From robinson at uleth.ca Fri Nov 14 09:45:38 2008
From: robinson at uleth.ca (Tom Robinson)
Date: Fri Nov 14 09:45:45 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Regarding Ian McKenna's letter in the Herald today, I agree that it is
shameful that the injured student is treated as an employee. As much
as we might dislike the language of "client" or "customer" that the
administration has tried to sell us in regard to our students, it is
interesting to see how quickly administration is prepared to use other
language when it is convenient to do so. Can they have it both ways?
And why is there not a large-scale student protest throughout Alberta--
supported by real employees of the our public institutions. Further,
if students have been judged by the courts as employees of the
university, can they not now sue for back wages. A graduating student
would have approximately 5000 hours over a 4-year career. At $10 an
hour, a cheque for $50,000 as they shake hands with Bill would make
the pain of student loans go away.
Does the same hold for patients in an Alberta hospital? Or a taxpayer
visiting City Hall? Perhaps we should extend it to Walmart--a customer
in Walmart becomes an employee by merely entering the building.
Is it possible to check somewhere to determine what kind of insurance
the University has for its administrators?
Tom
On 14-Nov-08, at 8:29 AM, Linville, James wrote:
>
> Ian McKenna has a letter in the Herald today that is of interest to
> the university community. This perhaps is better suited to CAFR, and
> if someone wants to cross post it, be my guest, but since John Vokey
> has THROWN ME OUT OF THIS CLUB, I thought I would openly defy him.
> Ha ha!
>
> Injured student deserves better
> Written by Ian B. McKenna
> Thursday, 13 November 2008
> Lawrence Dzuren is right to criticize the University of Lethbridge
> for its failure to protect students from serious harm, aided and
> abetted of course by the Government of Alberta and the Workers?
> Compensation Board. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, Alberta is
> the only province in Canada that defines university, college and
> even some high-school students as employees of the Government of
> Alberta for purposes of the Workers? Compensation Act.
> So beware, parents. If your 10-year-old daughter is injured by
> faulty equipment in a community education class at the U of L or
> Lethbridge College, she will have no legal right to compensation for
> her injuries no matter how serious and, not having a job, will of
> course receive no workers? compensation. Crazy, eh?
> As for Ms. Larreynaga?s case, the university was aware before her
> ?accident? that the offending library lights were falling, but did
> nothing about it until after her ?accident.? I informed the
> Lethbridge police of this, as the Criminal Code of Canada prohibits
> causing bodily harm to another by the sort of gross negligence
> present in this case. I was informed by an officer (nine years ago)
> that no action would be taken against the university because they
> said they would replace the offending light fixtures. Think about
> it, readers, your teenage child is seriously assaulted while walking
> home from the movies but no action is taken against the assailant
> because he promises not to assault her in future.
> The treatment of Ms. Larreynaga by the University of Lethbridge has
> been scandalous. She was headed for graduate studies and a career in
> scientific research. It is beyond belief she or any other student in
> Alberta, or a three-year-old child in daycare, can simply be deemed
> by the Workers? Compensation Board to be an ?employee? and therefore
> incapable of suing for compensation for injuries caused by the
> negligence of those who are required by law to protect them. For 200
> years an employee has been defined in law as a person providing
> services to another. In Ms. Larreynaga?s case, it was the U of L
> that provided the services, including how to recover from head
> injuries from falling lights.
> I am embarrassed to be an employee of the University of Lethbridge.
> Isn?t anyone else?
> Ian B. McKenna
> Lethbridge
>
>
>
> ?Watching political platforms wishy-washy from election to election
> gives one little hope that extraterrestrials really are guiding
> Terran civilization.? (William Doty)
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ldskeptics-l mailing list
> ldskeptics-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/ldskeptics-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081114/ddc2b41f/attachment.html
From kent.peacock at uleth.ca Fri Nov 14 10:13:12 2008
From: kent.peacock at uleth.ca (Kent Peacock)
Date: Fri Nov 14 10:13:22 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Hi Everyone --
Could someone fill me in on the details of what happened to this
student? I was vaguely aware of it but I have never heard the whole
story. Sounds like everyone should hear it....
Kent
Tom Robinson wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
>
> --------------------
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
> Regarding Ian McKenna's letter in the Herald today, I agree that it is
> shameful that the injured student is treated as an employee. As much
> as we might dislike the language of "client" or "customer" that the
> administration has tried to sell us in regard to our students, it is
> interesting to see how quickly administration is prepared to use other
> language when it is convenient to do so. Can they have it both ways?
> And why is there not a large-scale student protest throughout
> Alberta--supported by real employees of the our public institutions.
> Further, if students have been judged by the courts as employees of
> the university, can they not now sue for back wages. A graduating
> student would have approximately 5000 hours over a 4-year career. At
> $10 an hour, a cheque for $50,000 as they shake hands with Bill would
> make the pain of student loans go away.
