of their own observations of reality. Many times, this transforms into physical illness, such as bowel complaints, difficulties in sleeping or staying asleep, headaches, fatigue, visual disturbances, arthritic pain, back problems and many have even developed chronic conditions later on after many years of being unable to "get over" the bullying, such as diabetes, heart problems and even in a few cases, cancer. Most targets are reluctant to re-enter the workforce and many do not work again, or they become trapped as "self-employed" perpetually. Those that do work again tend to steer far away from their previous station in the workforce, often accepting jobs that are far beneath their level of skill and education. Workplace bullying substantially increases the demands on the tax dollars for health care, social services and in some cases, emergency housing and prison. Families often split up, leading to more pressure in the courts and impacts on any children of the marriage.
In my practice, I meet with different targets of workplace bullies. Many choose to take legal action, but unfortunately, litigation against the employer may only result in a cash settlement for "time in lieu of notice". Punitive damages against the employer are rare, as the proof rests with the plaintiff to prove the employer acted in a high-handed and deliberate manner in the termination itself. The law may take prior behaviour into account, but the most this will do for a target is to increase the number of weeks owed in "lieu of notice". If the person quit their job because the workplace environment was poisonous and hostile, the worker must prove this fact as well to receive damages for what is known as 'constructive termination'. In these circumstances, it is often better for a worker to hang on until they actually get terminated, unless they can prove 'constructive termination'. However, there is case law, which I will not detail here, that does provide a standard and reasonable "tests" for a plaintiff attempting to prove 'constructive termination'. But nevertheless, the legal process is arduous, slow and by its nature, adversarial. Quite often, the bullied worker has become so weakened by their experience, that re-experiencing the same in a legal setting may be too much for them. Unfortunately, bullies know this - which is why they carefully choose their style of harassment and try to maintain tight control of the workplace (to avoid unexpected witnesses in the plaintiff's favour, for example).
What can be done about workplace bullying? To me, whatever is done must put the full financial and legal culpability on the shoulders of the person or persons responsible for the bullying or who otherwise knew about the bullying but did little or nothing to stop it. Companies and non-profits should not be allowed to hide behind the corporate veil. Bullies should not be allowed to continue in their employment with the company. Financial compensation should be provided to the target for not only lost earnings, but for counselling services, relocation, finding a new job or vocation, as well as any medical care that may not otherwise be covered under OHIP. Targets of workplace bullies should not have to turn to Ontario Works or its disability program, Ontario Disability Support Program, as neither program can even pretend to cover lost wages. Usually what follows going on these programs, especially Ontario Works, is bankruptcy, loss of one's home, loss of one's health and a downward spiral that only makes it more difficult to get oneself back up. Why should a target of workplace bullying be re-victimized after they were forced out of their job, and quite often - their vocation?
While businesses can be more tightly monitored through industry standards and regulatory bodies (and individual bullies be more closely monitored and regulated through the same), non-profit organizations and their management should be licensed and regulated because they do not have the same market pressures that businesses have, thus they don't have an incentive to keep costs down and incompetence to a minimum. At the present time, anybody even with a grade six education can show up and get hired as an executive director. While this sounds facetious, quite often this person has a brother, a spouse or a close friend on the board of directors. While technically this is not accepted, it goes on all the time. The job of executive director goes to somebody they know and like (or can convince people that they do indeed have qualifications they do not in fact possess such as claiming prior business experience), rather than somebody that can do the job.
Perhaps, there can be a law that people vying for this type of work must have a minimum level of education, as well as training specifically in human resources, finance and ethical conduct. Think this is not possible? If people that do what I do can be licensed, insured and have to follow a code of conduct, even though I can honestly say I do not earn anything ... thanks to the present government's meanderings .. so can they! To me there is absolutely NO difference between a worker in a non-profit organization that provides services and looks after money and people, than what I do. If the person is found to be bullying or committing some other offence, they can be subject to complaint and disciplinary process, possibly losing their license or being fined and/or suspended for a period of time. A manager or ED who is not a member of another licensing body can then be forcibly put off the job. If the organization continues to protect them? That organization can immediately lose all of its funding, government contracts and other privileges, such as charitable status.
