I suggest you read the abridged version of the document, which can be found on the website of Jagiellonian University, one of Europe's oldest universities (Krakow, Poland). This is an order from the rector of the university to introduce an anti-mobbing procedure in order to resolve conflicts related to mobbing among faculty members, as well as among university staff who do not have an academic position. But before reading this simple and clear document, I suggest you think about why it has no analogues in Russian universities and in most universities in the former Soviet Union.
Almost all universities in Europe and the US have internal documents designed to prevent mobbing/bullying or overcome its consequences. A new employee or student entering a university/college/school immediately signs a document confirming that they are warned about the consequences of initiating or participating in mobbing/bulling/cybermobbing. This document is kept in the employee/student's personal file and is the basis for the investigation and exclusion of this employee/student if proven guilty. Of course, even these measures do not completely exclude the possibility of finding yourself in a situation where you will be forced out of the department when your “x” day comes — election day for office. But still, with so little effort on the part of the university administration at first glance, there is a sense of security and hope, the same hope that is left in Pandora's box and allows us to live and believe in the power of justice. It would seem that what could be easier than issuing such an order from the rector at any university? Why does this practice not exist in Russian universities and in most universities in the former Soviet Union? I'll assume, following Sergey Alexandrovich Druzhilov, a specialist in university mobbing (see para. Psychological terror (mobbing) at the university department as a form of professional destruction) that disregard for personality, transformed into the employer's disdain for the employee, his feelings and emotions — this is a heavy legacy of totalitarian and mixed regimes of government — is extremely beneficial to the employer. A victimized and frightened employee is easier to manage and easier to maintain a vertical of power. How many times have I been convinced that under such conditions, a university employee's professional qualities are valued much lower than their loyalty and ability to keep a low profile. In Russian universities and in most universities in the former Soviet Union, the intention to retain the best “staff” has always been in conflict with the need to subdue these personnel by offering them a deal. Life at a university “according to concepts” is possible when you do not sign a document on combating mobbing when you apply for a job, but silently agree to overwhelming loyalty, for example, that your Facebook account is no longer “yours”, but your university, and you must write there “with care”. And this is possible because universities do not have open elections for office, and if they do exist, they are held formally — a position is usually opened for their own employee. Open competitions are a headache for heads of departments and university administrations. You never know who can join our ranks? And then, how can we expect loyalty/gratitude from him when no one brought him to the university by the hand and helped “his little man”, so to speak? And then it seems that the contest was announced, and their teachers were frightened to death by a possible invasion of potential outside competitors. They will now work even better, do their best to get over the competition and live to see the next one, complying with all teacher requirements, which have been tightened in recent years by the requirements of the Bologna Education Convention. A candidate for a position who successfully passes an open competition without the mediation of anyone is an almost unattainable dream in the current conditions. This is why there are no and cannot be fair and open elections for office, and why there is no time for anti-mobbing procedures both in the Kingdom of Denmark itself and at a single university.
And a few more words about the linguistic aspect of this document. The Polish language has the words “drwiny” — mockery, mockery, mockery; “zatruwac'” means poison. However, the rector of the Jagiellonian University uses the term “mobbing” to introduce the procedure. I have already written about why the “lofty” words “bullying” and “persecution” are not suitable for legislation and other documents regulating anti-mobbing issues in an institution or state (see para. About the benefits of barbarism). I would like to once again remind the heads of universities and research institutes the simple truth: if such documents appear, people may not be afraid to openly talk about their problems in the team. The atmosphere at the institute will be slightly relaxed, and the very facts of the criminal investigation against the perpetrators of mobbing can be collected and summarized in order to create a document that will serve as the basis for a parliamentary request or for a legislative initiative. And who knows, Russia may one day have an anti-mobbing law. And, as you know, if there is a word in an active dictionary, then active actions can follow. At any rate, there is still hope in my personal Pandora's box.
Order No. 119
Rectors of the Jagiellonian University
December 8, 2014 Patch
Topic: Implementation of the anti-mobbing procedure at the Jagiellonian University.
The order comes into force on the date of signing.
Vice-Rector of the Jagiellonian University for Personnel and Financial Policy
Professor Jacek Popiel
Anti-mobbing procedure at the Jagiellonian University.
Decrees:
1) countering mobbing in the workplace;
2) performing intervention actions in the event of an application for mobbing actions;
3) opening an investigation into the perpetrators of mobbing;
4) supporting actions aimed at building and strengthening positive interpersonal contacts between employees.
The definitions used in this procedure are:
1) mobbing — actions concerning an employee or directed against an employee, consisting in persistent and long-term intimidation, humiliation, ridicule, isolation, which may cause anxiety, underestimate professional suitability, and lead to expulsion from the team;
2) the Anti-Mobbing Commission is a collegial body that is immediately convened by the Rectors to consider a complaint about mobbing;
3) employer — the University represented by the Rector;
4) an employee is a person employed on the basis of an employment contract, appointment, vocation and
regardless of the type of work and position held.
Countering mobbing:
1. An employee who admits that he has been mobbed can report this fact in the form of a written complaint to his immediate supervisor. The immediate supervisor immediately forwards the complaint to the employer. If the complaint concerns the immediate supervisor, the employee forwards it to the employer.
2. The complaint must include:
1) a description of the actual condition, in particular, an indication of specific actions or circumstances recognized by the employee as mobbing during the period when these actions or circumstances took place;
2) evidence in support of the above circumstances, including witness testimony;
3) an indication of the culprit or perpetrators of mobbing;
4) the date and signature of the employee.
3. The employer can initiate an investigation
if information about mobbing is also obtained from another reliable source.
4. An anonymous or unsigned employee complaint is not subject to review.
The procedure for convening an anti-mobbing commission.
1. The employer, within five working days of receiving a complaint about mobbing, convenes an anti-mobbing commission, hereinafter referred to as the “Commission”, consisting of:
1) two academic staff;
2) a representative of employees who are not academic staff;
3) a legal adviser;
4) an employee of the personnel department.
2. A member of the Commission cannot be:
1) the plaintiff;
2) an employee accused of mobbing;
3) the head of the department where the plaintiff is employed;
4) the head of the department where the accused employee is employed;
5) a person who is a spouse, relative or friend whose impartiality can be questioned.
If the Commission recognizes the complaint, the employer takes action,
circumstances that exclude the circumstances stated in the complaint, and counteracts them
repetition, and provides assistance and support to the plaintiff.
The Commission's internal investigation into mobbing following an employee's complaint does not exclude the possibility of either party being referred to trial.
Supplement No. 2 to the anti-mobbing procedure at the Jagiellonian University
STATEMENT
I'm a subscriber below
...
employed at I am the University of Gellon, I declare that I met
with an anti-mobbing procedure at the Jagiellonian University, and I undertake to comply with the ruling.
Krakow.
(Clearly signed by the employee).
.png)
