onnectionCC Binghamton Chapter, United University Professions

c

– 1 –

April 9, 2013 No. 82

continued on page 7

New realities, new contract

The last column: What a long, strange trip it’s beenby Jim Dix

Chemistry Department

This is my lastcolumn as one ofyour elected chap-ter officers. Latelyit occurs to me:What a long,strange trip it’sbeen. I will takemy privilege andreminisce for awhile.

I first came toBinghamton on an interview trip in1980. I was in a post doc at HarvardMed, barely heard of SUNY (somestate university system in the East),

From the Chapter President

and never heard of Binghamton. Theplace was suggested to me by a fel-low post doc, so I thought I wouldgive it a look-see.

One look and I was hooked. Bing-hamton had the perfect blend ofsmall college (I had gone to a smallliberal arts college as an undergradu-ate) and a large university. And, oh,by the way, faculty are representedby a union. Union? How odd. Oh,well, I guess that’s New York. Justlet me teach and do my research.

In the early days, the union wasfor me a social organization. Therewas a Christmas gathering, and po-litical events, and places where onecould meet other people that onewould not normally meet.

One day in the 1990s, Bob Pompiinformed me that I had been electedto the UUP Binghamton ExecutiveBoard. I thought that was nice. Afew years later, Bob suggested thatI, as an Executive Board member,should actually attend ExecutiveBoard meetings. I attended and thosewere nice and sometimes fun too.

Then a couple of events transpiredthat really sucked me into UUP. Thethen-UUP Binghamton vice presi-dent for academics resigned to moveto another university, and Bob Pompi(again!) asked me to step in to fill theposition until the next election. Isaid yes, for reasons that are notreally clear to me now. I held thatposition for about a decade.

Another event: because of vari-ous personal difficulties, I was wan-dering around Binghamton aim-lessly in the fall of 1996. My friendand colleague Eric Cotts suggestedthat I check out the Unitarian Uni-versalist organization, which I even-tually did. The UU church (wherethe word church is used with a broadinterpretation) does not have a setdogma, but does have a set of prin-ciples. The first principle I read was,“the inherent worth and dignity ofevery human being.” That principleresonated strongly with me. Likethe hot kiss on the end of a wet fist,it struck me: being in the UUP lead-ership was a means whereby I couldaffirm the inherent worth and dig-nity of human beings.

Being vice president for academ-ics was fun. I could play the role ofloose cannon to President Darryl

by Jim Dix and Fran Goldman

It was the best of contracts, it was the worst of contracts.That just about sums up the new proposed agreement between UUP and

the State that we vote on in April.Viewed globally, we essentially got the same contract that other state

unions got. The State won the trifecta (0%, 0%, 0%, 2%, 2%; increasedhealth insurance premium share; and nine furlough days). With ambitiousaccounting, the State can claim that UUP gave back $87 million as UUP’sshare of the total state workforce savings necessitated by the economiccollapse of four years ago. In that sense, it was the worst of contracts.

Viewed in more detail, however, the proposed contract is the best ofcontracts given the financial realities.

When UUP first sat down at the negotiations table, the State said theonly new money available was the two 2% across the board salary increasesin the fourth and fifth years of contract.

After months of hard negotiation, UUP got the State to put more moneyon the table. However, all of this additional money was to be given to

continued on page 6

Binghamton Chapter newsletterNumber 82 April 9, 2013

EditorLisa Havtur

lhavtur@binghamton.edu777-3734

An official publication of theBinghamton Chapter of the UnitedUniversity Professions, Local 2190of the American Federation ofTeachers, AFL-CIO, and affiliatedwith New York State UnitedTeachers; the Binghamton Chapteris a member of the Broome CountyFederation of Labor.

The opinions expressed in thisnewsletter are those of the authorsor of the Binghamton Chapter andare not necessarily the opinions ofUnited University Professions.

The editor welcomes letters andother comments of interest to theBinghamton Chapter.