Some of the above recommendations may sound tough and hard-hearted, but this is what the real world works like in an ethical private sector company, particularly one that is regulated by an outside body such as financial services, insurance, securities, etc. Yes, there are certainly companies in these sectors that do include bullies - but it becomes visible more frequently and can indeed quickly become unprofitable, thus producing the pressure necessary to remove the problem. If somebody is attracting a number of lawsuits to a private firm as a result of being a bully, this hurts for-profit companies more than non-profit organizations. Private sector companies do have other challenges, which can be addressed in other ways (such as tougher employment law enforcement, workplace safety and environmental regulations). It is almost like taking a choice between two evils.
In my view, it is BECAUSE of the lack of accountability and lack of workplace expectations in any organization that invites the abuse of workplace bullies. If a company has a reason to fear consequences for example for keeping a workplace bully or allowing such behaviour to continue, they will be more careful in applying human resource policies and ensuring people are protected as much as possible from this kind of internal strife. If workplace leaders and managers had a reason to fear consequences of poor conduct, then they will be more likely to ensure they perform professionally and treat their co-workers and subordinates with respect. If a bully wants to barge their way into a workplace because they want to wear the uniform, but not take the responsibility, they will think twice about even trying if they know they must be licensed, follow a code of ethics and be insured, etc. before they can even be hired in such a job. This certainly will not get rid of all workplace bullying, but will reduce it substantially enough so that there will be less targets and those that do exist will have real remedies as opposed to what happens now, where they are forced to be re-traumatized again and again as they struggle to basically survive.
Your thoughts?
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
OPEN LETTER TO DALTON MCGUINTY
Dear Dalton McGuinty:
Last year about this time, your government extended its sitting in the House to ram through a substantial 27% pay increase for yourself and other MPPs. Your argument was that if this did not take place, the legislature would have difficulty attracting competent candidates. At the same time this raise was being debated, a Private Member's Bill was in the house, which if passed, would hike the minimum wage to $10 per hour. Certainly, it was no coincidence that no debate took place on that minimum wage Bill, while the rest of your Government took the raise. Personally, Dalton, I would do your job for the salary it was prior to your raise without a complaint. So would millions of other Ontarians, many of whom also are skilled, competent leaders and professionals.
You may respond to this by saying that in October 2007, Ontarians gave your Government a second mandate, somehow excusing the fact that your pay raise was "approved" by the public. I dispute that. Of the total number of eligible voters, only 52% of them bothered to cast a ballot, and among these people - only 42% voted for candidates in your Party. This is hardly a majority mandate, but then again - very few governments have been elected on a true majority basis. However, given this fact, please note that I read the polls differently, and I certainly hope that as the Leader of the Province, you do too and will govern in the interests of all, not just those doing financially well. I am referring to the Poor.
An interesting proposal came from your recent Throne Speech on your Government's plans to develop and set targets with respect to the reduction of poverty in Ontario. Some might have referred to this as the 25 in 5 Plan, which was promoted by groups like Campaign 2000. If your intent is to reduce poverty by 25% in the first five years, please tell me where I can get in line and be among your first. I am well-educated, highly literate, possess excellent organizational and communication skills, and have held senior level positions in various organizations in the past, holding titles including Executive Director, National Coordinator, Policy Analyst, Policy Facilitator, Organizational Development Consultant, Senior Moderator, President & CEO, as well as at present, Independent Paralegal.
I know the English language quite well, and can speak and read passably in French (though I am by no means bilingual). I read three newspapers a day, listen to two news broadcasts a day and read a novel or two every week. I have also been published numerous times in forums, ranging from street newspapers, newsmagazines, academic peer review journals and daily newspapers. I work with people ranging from those living on the streets to people who are presidents of their own companies. I treat everybody I work with well, as well as deal respectfully with parties my clients have concerns to address with. I also moderate several Internet forums on a range of topics; my reading audience from all of my moderated groups exceeds 10,000 readers.
I have no criminal record, nor have I ever had any civil judgment against me. The last time I checked, I had a good credit rating. I have managed budgets in the multi-million dollar range, as well as those budgets of only a few hundred thousand. The audits of these organizations have always indicated my management skills were excellent and accurate. I am also the type of person who could find a purse or a wallet, bearing hundreds or even thousands of dollars ... but my only interest would be to return it intact to its owner.
So, why Mr. Premier, am I seeing people who have poor qualifications, inadequate education and/or have some criminal record being hired in responsible positions, where they have some control over money, or worse, people's lives? Don't tell me this doesn't happen - while this is not the forum to name names or to "out" any organization, but legal actions have been filed against organizations repeatedly because of decisions the organization made that hurt somebody, or has had legal implications. In none of these actions were any of the people responsible ever fired or charged with anything; even when they have proven themselves to be serial workplace bullies, or just plain incompetent, they are still the ones that get to stay in the organization, not the person or persons they have hurt. The decisions to hire these people in the first place are purely political and have nothing to do with that specific person's actual ability to deliver. Yet, while this is going on, many people like me, as well as those people who were bullied, are sitting in the sidelines, receiving ODSP or other forms of assistance, wanting nothing more than to work in a decently paid job that we know we are capable of handling.
