The University of Washington has fired two different earthquake sensor technicians from the same job in less than a year's time, with the most recently fired technician (March 2007) alleging Workplace bullying in a letter sent to the department chairman and PNSN management dated March 17th, 2007.
This information needs a source. See: WP:CITE. Has this made the news media yet? It should also be made clear why this is notable and relevant to the PNSN article. Katr6722:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't decided to attach a name to that yet. Possibly the letter could be uploaded and linked to. The relevance: Anyone intending to work for this organization, or who intends to deal with its management, should be made aware of their actions. Specifically: that they seem to discount workplace bullying yet are in the process of hiring their third sitting technician in a space of roughly nine months. One fired 06/2006, next one fired 03/2007, and now they are hiring again. This is not a simple job, either, and does require significant preparation.
It should be possible soon, at any rate, to publish this information, as an investigation by the UCIRO contains copies of all relevant correspondence, and it will be made public in about 10 days. What the public will be able to glean from seized correspondence is that (in the two weeks leading up to the latest termination) firstly the latest-fired technician was described as a "valued member of the PNSN" by management of the PNSN, then the employee alleged workplace bullying and a lack of management controls on a USGS contractor. Next we read the manager expressing concern about a grievance from the technician, and then there is an mad-rush, eleventh hour set of emails designed to terminate the employee just before the end of probationary period. Relevant? Oh yeah, it's relevant. It's all true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.244.146.86 (talk • contribs) 03:37, April 13, 2007
Thanks for the reply. I'm sorry about the situation. In the meantime, we're trying to write an encyclopedia and have to follow certain rules. Please take a look at our {{welcome}} template for some of our guidelines. This article isn't a forum for posting complaints about an entity, no matter how true they may be. Katr6704:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I read the Welcome notes... point taken. Well, since there is a pattern of employee dismissals/hirings, which is the hallmark of workplace bulling, it would seem to indicate a chronic problem, and so it doesn't the fall under personal attacks or opinions, but rather a reasonable generalization. There is also the fourth rule which seems to allow flexibility in terms of content. I would argue that a one sentence statement is warranted, after the information is published in 10 days time, since anyone considering employment there would be better off knowning this information than not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.244.146.32 (talk • contribs) 16:55, April 13, 2007
Hi, don't forget to sign your posts with 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~. I'll be sure to take a look when the cited info is added, though Wikipedia isn't really here to help people decide where to work either. You should think about getting an account and contributing to other articles! :) Katr6700:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the cited info will be online, as it needs to be redacted from the university's archives. There aren't firm rules according to the last of the wikipedia guidelines. I see a sentence on a labor dispute at least as equally relevant as the statement "the network started with five sensors." I will try this tilde thing 207.244.146.18201:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
This type of item might be better suited for Wikinews, a sister project designed for more current topics and where first hand knowledge is used. Otherwise you may have problems with sourcing as many times personell files are confidental (even though it's a public school, government entity). Then if it makes the regular news outlets a sentence could be added, but not much more than that since this is an encyclopedia and not a blog. Otherwise an article on large employers like Taco Bell with high turnover would have 10,000 stories on poor working conditions/unfair labor practices/etc. But there is nothing on that topic that I saw, just info on other issues like the e-coli/rat issues from a few months ago and a lawsuit over the mascot. But both are a small portion of the overall content. Maybe you can expand the article in general if you have time. Just be mindful of the conflict of interest guideline if you work there. Welcome to Wikipedia. Aboutmovies19:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I would say that the content of the wikipedia should be relevant and neutral, and appropriate for the scale and size of the organization. Obviously the problems of a few people don't amount to a hill of beans lined up against Taco Bell -- but the PNSN is not Taco Bell (although someone may soon be working there). If you have a technician drop dead of a heart attack in 2004, another fired in 2006, another fired in 2007 -- in a rush job about a week after submitting a grievance alleging bullying and lack of management control -- in an organization of about a dozen people, funded by the public, I just think it's as relevant as anything else related to the organization, and for anyone contemplating working there, essential. It was F Scott Fitzgerald who noted: "Action is character." I will investigate the news, and I believe that when documents are prepared for publication, a lot of the personal stuff is blotted out. My last post for a while. 207.244.146.10723:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