UUP Chapter Officers

Jim Dixdix@binghamton.edu

President

Serdar Atavatav@binghamton.edu

Vice President for Academics

Fran Goldmanfrances@binghamton.edu

Vice President for Professionals

Renee FarrisInterim Treasurer

Darryl M. WoodLabor Relations Specialist

Linda O'BranskiChapter Assistant

uup@binghamton.edu

Chapter phone 777-4382

Persons wishing to reprint anyof the contents of our newsletter areinvited to request permission of theauthors directly or through the edi-tor, lhavtur@binghamton.edu.

onnectionCC

– 2 –

Lisa Havtur

Kinky, controversial and cool—Kindness in the workplace

by Lisa HavturNewsletter Editor

When I first came to campus, inthe Compliance Department, Iquickly realized that kind peopleare often compliant people. Fromthis, I deduced that to effectivelypromote compliance, we should alsoeffectively promote kindness. Andwe could start by inviting campusparticipation in a structured cam-paign based on the simple premiseof kindness.

Almost before I had hit the “sub-mit” button on my e-mail inquiry, afront man started pelting me with e-mails and voice mails and requeststo talk to someone with more juice,to invite people with more juice.Suddenly andwithout warn-ing, I was madeaware of my of-fensive lack ofjuice.

It was herethat I started towaiver in my be-lief that thiswould be the bestthing ever for ourcompliance ef-forts. Slowly, Ibelieve in re-sponse to the per-sistent efforts forMORE from thisorganizat ion ,campus intereststarted to recede. I could actuallyfeel it waning as I sat there at mydesk, in my insufficiently juicy of-fice. But everything was set. A roomselected. A notice had gone out to thecampus and to the greater commu-nity. I was pretty sure there was nogoing back once the greater commu-nity has been notified.

The day of the kickoff presenta-tion arrived. I didn’t know exactlywhat was going to happen, althoughever the demented optimist, I envi-

sioned some-thing of unprec-e d e n t e dspectacularity.It looked prom-ising upon ar-rival; a goodcrowd, a bigstage; this couldstill work. I in-troduced thepresenter, an in-dividual I have

been working with for months orga-nizing this occasion. Months. Unbe-lievably, he thanks me very clearlyand with the use of a microphone, bycalling me the wrong name. Firstand last name. Wrong. The conceptof kindness was suddenly receding

from me at agood clip. Whydid I do this?What have I got-ten our campusinvolved with?Or I should say,what did JulieGuditis get ourcampus in-volved with?(Remember allthis, Julie?)

In the end,this particularpresentat iondidn’t ignite ourcampus’s en-thusiasm. Andthat’s okay,

there are other ways to get there.Refocusing on kindness is beneficialto employees, to the productivity,and to life in general. And, unlessyou hire the services of a nationalcampaign, kindness is free.

There are a shocking number ofsimplistic and overly sweet articlesand web sites available. A site withgreat art and good writing capturedmy attention: The Intentional Work-place. This site provides a wealth of

continued on page 4

While it’s not always

easy to reach out to

others ... it will, bit

by bit, contribute a

different energy to

our workplace

culture.

– 3–

by Jim Dix

The premier public university ofthe 21st century will – not tolerateassholes.

Crudely put, that is what is miss-ing from BU’s Road Map. Enhancedteaching effectiveness, internation-alization, research are good thingsto propose, but the Road Map hasnothing about the employees whowill actually implement the RoadMap.What would really benefit em-ployees is a No Asshole Rule.

Several things started me think-ing along these lines. Earlier thissemester, I attended a UUP-spon-sored workshop on bullying whichshowed how negative interpersonalinteractions between supervisors

When Jim sent me his newsletterwrite up about the No Asshole Rule,I wrote and asked him if I was beingoverly prissy to wonder if the word“Asshole” in its entirety would causea storm of outrage. Even as I wrotethat, though, I decided that I wasbeing a big baby and that the use ofa potentially questionable word wasthe least of our campus worries. Andhonestly, no other word conveys quitethe same meaning.

I must point out that never oncedid it occur to me to question ordoubt the existence of bad behavior(aka: assholes) on our campus. Thosewho know me can probably vouchfor my optimistic tendencies, but Ihave not only heard of this behaviorfrom many, many colleagues andfriends, I have also experienced itfirsthand on more than one occa-sion. During our transition to onlinetime and attendance, for example, Ifound myself on the receiving end ofa number of unpleasant tirades, de-livered at such a level of rude feroc-ity that I thought they might actu-ally culminate as a rumble in the

parking garage! It was exhaustingand discouraging and there was, ap-parently, nothing to be done.

Remembering this–and thinkingabout how so many of us flock to theDifficult People and Anti Bullyingworkshops on our campus–I foundmy thoughts changing from worry-ing about one possibly offensive wordto hoping his article really wouldspark something, some form of rec-ognition in those who perpetuatebad behavior, behavior that demor-alizes others, behavior that is anobstacle to positive change. It feelsbadly to behave badly; perhapspeople would welcome a chance tochange, or to at least have the oppor-tunity to consider it as a viable op-tion.