Most members of your caucus are university graduates, whether that be in law, medicine, education, business or social work. Pre-election jobs range from Lawyer to Nurse to Business Owner to Administrator; however, I have yet to see somebody get elected whose last job was working at McDonald's flipping burgers. At some point, when you folks either leave politics behind or get voted out, whatever happens first, I can bet my whole life that none of you - absolutely NONE of you, will be seeking work at Starbucks, McDonald's, Wal-Mart or one of the numerous call centres that are set up. Why should you? You are educated. You are experienced, and you have many other skills. I can't argue with that. But, what makes somebody like me, as well as many of my cohorts, who also have advanced skills, any different? We have the same skills, many with even a higher education than I have, but we are all shuffled off to work for Starbucks, McDonald's, Wal-Mart and many of the call centres. Why is it good enough for you folks to demand and be placed in a post-political career that suits your skills and salary needs, while it is not good enough for us to expect and want a similar career - and have help obtaining it?
If your answer is that somebody has to do the scut work, then why does it have to be us? There are many people who do not have skills, or who just need a temporary job while they upgrade their education to the point they can accept a higher paid job. There are others who have dropped out of high school, who do not have the motivation to learn or to finish their education, for whatever reason, who can probably do this type of work until they either climb the corporate ladder, learn a trade or decide to further their education. I am often accused of bias, but then again - I ask why am I being discriminated against in the workplace because I am overqualified, while the jobs that are out there that I can do and pay well tend to value somebody with a driver's license more than a university degree? It is my understanding that if driving a vehicle is not a bona fide occupational requirement, then they cannot require a candidate to have a driver's licence. This is done all the time to people with disabilities, and then study after study is done asking why people with disabilities have a lower workplace participation rate than people without disabilities. When is that going to change?
I certainly hope that it will in MY lifetime.
I note your Government is making efforts at recognizing the credentials of many newcomers who have earned various degrees and professional skills outside of Canada. However, it is time that your Government begins to recognize the credentials of people with disabilities who have earned them, usually here in this country, and will work with them to obtain work that resembles their chosen field, thus getting us truly out of poverty.
If your Government does not want to see newcomers with high level skills working at driving taxis, cleaning hotels, working at McDonalds, etc., which is a fine goal that I also agree with, why is it okay to push people with disabilities in this direction regardless of how much education, how many skills and what our career aspirations are? When are we going to be heard?
Once again, when your Government starts to reduce Ontario's poverty rate, I want to be first in line. Just tell me where to sign up.
Last year about this time, your government extended its sitting in the House to ram through a substantial 27% pay increase for yourself and other MPPs. Your argument was that if this did not take place, the legislature would have difficulty attracting competent candidates. At the same time this raise was being debated, a Private Member's Bill was in the house, which if passed, would hike the minimum wage to $10 per hour. Certainly, it was no coincidence that no debate took place on that minimum wage Bill, while the rest of your Government took the raise. Personally, Dalton, I would do your job for the salary it was prior to your raise without a complaint. So would millions of other Ontarians, many of whom also are skilled, competent leaders and professionals.
You may respond to this by saying that in October 2007, Ontarians gave your Government a second mandate, somehow excusing the fact that your pay raise was "approved" by the public. I dispute that. Of the total number of eligible voters, only 52% of them bothered to cast a ballot, and among these people - only 42% voted for candidates in your Party. This is hardly a majority mandate, but then again - very few governments have been elected on a true majority basis. However, given this fact, please note that I read the polls differently, and I certainly hope that as the Leader of the Province, you do too and will govern in the interests of all, not just those doing financially well. I am referring to the Poor.
An interesting proposal came from your recent Throne Speech on your Government's plans to develop and set targets with respect to the reduction of poverty in Ontario. Some might have referred to this as the 25 in 5 Plan, which was promoted by groups like Campaign 2000. If your intent is to reduce poverty by 25% in the first five years, please tell me where I can get in line and be among your first. I am well-educated, highly literate, possess excellent organizational and communication skills, and have held senior level positions in various organizations in the past, holding titles including Executive Director, National Coordinator, Policy Analyst, Policy Facilitator, Organizational Development Consultant, Senior Moderator, President & CEO, as well as at present, Independent Paralegal.
