Under the Carpet - by Kenth Cound

 This post was originally made on June 27, 2024 but it is now modified to remove names Senior Legal counsel and My assigned legal counsel from PIPSC, so as to preserve the integrity of the arguments.

My assigned legal counsel from PIPSC, screwed me over.  It occurred on a day in May 2023. He may have gotten directions from PIPSC senior legal counsel to throw me under the bus any way he could.  It was a great arrangement since legal did not want to represent me since they considered me to be an unsavory member of the union steward contingent. It worked out for My assigned legal counsel from PIPSC as well since he had gotten a job offer from a larger public service union and he wanted to get my cases off his plate as soon as possible so he could move on.

My assigned legal counsel from PIPSC might not agree with this summary however to suggest that he was just bested by the legal council for the employer would be too simplistic. He was given explicit instructions from me to negotiate a settlement in return for my dropping my cases. Instead, he negotiated something different and wedged me into signing it with threats of getting nothing and of being forced to sign by the board. So, this bright young man has a notch in his proverbial gun, and I am sidelined.

I did not hear from My assigned legal counsel from PIPSC until April 2023. At first, he looked at those grievances and his thoughts were that much of what I had been punished for was not even disciplinable. I am not sure how or when his course changed or when he received the job offer from Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) but he sure could not wait the three week for the labour board to convene to hear my cases.  I was very confident I could get my job back or something in lieu and the manager behind this would be punished somehow.

If you have worked in the government before you will know that you must not step out of line by questioning what is going on. If you are a steward, you are a natural target. In January 2020, at age 64, I had my building pass taken away from me and was no longer allowed back into my workplace. Unfortunately, My assigned legal counsel from PIPSC did not seem to care what my chances of winning at the labour board were or where his plans would leave me emotionally and financially. Maybe he saw it as too much work when he was already moved on from PIPSC in his mind.

Now I am pissed, and I cannot hide that.  I will likely remain pissed at My assigned legal counsel from PIPSC for a very long time. I am also concerned that the legal council at PIPSC is gone rogue. I have valid issues with how I was treated, and some convincing evidence Senior legal counsel was behind it. Whatever the arrangement that was made between PIPSC and TBS with the result being that I was banished from my job of 12 years, I can only speculate. I am sure it was something the likes of which I never thought could occur in the public service of Canada. Now I know what two faced people at the top look like I will do my best to flush them out and make them accountable.

 

Thinking and Instinct

 

Thinking is comprised of chemical processes producing physical reactions in neocortex neural pathways. These events lead to strengthening of associations between adjacent neurons reinforcing the likelihood that they will be used again should the need arise. In this model synapsis are prone to replicate since the basic structure of the neocortex does not change radically from day to day, while it also allows for the principal of plasticity.

The mind is a function of the human brain organ. It processes information. It does so at the rate it is received by my senses.  This rate may be seen as posing a number of limitations.  We know of two opposing phenomenon namely mental overload and boredom. These occur in the neo-cortex at a rate determined by an individuals memory functions. Information arriving faster than the mind can make sense of is supplemented by processing in the amygdala that reconstitutes information and fits its results into a framework developed over time and often referred to as the reptilian brain.

Human instinct can account for this contingency for re-occurring thought which translated means,” a thing you observed but did not immediately make use of.” This theory assumes the existence of a residual experience. Something added up inside or outside of the process and it became clear. It works the same way as thinking does; it is triggered by some input and it translates into some form of activity whether it be a behavioural reaction or a cognitive one.

Equate it to the war room where there are many screens with activity being monitored and suddenly a messenger enters and exclaims that a certain item (maybe something that went off the radar and is no longer being tracked) has been identified as an enemy submarine.  The report originated in an auxiliary area of the brain where further analysis is effectuated. This report might be based on a sudden memory of a similar movement observed but not given much heed at the time, but it was strong enough to leave a slight impression. We may have needed this second observation to reinforce our sense of possibility.

In the case where the observation was identified positively previously it would not make sense to suggest it was not on the books so to speak.  The senses would provide the rational for initiating a tracking reflex, not a thought process. Here we have reiterated the difference between our instinctual senses and our later developed intellect. In other words we may perk up our ears but not yet make that mad dash to the thicket.

How these higher functions develop is a function of evolution and our ability to avoid natural selection taking us as its prey. What happens in the molecular level of the brain may be a mystery but it might suffice to say there was a survival mechanism in it.

For a more indepth analysis I suggest you consider survival. What is it? If you say I am surviving, what exactly do you mean? For example, take a dream, it does not survive waking. Take your career, it does not completely survive being fired. But you may retain aspects of each. You may reconstitute them into a new form and for the purpose of this treatise, your thoughts cannot survive being refuted by new information.

