appendix a)

[jvs84.20/rob]

Date:    Wed, 12 May 1999 11:23:34 +1000
From: Rob <email>
Subject:    Re: BS METER

Terry S- wrote:

>(sigh)

>So, how do we know what the other guy is feeling? (If he doesn't flat-out tell us. Or if he does and we don't believe him.) Or what his intention is? Here in textworld.

I've been a little quiet lately - it's just the availability of emotional energy. I've been enjoying a glorious revolutionary struggle at work.

A staff representative on the University Council sent a global email to all staff reporting on the April Council meeting. His tone was disrespectful to senior management - deliciously so. And he passed on information management would rather have not had quite so publicly disseminated. Another staff member

replied to him, making further disrespectful references to a manager - unfortunately and unintentionally, her reply went global. She apologised to the manager, he demanded she put the apology on global email, and she did.

Then management, saying that they were acting on legal advice, withdrew all email facilities from both staff. No due process, no chance to defend themselves, no-one saw this very suss legal advice. From where I sat, a narcissistically-wounded management lashing out to punish, and if they got away with punishment without process, a very intimidatory precedent being set.

The union got involved, of course, but then individual staff started to use the global email to comment on management handling of the case, which was so inept that it was indefensible. So they didn't defend it, they just refused to back down. The story ran on the national radio network, in the major daily paper, a question was asked in State Parliament, and still the dingalings wouldn't back down. Nor would they defend themselves, so only one story was running in the media.

Staff were having an absolute ball, taking free swipes at an already very unpopular management group. Then a compromise was offered by management, the union supported it, but the members told the union we wouldn't have a bar of it, would sooner strike, and three days later management caved in completely.

Now that's what I call a bloody good fight. We had a clear understanding of the issues (intimidation, punishment without due process), they had a different one (administrative matter only, acting on legal advice), and we won.

Ter/Stan don't convey that to me. They seem angry - both of them - but I don't get the "my teeth in his jugular" vibe. In fact, the mere presence of in interest in how the other is feeling, or how it could be deduced, says this is no fight. We didn't give a shit how management felt, just wanted to force them to retreat. Here, I get some sense of disappointment that people who have been reading each other for so long can still feel so little understood/accepted. My projection, hey?

These are the moments when a Mars turns up, or a Robin or Craig, telling people how they ought to talk to each other. Or a Frank pedals by, farting disdainfully with a smirk on his face, to attract a shower of stones from the apes at the bus stop. Whatever. And the difficult sorting process of what we think, what we feel, what we understand of each other, is again laid aside for a glorious battle with the stupid, arrogant scapegoat. (Sorry, Frank. Projecting again. You of all people will understand.)

So, ter, I'm guessing that you feel more wounded than angry about Stan's response to you. Is that how it is, or is it no business of mine?

Rob

----