I know the English language quite well, and can speak and read passably in French (though I am by no means bilingual). I read three newspapers a day, listen to two news broadcasts a day and read a novel or two every week. I have also been published numerous times in forums, ranging from street newspapers, newsmagazines, academic peer review journals and daily newspapers. I work with people ranging from those living on the streets to people who are presidents of their own companies. I treat everybody I work with well, as well as deal respectfully with parties my clients have concerns to address with. I also moderate several Internet forums on a range of topics; my reading audience from all of my moderated groups exceeds 10,000 readers.
I have no criminal record, nor have I ever had any civil judgment against me. The last time I checked, I had a good credit rating. I have managed budgets in the multi-million dollar range, as well as those budgets of only a few hundred thousand. The audits of these organizations have always indicated my management skills were excellent and accurate. I am also the type of person who could find a purse or a wallet, bearing hundreds or even thousands of dollars ... but my only interest would be to return it intact to its owner.
So, why Mr. Premier, am I seeing people who have poor qualifications, inadequate education and/or have some criminal record being hired in responsible positions, where they have some control over money, or worse, people's lives? Don't tell me this doesn't happen - while this is not the forum to name names or to "out" any organization, but legal actions have been filed against organizations repeatedly because of decisions the organization made that hurt somebody, or has had legal implications. In none of these actions were any of the people responsible ever fired or charged with anything; even when they have proven themselves to be serial workplace bullies, or just plain incompetent, they are still the ones that get to stay in the organization, not the person or persons they have hurt. The decisions to hire these people in the first place are purely political and have nothing to do with that specific person's actual ability to deliver. Yet, while this is going on, many people like me, as well as those people who were bullied, are sitting in the sidelines, receiving ODSP or other forms of assistance, wanting nothing more than to work in a decently paid job that we know we are capable of handling.
Most members of your caucus are university graduates, whether that be in law, medicine, education, business or social work. Pre-election jobs range from Lawyer to Nurse to Business Owner to Administrator; however, I have yet to see somebody get elected whose last job was working at McDonald's flipping burgers. At some point, when you folks either leave politics behind or get voted out, whatever happens first, I can bet my whole life that none of you - absolutely NONE of you, will be seeking work at Starbucks, McDonald's, Wal-Mart or one of the numerous call centres that are set up. Why should you? You are educated. You are experienced, and you have many other skills. I can't argue with that. But, what makes somebody like me, as well as many of my cohorts, who also have advanced skills, any different? We have the same skills, many with even a higher education than I have, but we are all shuffled off to work for Starbucks, McDonald's, Wal-Mart and many of the call centres. Why is it good enough for you folks to demand and be placed in a post-political career that suits your skills and salary needs, while it is not good enough for us to expect and want a similar career - and have help obtaining it?
If your answer is that somebody has to do the scut work, then why does it have to be us? There are many people who do not have skills, or who just need a temporary job while they upgrade their education to the point they can accept a higher paid job. There are others who have dropped out of high school, who do not have the motivation to learn or to finish their education, for whatever reason, who can probably do this type of work until they either climb the corporate ladder, learn a trade or decide to further their education. I am often accused of bias, but then again - I ask why am I being discriminated against in the workplace because I am overqualified, while the jobs that are out there that I can do and pay well tend to value somebody with a driver's license more than a university degree? It is my understanding that if driving a vehicle is not a bona fide occupational requirement, then they cannot require a candidate to have a driver's licence. This is done all the time to people with disabilities, and then study after study is done asking why people with disabilities have a lower workplace participation rate than people without disabilities. When is that going to change?
I certainly hope that it will in MY lifetime.
I note your Government is making efforts at recognizing the credentials of many newcomers who have earned various degrees and professional skills outside of Canada. However, it is time that your Government begins to recognize the credentials of people with disabilities who have earned them, usually here in this country, and will work with them to obtain work that resembles their chosen field, thus getting us truly out of poverty.
If your Government does not want to see newcomers with high level skills working at driving taxis, cleaning hotels, working at McDonalds, etc., which is a fine goal that I also agree with, why is it okay to push people with disabilities in this direction regardless of how much education, how many skills and what our career aspirations are? When are we going to be heard?
Once again, when your Government starts to reduce Ontario's poverty rate, I want to be first in line. Just tell me where to sign up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