This ability to rehash sensual data may have benefited the early hunter gatherer.  For example: while foraging for food our hunter-gatherer sees a bush with some berry growing on it. The need to eat may spur the tasting of said berry, combining that with the existing knowledge of cycles of plants the combined information makes that berry somewhat identifiable. If the berry episode was positive, or even if not, there was some new entity that might be allowed to survive. It would be the thought that a certain berry was such and such.

The brain develops some more and our hunter lies awake in bed and considers the options for obtaining more of that berry, or that fruit or that potato. All the processes occurring in that part of the brain go toward survival of the memory.  Memory assures survival of the purpose and with that we can say the intact individual is on a survival path.

 

But the reoccurrence factor in this case is somewhat autonomic. Behaviorists are somewhat concerned with dividing the brain functions into a part that is not conscious, one that is sort of accessible memory but not yet formed into physical memory, and the part that is conditioned reflex.  The more we can unearth from our subconscious the fewer mysteries we will be burdened with. There may be a requirement for analyzing the existence of alter egos.  We can read about experiments that show that personality can be non-singular. These alternative “I" exist in the mind of an individual who has certain disorders, maladaptation or quirk. For example: if I were to break away from what I am currently preparing to write about so I could expand on this new theory of schizophrenia it would require that I place some thoughts on pause while I pursue some others. The activity associated with my thesis would split and I would have to decide, whether through a voluntary decision-making process or a process that was not voluntary, which path my mind will proceed upon.

 

What else matters? We can put the figurative
lego back in the box every evening and start anew to recreate our world each day. Yesterday has not survived, it was destroyed through the unmaking of the lego project. There is a new knowledge and it is that there are options we have not yet explored. We have broadened our experience to new levels and it may make a difference today.

Identifying the Enemy

Originally posted 6 March, 2024. It was modified to remove the name (s) of real people in an attempt to preserve the integrity of the arguments contained therein.

Hi. My name is Kenth. Based on my experiences, I believe human beings are guided by principals. These can be as simple as pleasure and pain; maximize one, avoid the other. For the most part we have a concept of a friend. People or a person who will be counted on if the pain grows to be unbearable or your pleasure become too elusive. We have empathy in our friend. By contrast we can only hope, at best for a degree of compassion from our enemy.

I was told by a wise person who shall remain nameless, that I should not look for friends in the workplace. In hindsight those words made sense but left a great deal of human endeavor to be void of humanity. Reducing work to a sterile experiment.

In my pedagogy I learned that there was a good argument for equality of the sexes, both in the workplace as well as in the home or other social settings. I came to realize also that there are those who would argue, and do actions against the principal of equality.

For some, there is no equality among individuals as there are always those who perform better and those who own more of the means of production and we just have to work around the various biases these differences impose.

We can ask what makes for a better friend, similarity of; opinion on topics, economic status, group membership? For the sakes of argument let’s limit the question to how we navigate the workplace. If we have the possibility of making a friend we have a certain power, as Plato said, when we are friendly with another we own them to some degree. We say this person is our friend and we own each other as friends.

Conversely, when another individual proposes impediments in our path, we have the makings of an enmity. How do we come to own our enemy. I suppose we can own the disputes that arise, and our role in their existence. It may even be said that without there being any dispute, there is no ground for hatred or animosity. This is why I believe we must not have hidden agendas towards coworkers. We must be able to rely on the group known as management, to be prepared to navigate disputes, and to seek their resolution in the most human way.

I have heard it said that when we are functioning in a hierarchical structure as most workplaces are, we need to learn to fly beneath the radar so we do not stand out with any of our controversy. I know I am not alone in being persecuted at work. My story is my own and while I am certain there is no perfect workplace, the environment of work should not propose a restricted area for norms and rules about how equality is interpreted.

So I have introduced the workplace. I would now like to introduce the Union. From my point of view, following the events that I experienced, it is safe to say there is a similar structure existent in it. A union may be managed through a similar organizational model with those who hold the supreme power at the top. Since Union presidents are elected from the body of membership ranks, we can be sure the role is rarely occupied by a competent member. The difference is in the potential for power arising from the role. In the union the president has a disproportionate amount of sway in the direction taken in policy.

Therefore, an individual who runs afoul of both the union president, and the department head (or Associate deputy minister in government) is stuck between a rock and a hard place. I will begin here in presenting my case to you, gentle reader, to glean as you will from my experience. The situations in my case are not unusual, in their occurrences. In some sense as well, they could have been dealt with in a more intelligent approach.