The recent Anti Bullying sessionswere a good opening to this conver-sation. So too will be the new andupcoming Leadership DevelopmentProgram, which Fran writes moreabout in her column (page 7). Add-ing to that, UUP’s recent ExecutiveBoard elections will not only serve torevitalize our Union’s mission, but

The ‘No Asshole’ Rule

Vote early and often for ‘No Asshole’ Rule!Editor ’s Note

those changes can also help spark ashift in our campus culture for thebetter. That is, if we aim ourselvesthat way, if we make it a consciousgoal.

Already on a bright note, Presi-dent Stenger and Provost Niemanliterally shine with wonderful en-ergy and positivity. I feel better justlooking at them and I am very thank-ful to be here during this particulartime on our campus; a time when itis absolutely expected that peoplewill treat each other with respectand courtesy, a time when it feelslike anything is possible–anythingexcept, apparently, ridding our fieldsof geese. Oh, and maybe deer.

Thank you, Jim Dix, for every-thing; for encouraging me, for en-couraging our members, for fillingin for me this issue, for your leader-ship; but especially for raising thisimportant, long-neglected issue.Friends and colleagues, I imploreyou, please vote early and often forthe No Asshole Rule!

–Lisa Havtur

continued on page 8

by A. Serdar AtavSchool of Nursing

In January, the American Asso-ciation of University Professors(AAUP) released a report on issuesregarding contingent faculty em-ployed at institutions of higher edu-cation (http://www.aaup.org/report/governance-inclusion).

The contingent faculty definitioncovers all full-time or part-time fac-ulty who are not on a tenure track orhold tenured positions. Such fac-ulty positions are rapidly increas-ing across the country.

According to the AAUP, “thoughmany people inside and outside ofhigher education think of tenure-track appointments as the norm, inreality tenure-track faculty are adwindling minority on Americancampuses: while in 1975, tenure-track faculty accounted for 45.1 per-cent of the instructional staff, by2009 they accounted for only 24.4percent.”

Of the 867 academics here atBinghamton University, 366 arecontingent faculty (visiting profes-sors, part-time academics, adjuncts

- 4 -

AAUP advice on contingent faculty in governanceon temporarylines, and othersnot eligible fortenure) and 501are tenured andtenure- trackfaculty. Ourtenured andtenure trackfaculty mem-bers represent58 percent ofour academicstaff, putting uswell above the

national percentages. However, keepin mind that the AAUP uses abroader definition of faculty thatincludes teaching assistants. Re-gardless, our percentage is expectedto drop in line with national trends.

Despite such high levels of con-tingent faculty on U.S. campuses,most institutions have not includedthese faculty members in any sig-nificant way in faculty governance.There is increasing fear that anygovernance system that relies pri-marily upon a dwindling number oftenure track faculty to represent thefull faculty’s views becomes less rep-

resentative, less effective, and moreeasily bypassed.

The exclusion of contingent fac-ulty in governance may lead to manyill effects ranging from diminishedacademic freedom to exploitativework conditions. However, there arealso concerns that arise when con-tingent faculty are included in gov-ernance such as failure to be com-pensated for participation in gover-nance and susceptibility to pressurefrom administrators or other facultydue to their non- secured positions.

In their report, the AAUP makesthe following five recommendations:

• “Faculty” should be defined in-clusively rather than exclusively;faculty status should not be limitedto those holding tenured or tenure-track appointments.

• Faculty members who hold con-tingent appointments should be af-forded responsibilities and opportu-nities in governance similar to thoseof their tenured and tenure-trackcolleagues.

• Faculty governance must beexercised to be real.

• Academic freedom and gover-nance reinforce each other. Whilegovernance work helps to supportfaculty status, a secure faculty is apre-requisite for free participationin governance.

• All faculty members should beafforded academic freedom and due-process protections, whether theyhold tenured, tenure-track, or con-tingent appointments.

This issue deserves our attentionover the next few years. As we striveto become the ‘premier’ public uni-versity in the United States, it isincumbent upon us to carefully ex-amine and discuss these recommen-dations. We need to take a leader-ship role within the SUNY system toaddress the role of contingent fac-ulty in faculty governance and findan approach that reflects the uniquecharacter of Binghamton University.

