contractual duty to report colleagues' plans to leave job?

[James]

To maintain anonymity as well as possible, I'll describe the situation like this:

I've been offered a contract from a respectable, though not very prominent, university that includes a clause under duties that the employee shall report information that may have an adverse impact on the institution. I can see how that's reasonable. The example, with the condition "but not limited to," specifies the duty to report "senior" colleagues' plans to seek employment elsewhere in any capacity. That looks like such a heavy-handed way to control a labor force that I expect an institution writes it in the full knowledge the vast majority of people will simply disregard it. If it's an illegal clause, furthermore, it hardly matters because illegal clauses don't void any of the contract's legal clauses.

I can comprehend what's going on if it's some sort of bluff to scare people or encourage informing, but the institution hardly seems so mean-spirited and clueless with dealing with a highly educated workforce. So my question is: Is there some other legalistic purpose of such a clause? I mean some sort of legal CYA maneuver. As a cartoonish example, an institution could include a duty to report your own embezzlement in the full knowledge that embezzlers wlll always capriciously violate that clause in tandem with their embezzling. They might have a clause like that if it causes some combination of conditions to occur that allows cutting off the embezzler more aggressively. I wonder if this "duty to inform" is somehow some sort of useless excess, there only for a legalistic formal reason because it just seems so out of character in this kind of industry to have the nerve to include such a clause. It does says "senior" colleagues, so maybe that's relevant.

[research_prof]

What kind of position is that?

Sorry to say that, but I doubt anyone who is really interested and serious about moving will tell anyone else until the moment they have at least an official offer or even a signed offer with another university.

[James]

I should have indicated: contract faculty, 3/3 load, teaching, research, service, etc.--nothing out of the ordinary.

Incidentally, some people do blab, whether to solicit for advice or just confiding in a friend. It's hard to imagine a friend running to tattle on you. I just wonder about the reasons behind making squealing a faculty duty, contractually, in full knowledge that virtually no one will feel bound to report job seekers.

[mamselle]

Having supported an academic HR unit as an EA briefly, I'd say by observation that HR dumbness is a thing.

Some folks are very much on top of its requirements.

Others not so much.

M.

[marshwiggle]

I wonder if they've had a history of senior people leaving on very short notice (such as a couple of weeks before a teaching term starts) and creating lots of chaos. This could be a way of trying to discourage that.

[jerseyjay]

I have heard of such things in fields where senior people build up a client base. For example, I have been told that among top law firms, if a partner leaves, it is usually done secretly in the middle of the night, with the hope that he (or she) can get out of the office with their client list before the other partners get wind.

In the university setting, I had a friend who worked in IT (setting up and maintaining the computer infrastructure, not helping professors locked out of their email) for a major university we would all recognize. When he gave his two weeks' notice (because he was moving to another city), they thanked him and escorted him off the premises.

For a faculty member this policy sounds less likely and makes less sense. Yes, I could see it would be annoying to have a professor leave right before the semester. (And it is rare that a professor would do that, not just out of professionalism but because hiring a professor usually requires months of lead-time) But between adjuncts and visiting professors and asking other faculty to take an overload, this doesn't seem like an unsurmountable problem.

For administrators it might make more sense, but it seems to be expected now that many administrators do not stay in their position more than five years anyway, so having such a policy would seem a bit too much.

[Ruralguy]

I don't think any faculty would ever obey this policy. I. Wouldn't. I doubt it could even ever be enforced or proven you knew, etc. it seems like a poor attempt at prevention of certain practices that have been mentioned.

[ciao_yall]

I think the only way this might be enforceable is if you learned someone was working FT at both yours and another institution concurrently, in violation of their contracts. Still, the institution would be more concerned about dealing with that employee, not wondering who might have known and didn't say anything. 

Someone simply looking for a job, or expressing dissatisfaction, is not a reason to report someone and certainly not going to have an adverse impact on the institution.

[Vkw10]

The people who get called for references and employment verification know you're seeking employment elsewhere. If the HR assistant gets a call asking him to verify my employment history, that clause suggests the HR assistant would be obligated to report me as seeking employment.

[Caracal]

Someone simply looking for a job, or expressing dissatisfaction, is not a reason to report someone and certainly not going to have an adverse impact on the institution.

Yeah, someone getting another job is just part of the world of academia-and other industries. If the loss of any single person is going to hurt the institution or department that much, something is very wrong. Is it inconvenient? Sure. Maybe you have to hire a VAP (or cover classes with adjuncts depending on the institution) The timeline usually works in such a way that there is plenty of time to make contingency plans.

[Ruralguy]

It says "hurt", not destroy. So, yes loss of certain employees , especially without warning can hurt. But that's their problem. They can work on retention. This sort of reporting of people is one of the weasel processes you should eliminate if you want to retain good people.

[dismalist]

I don't think any faculty would ever obey this policy. I. Wouldn't. I doubt it could even ever be enforced or proven you knew, etc. ...

Precisely! Any institution that puts such nonsense into its labor contracts is not completely sane.

Sign, if one must. It doesn't matter.