My decision to become a shop steward originally at the department of Finance of Canada was a simple one to make. My friend Francois asked. Every workplace needs a union, and every union needs stewards. When I had been hired in government computer services three years previous, I signed an oath to the crown. I was asked to say something like so help me god.   I explained at that time that I do not believe in the existence of a god. That proved to be problematic as I would find myself reporting to several layers of evangelical types. As a new steward I had misconceptions on what my duties were and how to approach management, so I made mistakes.

My first mistake was to assume I could count on a level of respect, a minimal at least level, from managers. I expected that when there would be changes in the workplace I would be informed personally so that I could attend meetings prepared to provide the unions point of view on those same topics. But this did not happen and when I attended a meeting with my colleagues I found myself in a conflict with a coworker who was scheduling the overtime for a project. It happened when I asked the manager if she could assure all team members could have equal access to that overtime, that colleague pointed out in the meeting that I had not volunteered in any of the time slots available.  I clarified that the question was for the manager. I was punished for disrespect.

After the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan there was a day called the day of honour announced by the secretary of TBS because at that time Finance Canada and Treasury Board Secretariate were separated into two departments with me going to TBS. It was encouraged to attend the events planned for that day. Attending another meeting I asked the same manager whether it constituted a day off. The manager was not sure. As it was the day prior to the event I asked that we have an answer as soon as possible. That day I let my supervisor know I would be away the next day to attend events. At 5:10, ten minutes after my shift ended and the service desk I worked at was closed, and everybody else had gone for the day, she approached me and told me I was expected to be at work the next day.

It was impossible to communicate this news to my coworkers. Since I made my intention of being off clear, I took the day off. So I had no expectation of respect being presented. Some might say I did not deserve respect simply because I proved myself willing to go against a management decision. I was promptly disciplined. I was accused of “maintaining that the day was a paid holiday.” In the ensuing disciplinary meeting I explained that I did not consider the day to be a day off as it required attendance at a number of events planned in the day of honour and sanctioned by the Secretary. The top person in TBS.

Maybe discipline is not the word I am looking for. It is their word, for sure. It assumes a lack on the part of the disciplinee.  I asked bing, “what do you call the person who receives discipline?” It obviously confused the question and replied “the disciplined” and you know it is a leap. So I asked about the person who requires discipline. Funnily enough, it gave me the government of Canada web page on progressive discipline. I am close.

There is a need to provide a template for such disciplines. Do you have concerns with an employee's work performance?  Here are the steps for applying progressive discipline in the work place. Immediately there is confusion between performance and behaviour. The template asks the discipliner, usually a manager, to provide the policy that was broken, some reference to the employees actions that were suspect, and the resultant disciplinary action to be taken. The progressive part is about increasing the penalty at each new breach. My problem was that they actually made up policies in order to apply increased punishments and the union was complicit along the way.

I think if person A needs discipline and person B is prepared to provide it, that makes person B a helper. B helps A become more disciplined. The upper level bureaucrats think they are helping when they punish. The concept of agreeing to disagree is not recognized or practiced. They think their response to their personal anger at an employee must hurt that employee somehow for it to work and they think not paying your salary, is appropriate pain, enough anyway, to help you become disciplined. If that top bureaucrat is wrong she does not want to hear about it, and no discussion is possible. I get that. They are floating around in a precarious situation and do not have the time in their rise to the top, to stop and sort things out. My workplace, or hard place has become a harassment zone.

What went wrong between me and the PIPSC union would be a very difficult situation to describe. It began with a fellow steward who raised an important point of order at a board of directors meeting being that one board member was currently an undischarged bankrupt. Being a bankrupt disqualifies individuals from holding an office in the unions decision making body. There is sufficient cause to remove said individual. This did not hold well with the president who sought to solidify some power base she held in the region from whence he came, and felt, I guess, his presence in board meetings was to her advantage somehow. She used a special general meeting to discipline that fellow steward and I went to it. I was not invited as the president wanted as few opposing views as possible. Some, like regional representatives were invited as a matter of course. In any event her motion to remove this guy, claiming he harassed this bankrupt guy was defeated. I was singled out for her ire and I believe she followed through when I needed the unions protection. I should have known this one does not play by the rules.

Fast forward to a time when I need union representation in my workplace disputes and I was cut off. I had to self represent and I attend labour board hearings to argue against treatments I was only covered by in a collective agreement. I was prohibited from using the CA as only the union would be able to.