From the V ice-President for Academics

A. Serdar Atav

information, including an explana-tion of my new, non-juice relateddeficit: Empathy Deficit Disorder(EDD) (http://intentionalworkplace.com/2011/04/28/why-do-we-have-to-% E 2 % 8 0 % 9 C p r o m o t e % E 2 %80%9D-kindness-at-work/).

Below is an excerpt from an ar-ticle on the site:

“There is an artificial separationand compartmentalization that mostorganizational structures impose onhuman connection. Those structuresand systems often inhibit open com-munication and contact, despite theera of teams. But those obstacles

don’t have to stop us, as individuals,from reaching out to our co-workers,even with a smile, acknowledgmentor thank-you.

Ultimately, our actions are dic-tated by our thinking. What we be-lieve about kindness in the work-place (and outside of it), what webelieve about people (including our-selves) and their “motives,” and whatwe believe about the possibilities forcreating change will determine whatwe do. While it’s not always comfort-able or easy to reach out to others,it’s almost always gratifying. And itwill, bit by bit, contribute a differentenergy to our workplace cultures.”

continued from page 2Kindness in the workplace

- 5 -

By the numbers: staffing trendsby Jim Dix

The charts on the right give thetrends for the number of full-timeand part-time UUP-represented fac-ulty and professional staff atBinghamton from 2006 through2012, displayed for April and forNovember of a given year.

Three notable trends emerge.• The number of full-time aca-

demics increased significantly inthe past year, in line with BU’spriorities for spending new tuitionmoney.

• The number of full-time profes-sionals increased slightly, but notenough to get back to the level be-fore the cutbacks of 2008-2010.

• The number of part-time pro-fessionals increased significantly,while the number of part-time aca-demics has remained at about thesame level as the past few years.

Meetings, strategic plans, hiringproposals are useful, but actions thatgenerate data give the real priori-ties of the administration.

(Note: the data represent the num-ber of UUP-represented employeeson the State payroll, and may differfrom administration numbers thatmay include employees on leave. The

data points in April and Novemberwere chosen for display because atthese time points, fluctuations inemployment due to beginning-of-semester changes had stabilized.)

Total Rank

President and DelegateRoth, Benita 211 XAtav, A. Serdar 1Goldman, Fran 1Michael, Sandra 1Synder, Robert 1Kahn, Rebecca Ineligible

VP for Academics and DelegatedeHaan, Heather 107 X

VP for Professionals and DelegateGoldman, Frances 126 XGallagher, Lisa 1Havtur, Lisa 1Morris, Andrew 1Seymour, Jill 1Sweeney-Cummings, Karen Ineligible

Secretary/TreasurerFarris, Renee 214 X

UUP official 2013 election report, Binghamton ChapterKane, Kathleen 1Morris, Andrew 1

Officer for ContingentsOldfield, John 215 XFiori, Victor 1Russell, Melissa 1

Academic DelegateDix, James 110 1Atav, A. Serdar 93 2Pages, Neil C. 91 3Michael, Sandra 81 4Massey, Sean 2 5Pompi, Robert 2 6Zinkin, Melissa 2 7Whittingham, M. Stanley 2 8Lees, Alistair 1 9Jones, Wayne E. Jr 1 10O’Conner, Thomas 1 11Cotts, Eric 1 12Stevers, Eugene 1 13

Shephard, Edward 1 14Seibold-Simmons, Susan 1 15Sayma, Hiroki 1 16Park, Seungbae 1 17Fridrich, Jessica Ineligible

Professional DelegateGallahger, Lisa 98 1Stone, David 94 2Havtur, Lisa 91 3Chidester, Ed 84 4Kilmarx, Beth 82 5Santobuono, Sharon 77 6Oldfield, John 76 7Kunkel, Donald 74 8Jackson, Gordon 69 9Farris, Renee 65 10L’Hommedieu, Stuart 59 11Goldman, Joseph 50 12Seymour, Jill 3 13Cornick, Bonnie 1 14Kane, Kathleen 1 15

– 6 –

individuals at the discretion of Man-agement, and was not to be added tothe base salary.

UUP fought hard to get at leastsome of the discretionary moneychanged to an across-the-board in-crease on base. In our last contract,Management did not give 14,000 ofthe 32,000 UUP-represented em-ployees any of the discretionaryfunds, and to have all the new dis-cretionary money go to only a frac-tion of our members again wasagainst what UUP stands for. UUPwas eventually able to convert $1250per represented employee of the dis-cretionary funds to an across-the-board increase for everyone for thisand the next two years of the con-tract ($500, $250, $500).