[clean]

I will start the reply with the admonition, "If you are not looking out for YOU, then NO ONE IS"

In my experience, faculty have been generally willing to provide sufficient notice, act professionally, and protect the interests of their current employer, even when heading to another employer....  Right up to the point that the university (or more specifically, some HR policy) screws someone. 

Im sure that there are several others that would have similar examples, but at my last job the HR handbook was full of detailed checklists of what to do when someone gave notice.  Included in the plan was (If someone gave notice that they would not return in Fall)
1.  Cancel Summer Classes
2.  Stop health insurance coverage
3.  turn off email
4.  reclaim the parking decal...

So IF a faculty made the mistake of thinking that the university would honor the commitments it had made (for instance, even if the faculty had already paid for the health insurance premiums for the year - if they were on the 12 month pay plan for instance-  they would not pay the state's share, so they gave you the COBRA information.)

How many times does one need to see such BS before the "protect yourself" advice permeates the campus?

Even my current employer has been known to stop paying health insurance IF you tell them that you are not returning in the Fall. 
Summer classes are cancelled ('loyal/continuing' faculty are given the classes is more accurate). 

When it comes up, I have advised faculty to wait until August 1 to resign.  By then it is pretty much too late to cancel anything.

It is unfortunate that the attempt to save the state from paying benefits for non returning faculty bites them in the ass and they end up paying the fees anyway AND then being left in the lurch to find an adjunct, visitor, or full hire replacement on short notice. 

I know one admincritter is still particularly stung that a long serving employee kept it quiet until late July.  She still bristles at this former coworker's name, but how can anyone blame the faculty for playing the game that the administration created?

(At my first job, if 'they' - and 'they' can be any number of influencers' were upset, they didnt just want you gone, they wanted you to suffer! If you work for such a place, you have to keep your head down, mouth closed and look out for your own interests!) 

[Caracal]

I will start the reply with the admonition, "If you are not looking out for YOU, then NO ONE IS"

In my experience, faculty have been generally willing to provide sufficient notice, act professionally, and protect the interests of their current employer, even when heading to another employer....  Right up to the point that the university (or more specifically, some HR policy) screws someone. 

Im sure that there are several others that would have similar examples, but at my last job the HR handbook was full of detailed checklists of what to do when someone gave notice.  Included in the plan was (If someone gave notice that they would not return in Fall)
1.  Cancel Summer Classes
2.  Stop health insurance coverage
3.  turn off email
4.  reclaim the parking decal...

So IF a faculty made the mistake of thinking that the university would honor the commitments it had made (for instance, even if the faculty had already paid for the health insurance premiums for the year - if they were on the 12 month pay plan for instance-  they would not pay the state's share, so they gave you the COBRA information.)

How many times does one need to see such BS before the "protect yourself" advice permeates the campus?

Even my current employer has been known to stop paying health insurance IF you tell them that you are not returning in the Fall. 
Summer classes are cancelled ('loyal/continuing' faculty are given the classes is more accurate). 

When it comes up, I have advised faculty to wait until August 1 to resign.  By then it is pretty much too late to cancel anything.

It is unfortunate that the attempt to save the state from paying benefits for non returning faculty bites them in the ass and they end up paying the fees anyway AND then being left in the lurch to find an adjunct, visitor, or full hire replacement on short notice. 

I know one admincritter is still particularly stung that a long serving employee kept it quiet until late July.  She still bristles at this former coworker's name, but how can anyone blame the faculty for playing the game that the administration created?

(At my first job, if 'they' - and 'they' can be any number of influencers' were upset, they didnt just want you gone, they wanted you to suffer! If you work for such a place, you have to keep your head down, mouth closed and look out for your own interests!)

Its tricky, because while I don't doubt this is true, and you do have the right to protect yourself, a tenure track professor, or even someone on a contract who accepted a position and got final confirmation and then just didn't tell anyone till they abruptly resigned on the first of August is really violating professional norms in a way that might hurt them down the road.

The reason it violates professional norms is that resining in May or June when a new position is official allows everyone to handle things. Telling them two weeks before classes start really could result in cases where colleagues have to scramble to take over your courses and has ripple effects on other people. There's probably some poor new Phd who would love that VAP position.

It also is likely to get weird. If you accept an offer, you really can't expect that information isn't going to get back to people in your department. Even if you are working somewhere with really ridiculous policies, you would really want to consider whether it would be worth it. Obviously I'd never suggest someone do something financially ruinous or dangerous to their health to comply with professional norms, but I also think it might be pretty dumb to piss off a bunch of former colleagues and stain your professional reputation so that you can teach a summer class.

[Ruralguy]

In my twenty two years, I've really only seen people pull out the rug from under us, so to speak, fewer than half a dozen times, and it was always temporary people who found better jobs, usually not academic jobs. Then again, we are small and private, both big factors in being flexible (although these individuals weren't negotiating flexibility,
they just left).

I think Clean is well aware of professional norms, but is simply warning people to be aware of a school's rules regarding keeping offices, insurance, etc. Don't purposefully "be nice" and sacrifice all of these things. It may not even be a factor at many schools. Just be careful.  That is, most schools will allow some compromise on either side. But some won't, so be careful to figure it out.