Enough pointing fingers for now. I have personal issues I think are more important to focus on for a bit. Like the life I have outside of work. Around the time of the first disciplinary action, I fell off my bike and landed on my head. I went to the hospital and was discharged without going through concussion protocol. I was tended to by a Dr. Davoudie who I got the name wrong and it seemed to irritate her. It might be my face. Or my voice, as the executive director once told me, when I speak at meetings he can see the other attendees visibly tense up and cringe.

When I told my wife, E about my reprimand letter for the supposed disrespect she must have been sure it was my fault since she was down on me about my poor performance review as well. I was a guiniea pig for the supervisor's new work objectives and since they were unachievable, containing mutually exclusive work instructions, I was administered an action plan. The manager and the supervisor were having a great time at my expense. Work tended to infiltrate my home life and soon enough my marriage was in the pit.  I had a few run ins with traffic since I bike to my punishing job at TBS and I follow most rules of the road. As a road warrior I probably did not fit your template of a public servant. This would be an understatement. If you had known me in 1990 you would be excused for not seeing how I made it into the Public service. Further if you’d known me in 1980 you would likely have written me off. I won’t get into details here since the subject of work place harassment should have nothing to do with a persons past. A coworker who was once an MMA fighter was more than capable of performing functionary duties. He must have had at least as many concussions as me.  I am not sure what draws someone to the PS but I think it is the opportunity to make an impact in the areas they have been educated in or otherwise have experience and /or expertise.

I sought to join the public service because, since my early teens, my cousin had a splendid life in the foreign service. We looked up to her, my whole family did. Her dad was another story. We mostly joked about uncle Tommy as being cheap skate. In hind sight we were so poor it would be an improvement if we were able to keep a few dollars for bread. As a child there is so much I had to learn about the world. I went through a lot but I always held on the the thought that I was public service material or at least I could get a steady job someplace and pay my taxes and someday get a pension.

I had friends, so I know what it means to be friendly and to count on others who share your views and enjoy similar activities. I experienced moments while working at TBS of camaraderie, but I felt management was watching me even conducting intermitted blind sides like accusing me of being unproductive in a meeting so they could send me home. Or of leaving a meeting without permission when permission was not required. This last one would be my first argument for not returning to the office following a lengthy stint of telework if I was still in the public service, as I could avoid arbitrary attacks by having the ability to blank my screen during a pointless meeting.

In 2018 a new ADM came on as head of the department which was corporate services sector, I met her in the kitchen on the 3^rd floor at 90 Elgin where I operated the service desk. It was an open concept space but she occupied a glassed in office immediately adjacent. As the shop steward, the only one for PIPSC which we will call the union, even though it chooses not to call itself one, so I was charmed that she would speak to me and show some concern for getting to know me. I introduced myself and I mentioned that I was the steward. Maybe it made me feel proud to a degree, like maybe I might be her peer. But it was turned around fairly flatly when I mentioned that I knew a fellow from Saguenay, she said was her home town. She asked for his name from me to which I had to recoil since it went against my creed to toss names around. Since that first encounter, I was not able to reach a level of mutual respect. Plus she went petulant about me calling her Miss when I had said Ms.

I want to say something about the difference between men and women that is more of a traditional one than an actual one. First, women can take the name of their husband which our Karen did. The person can now do real suspect behaviour and hide again simply by changing her name back. I never knew her real family name but if I did, I am sure if I saw it in an invitation list it would make a difference to me. 

Here is why. She is not my friend. There might have been a time when she could have been but things she did made that unlikely. She came to the rescue of my supervisor, a serial micromanager when that individual had lost the handle on reality and instead of getting help for her, she pursued me with the same plan of attack. At the end, these two unsavory people made my workplace a hard place. I know how hate is transmitted and becomes common place when there is a distinction to be made like between me, an atheist, and the three women I mentioned that I reported to being evangelical Christians. The prejudice was palpable and the results brutal.

Like a dog who still loves the master after being smacked with a stick, I continued to hold out that things could turn around. Being in a place now with a much clearer head I see I was dreaming. The wording of those disciplinary articles was undisputable, they were filled with hate and it would be a waste of my time to think I could change their mind when a hardened bias was evident. The union certainly would not help me therefore I was not able to hold the ADM accountable for her actions against me.

If you, gentle reader, are a member of the public service please take heed, and if you are a steward be advised it is only a matter of time before you fall into the cross hairs.  If you are in PIPSC Union management I hope you have a chuckle and it warms your otherwise joyless physical aspect. If none of the above applies, I thank you for your time and I hope you found something of value in my story. And please let me know what you think in the comments or ask questions. I will try to answer them all.