UUP never gave up in trying toconvert all the additional Statemoney to base, but the State (and,since they sit on the same side of thetable as the State, SUNY) was ada-mant that it not be on base. Man-agement cannot now complain thatthere is no money on base for it touse to recognize what it considersmeritorious service when it arguedso strongly at the negotiations tablethat such money should not be onbase. Furthermore, Managementhas in the past, and can now, in-crease any employee’s salary by anyamount for any reason. It’s just thatnow, UUP is unable to provide themoney to do so.

Several other details in the pro-posed contract make it the bestcontract. We were able to get ourhealth insurance premium in-crease retroactive to only the be-ginning of this year, rather thanretroactive all the way back to Oct1, 2011, as other unions had. Wemanaged to lose only two furloughdays pay, rather than five dayspay as other unions initially had.Our other seven furlough days willbe treated as lag pay.

For the first time ever, there arecontractually specified salary in-creases for career milestones (ten-ure, permanent appointment) oryears of service. These fall under theTriborough amendment, whichmeans that they continue in forceeven if the contract expires.

The discretionary one-time sal-ary increases are split between con-tingent (non-tenure or non-perma-nent track) and non-contingent em-ployees on a per-capita basis ratherthan a pro-rata salary basis, helpingin a small way to redress gapinginequities of our contingent facultyand professional staff. These andmany other positive details give theproposed contract a whiff of roses.

Additional details of the contract,

along with a calculator to determinethe economic impact of the proposedcontract on an individual employee,will be sent to all UUP members assoon as the State and SUNY finalizedetails on the furlough plan.

Voting on the new contract willbegin with ballots mailed to mem-bers April 19, and will end May 15.Note that only UUP members canvote on the proposed contract.

The authors of this article areabsolutely convinced that this isthe best contract we can get fromthe State given the current fiscaland political climate. We baseour conclusion on having spent 12months of preparation before sittingdown with the State, crafting con-tract proposals that took into con-sideration as may members’ sugges-tions as possible; having sat acrossfrom the State for 18 months at thenegotiations table (Fran); and hear-ing updates as part of the Negotia-tions Committee (Jim).

Voting the contract down and go-ing back to the table will not get usany better deal, and will probablyresult in the loss of some of the hard-fought perks we have in the currentversion of the contract. We stronglyurge a yes vote.

continued from page 1

New realities, new contract

Chief negotiator Jamie Dangler reviews the tentative new contract withUUP delegates at the Winter DA.

El-

Wis

e N

oise

tte

Love and Profitby James Autry

Listen.In every officeyou hear the threadsof love and joy and fear and guilt,the cries for celebration and reas-

surance,and somehow you know that con-

necting those threadsis what you are supposed to doand business takes care of itself.Someone needs to say “amen.”

– 7 –

by Frances L. GoldmanAsian and Asian-American

Studies

As I have mentioned on numer-ous occasions, UUP has been astrong advocate for mandatorysupervisory training for all whoare in a supervisor role atBinghamton.

Whether your supervisoryskills are well- honed or need fine-tuning, everyone can benefit fromsuch training, and given the num-ber of supervisory issues that UUPhas dealt with, the reality of anactual leadership developmentprogram–that Management hasbought into and helped develop–is encouraging.

Working with Management, Iam happy to announce that aLeadership Development Pro-gram (LDP) has been designed inconjunction with the Center forLeadership Studies and the Uni-versity Center for Training andDevelopment.

The goal of the LDP is to pro-

Supervisory training: A necessity long overdue

From the V ice President for Professionals

vide anyonewho supervisesothers on cam-pus with theb e h a v i o r s ,skills and com-petencies thatcan be used toincrease theireffectivenessand better mo-tivate theirstaff. The first

group of 40 (two cohorts of 20 each)will be part of the pilot program thatbegins in October and ends in De-cember 2013.

The LDP will consist of three half-day face-to-face interactive sessions,additional online modules andmentoring. Individuals may be nomi-nated or self-nominate to be part ofthe LDP. More information will beforthcoming on how to participate.

UUP sees this as a positive steptoward effective supervisory train-ing and the effective interactionsbetween supervisors and staff.

