From the Student Representative Assembly requiring a survivor to disclose their assault in order for the removal of a perpetrator on the assembly to news of rampant sexual assault within the McMaster Students Union Maroons, this past year has been filled with controversy.
Given the events of this year, and what has occurred in the past, it is shocking that the MSU lacks a formal human resources department.
HR departments exist to deal with workplace disputes and ultimately ensure that employees are aware of their rights as minimally outlined by the Ontario Employment Standards Act. This includes the creation, implementation and enforcement of policies and structures that support employee rights like formal complaint structures and disciplinary policies.
Currently, the only HR presence that exists within the MSU is through the operations coordinator, Maddison Hampel. Though Hampel has formalized HR training and experience, her role does not allow her to adequately support all HR functions of the MSU.
Unfortunately, the only HR-focused training for student employees ends at the mandatory online workplace health and safety training modules that all employees of McMaster University are required to complete.
The majority of student employees, myself included, have never even been formally introduced to Hampel or made aware of our employment rights during our training sessions.
If we had a formal HR department, it is extremely likely that the Maroons sexual assault allegations would have been dealt with appropriately.
In fact, with a proper HR department, policies for sexual assault and workplace harassment would likely already be in place, and be created by individuals with the expertise to do so.
A formal HR department could also allow for better and more comprehensive hiring practices wherein individuals who were previously reported to the department are properly dealt with and not re-hired for other positions within the MSU, a consistent problem of the institution.
At the very least, an HR department that is independent of the MSU could allow student workers to feel comfortable reporting any issues. As it stands, I report my workplace issues to my direct supervisors, but this gets complicated if my concerns are about individuals in positions of power.
An HR department can ensure supervisors are accountable for their actions and held to an expected level of professionalism.
Josh Marando, president-elect of the MSU for the 2019-2020 year, has acknowledged that the lack of a formal HR department is an issue. One of his platform points is to restructure the internal operations of the MSU.
According to his #BuildTogether platform, he plans to divide the current full-time staff position of operations coordinator to create a specific HR coordinator who is independent from the board.
While the operations coordinator’s role would be shifted to focus largely on supporting clubs and internal operations, the proposed HR coordinator is meant to “support our students through connecting with university programs that have a focus on equity and anti-discrimination.”
Though creation of an independent HR coordinator is an important first step, it is not enough. The MSU is comprised of over 40 full-time permanent staff and 300 part-time student staff. A singular HR coordinator cannot possibly support this vast number of employees.
The lumping of the HR coordinator role with equity and anti-discrimination programs can also be problematic. Certainly the future HR coordinator can and should consult with equity groups to ensure their policies are consistent with student needs, but it is important that the two ultimately remain separate.
This is because it is possible that issues concerning diversity and discrimination may arise from the HR department. This would then make it difficult for individuals to report issues to the same department where the issues stem from.
What the MSU needs is a full-blown autonomous HR department, with policies in place and trained personnel. Only through implementation of an HR department can the MSU truly account for the safety of its student employees.
It’s important to remember that students employed by the MSU are employees. They deserve the same respect and safety enforced by a HR department in any other workplace.
Honestly, student workers should be unionized to ensure their rights are defended. Until they are, the MSU must do a better job in the 2019-2020 year of protecting their employees through implementation of formal HR resources and personnel.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By: Jordan Graber
At an institution such as McMaster University, the subject of free speech is not an easy discussion. After Jordan Peterson, a controversial psychology professor from the University of Toronto came to visit McMaster, this has sparked immense discussion amongst students, faculty and other sources in Hamilton.
It has been argued whether in this circumstance free speech had been impaired when Jordan Peterson was not able to deliver his lecture or was practiced freely by the students who felt his words were offensive and oppressive to certain communities.
Despite his outlook that this might do good for McMaster students, faculty and guests, much like creating a smoke-free campus, this is in no way a good idea. The effects this policy, which was created by a specific demographic group, will merely take away the ability to fight from marginalized groups and sway even more power from the right side of the political spectrum to the left.
Issues involving language towards the LGBTQ+ community is no light subject, considerably in modern society where the inclusion of these bodies is stamped in the media. Mr. Peterson’s refusal to use gender-neutral pronouns towards his co workers and students has placed him at the centre of debate over gender and free speech.
Protesting gives students power. It gives them the ability to participate in movements that are bigger than one person
With the implementation of this policy, the social inequalities and issues that so many different groups fight for will be protected. If there were to be future speeches or guest lecturers who were to speak against these groups and their beliefs, there would be no ability to fight back and defend their beliefs, which is a basic human right that should be fought for itself.
In addition to the exclusion of marginalized groups and lack of community discussion, the application of the anti-discrimination policy will promote those who sit at the right end of the political spectrum disempower those who sit at the left. This leaves the protestors. Citizens who often lean to the left end of the spectrum will be left with little advocacy when it comes time to implement this policy.
Without advocacy for social democracy and change, we are left with a significant barrier and inequality among political groups and followers. This could create a social divide amongst McMaster students and allow for events and speeches that discriminate against or offend different communities. Once again there are implications that this policy will divide the McMaster community, leaving many without a true voice.
Protesting gives students power. It gives them the ability to participate in movements that are bigger than one person. With the placement of a policy which restricts the boundaries of a true protest, the ability to spark change at McMaster may diminish. It would reduce advocacy for minority groups and the left hand political spectrum, as well as leaving students without a voice.
It is difficult to speak up and to fight, however when it is done it starts a trend that can create real change in a society or community. It gives people purpose and meaning in their lives which is important for the future leaders of this city and this world. People like Jordan Peterson have their rights to free speech but taking away those rights from a spectator creates contradiction.
McMaster is a place where change for the better should be encouraged, not lessened. Anti-disruption is, in theory, a good plan. It does not, however, teach the students of McMaster that their voices are heard and are important, which should be the sole purpose of an institution like this.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Five professors in the DeGroote School of Business have been handed “lengthy suspensions without pay” by the University after a tribunal of their peers found their misconduct resulted in a “poisonous and hostile work environment.”
In 2011, two complaints of harassment were filed by and against faculty in McMaster’s business school.
An anti-discrimination tribunal set up to address the complaints recently released its 26-page public report. The report summarizes the tribunal’s findings after two years of proceedings, 2694 documents and testimonies from 65 witnesses.
In the first complaint, five faculty members filed a harassment complaint against a senior administrator and McMaster University.In the second complaint, seven faculty members and one staff alleged that six faculty members, including four who filed the first complaint, harassed them. One counter-complaint was filed against one of the initiators of the second complaint.
A tribunal, made up of three tenured McMaster professors, was commissioned to hear the complaints. They found that several professors committed “serious and multiple” acts of misconduct.
“The most egregious misconduct involved the unlawful and self-serving interference with tenure and promotion,” according to the public report.
“Permanent removal was a remedy seriously considered for some of the individuals. In the end, it was not determined to be necessary,” the tribunal stated, as the University allowed some delays in the process and certain decisions by a “non-party senior administrator” also contributed to the workplace hostility.
The tribunal recommended that three professors should have “lengthy suspensions without pay, benefits, privileges or access to the University’s premises.” It was recommended that two other professors also be suspended, but for a shorter period of time. One other individual will receive a written reprimand.
The identities of the suspended professors have not been disclosed due to a confidentiality agreement. The tribunal did not specify how long the suspensions should last.
McMaster president Patrick Deane issued a statement calling the “complexity and number” of the complaints “unprecedented” at the University.
Deane stated that he “fully accepts the Tribunal’s findings” and has “already begun the process of implementing the recommended sanctions and other remedies.”
Following the release of the tribunal’s report, three business classes were cancelled this week.
McMaster spokesperson Andrea Farquhar said the department is working to ensure all classes are up and running again by next week.
“[The School of Business] has been successful in finding a number of well-qualified instructors,” Farquhar said, to temporarily take over from the suspended professors.
“It will certainly be a priority for us to minimize impact on students,” she said.
The tribunal dismissed allegations against the senior administrator accused of harassment and abusing his power.
The tribunal also found there was no “direct harassment or malicious behaviour” on the part of the University. However, it stated that University must “accept some responsibility” for the unacceptable workplace environment and review its anti-discrimination policy. The tribunal recommended sensitivity training for the reprimanded professors.
The complaints were filed a year after former business dean Paul Bates resigned. Bates stepped down amid disputes among the faculty and claims of bullying. Some believed he was not a qualified academic as he had industry experience but no university degree, while others defended him. The issue created a rift between business school faculty.
Bates, who was not specifically named in the tribunal’s report, still works at McMaster as a special advisor to the president.
Since the tribunal began investigating the complaints two years ago, proceedings have been kept out of the public eye.
Farquhar said it was necessary to protect the identities of the university employees involved in the complaints.
Individual sanctions have taken effect immediately while other recommendations will be gradually enforced.
“There are some recommendations on reviewing the [anti-discrimination] policy, for instance, and some sensitivity training – that takes a little bit of time to implement. The policy will go to the Senate,” she said.