On another note, please remem-

ber that if you have requested apromotion or salary increase andhave not received a responsewithin 45 days from your supervi-sor, or an additional 45 days foreach supervisory level below thatof the president, you have theright to request a review by theCollege Review Panel. The con-tact person for this committee isDon Guido (guido@binghamton.edu). You can contact me for fur-ther information (frances@binghamton.edu.)

Finally, as you all know, wenow have a tentative agreementbetween UUP and the State ofNew York. (See the article by meand Jim, page 1.) I would alsourge you to read the informationon the UUP website (uupinfo.org)concerning the Agreement. State-wide UUP will be sending infor-mation to all members that willprovide detailed explanationsabout the Tentative Agreement,including contract article changesand a Q & A document that coversall aspects of the Agreement.

Woods’s staid leadership role.Darryl went on to become the

NYSUT Labor Relationship Special-ist, and chapter bylaws dictated thatI should become President. I nowhad to play the role of President:wear a suit, keep my hair cut, pro-mote professionals and academics,hobnob with the big wigs, toe theunion line. That was three yearsago. After a few missteps (memo toself: never talk to the Chronicleagain), I felt I hit stride, using the

union power to affirm the inherentworth and dignity of every person werepresent.

As I and most of the elected chap-

ter officers move on (Fran Goldmanwill be the only returning officer),it’s time to take stock and definewhat the union will be in the comingyears. Want all our dues money to bespent on social events? Speak up!Want to hold seminars on profes-sional development? Talk to Execu-tive Board members! Want to marchon the Administration Building?Make signs! We have the opportu-nity to define what a premier aca-demic union will be in the 21st cen-tury. Get involved!

continued from page 1

The last column: What a long, strange trip it’s beenIt’s time to take stock

and define what the

union will be in the

coming years.

continued from page 3

The ‘No Asshole’ Ruleand supervisees create an unpro-ductive and unhealthy work envi-ronment. I read the book, The NoAsshole Rule, by Bob Sutton, man-agement professor at Stanford,which delineates and documents thedestructive effects assholes can haveon an organization. A colleaguepassed on a blog post, AcademicAssholes and the Circle of Niceness,pointing out how one can advanceacademically, and is almost expectedto advance, by being an asshole.

One of UUP’s functions at BU isto serve as a conduit by which repre-sented employees can talk aboutand redress grievances. I reviewedthe last ten grievances brought tome, using the framework providedby the workshop, book, and blogpost. Seven of the ten cases can betied directly in whole or part toasshole behavior on the part of su-pervisors. In their meetings withme, supervisees document the abso-lutely crushing effect such behaviorhas on their personal lives, as wellas the dysfunction the behaviorbrings to the unit.

Management is and has beenaware of these issues for some time.Over the past two and one half years,UUP has been pushing supervisortraining, and that training be man-

datory and that there be a longitudi-nal assessment of the effectivenessof the training. Management hasresponded by rolling out this fall apilot program called the LeadershipDevelopment Program. As Franpoints out in her column on page 7,this is a positive step.

Unfortunately, it appears fromdiscussion at the last Labor Man-agement meeting that the programwill not be mandatory and there willbe no longitudinal assessment. Inmy view, without these two impor-tant aspects, the newly developedLeadership Development Programis just a glorified extension of theonline training exercises we cur-rently take. There is no university-

United University ProfessionsBinghamton ChapterLSG 516Binghamton UniversityPO Box 6000Binghamton, NY 13902-6000

wide policy on consequences of nottaking the online training, and thereis no follow up on whether the onlinetraining is doing any good. As Suttonpoints out in his book, pro formaadherence to a policy is often worsethan no policy at all.

What are needed are clear state-ments and actions from top manage-ment down that supervisors will betrained, assessed, evaluated andvalued on not only goals that areachieved, but also on how well theymanaged people to achieve thosegoals. Without these clear state-ments and actions, employees seeassholery, see that Management isaware of assholery, see that nothingis done and therefore assholery isimplicitly condoned by Management,and are consequently physicallycrushed, psychically crushed, andcan’t work to their full potential. Apositive culture created by clearstatements and actions from Man-agement would spread to improveinterpersonal interactions amongpeers as well.

We have the opportunity to de-fine what the premier public institu-tion will be in the 21st century. Ourdefinition should include intoleranceto incivility, with consequences ofbeing uncivil. In other words, anenforced no asshole rule.

Seven of the last 10

grievances can be

tied directly to

asshole behavior

by supervisors.