>
> Does the same hold for patients in an Alberta hospital? Or a taxpayer
> visiting City Hall? Perhaps we should extend it to Walmart--a customer
> in Walmart becomes an employee by merely entering the building.
>
> Is it possible to check somewhere to determine what kind of insurance
> the University has for its administrators?
>
> Tom
>
>
> On 14-Nov-08, at 8:29 AM, Linville, James wrote:
>
>>
>> Ian McKenna has a letter in the Herald today that is of interest to
>> the university community. This perhaps is better suited to CAFR, and
>> if someone wants to cross post it, be my guest, but since John Vokey
>> has THROWN ME OUT OF THIS CLUB, I thought I would openly defy him. Ha
ha!
>>
>> Injured student deserves better
>> Written by Ian B. McKenna
>> Thursday, 13 November 2008
>> Lawrence Dzuren is right to criticize the University of Lethbridge
>> for its failure to protect students from serious harm, aided and
>> abetted of course by the Government of Alberta and the Workers?
>> Compensation Board. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, Alberta is
>> the only province in Canada that defines university, college and even
>> some high-school students as employees of the Government of Alberta
>> for purposes of the Workers? Compensation Act.
>> So beware, parents. If your 10-year-old daughter is injured by faulty
>> equipment in a community education class at the U of L or Lethbridge
>> College, she will have no legal right to compensation for her
>> injuries no matter how serious and, not having a job, will of course
>> receive no workers? compensation. Crazy, eh?
>> As for Ms. Larreynaga?s case, the university was aware before her
>> ?accident? that the offending library lights were falling, but did
>> nothing about it until after her ?accident.? I informed the
>> Lethbridge police of this, as the Criminal Code of Canada prohibits
>> causing bodily harm to another by the sort of gross negligence
>> present in this case. I was informed by an officer (nine years ago)
>> that no action would be taken against the university because they
>> said they would replace the offending light fixtures. Think about it,
>> readers, your teenage child is seriously assaulted while walking home
>> from the movies but no action is taken against the assailant because
>> he promises not to assault her in future.
>> The treatment of Ms. Larreynaga by the University of Lethbridge has
>> been scandalous. She was headed for graduate studies and a career in
>> scientific research. It is beyond belief she or any other student in
>> Alberta, or a three-year-old child in daycare, can simply be deemed
>> by the Workers? Compensation Board to be an ?employee? and therefore
>> incapable of suing for compensation for injuries caused by the
>> negligence of those who are required by law to protect them. For 200
>> years an employee has been defined in law as a person providing
>> services to another. In Ms. Larreynaga?s case, it was the U of L that
>> provided the services, including how to recover from head injuries
>> from falling lights.
>> I am embarrassed to be an employee of the University of Lethbridge.
>> Isn?t anyone else?
>> Ian B. McKenna
>> Lethbridge
>>
>>
>>
>> ?Watching political platforms wishy-washy from election to election
>> gives one little hope that extraterrestrials really are guiding
>> Terran civilization.? (William Doty)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ldskeptics-l mailing list
>> ldskeptics-l@uleth.ca
>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/ldskeptics-l
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081114/7269462c/attachment-0001.html
From mckenna at uleth.ca Fri Nov 14 13:18:34 2008
From: mckenna at uleth.ca (Ian McKenna)
Date: Fri Nov 14 13:27:16 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Hi Kent and others.
In November 1999, Rebeca Larreynaga was reading a textbook in the
University Library (old building of course) when a metal light fixture
fell out if its socket, swung down and hit Rebeca at great speed and
with great force. She sustained injuries to her head, neck and back.
Because the Alberta Government are allowed by law to permit the WCB to
deem any class of persons to be employees of the Government of Alberta.
Students (college, university and some secondary school) have been
deemed by a regulation to be workers under the Workers' Compensation
Act, whether or not they actually meet the legal test of employment,
which is the provision of services to another person. While some
students do provide services to universities and are rightly entitled to
WCB coverage, students such as Rebeca did not provide services to the
University or the Government as she was employed by neither. This is
true of all students who merely attend classes and pay their tuition
fees.
Rebeca learned of this the day after she sustained the injures when
Edith Hepburn arrived at her bedside to obtain her signature of WCB
documents. I was involved in assisting Rebeca to challenge the WCB
decision that she was an injured worker and therefore not eligible to
sue the University for negligently causing her injuries.
The internal appeal was denied but several years later - I recall 2005 -
the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission ruled unanimously that she
was not barred from suing the University (she had already filed such a
suit through a local lawyer) because neither the University nor the
Government was her employer.
The University appealed that decision to the Court of Queen's Bench and
the single judge in Calgary ruled that the Appeals Commission had erred
in law. That decision is publicly available which makes it no less
incoherent.
The judge ordered a review by the Appeals Commission and a new trio
adhered to the judge's decision.
It would be fair to say that the Students' Union has done absolutely
nothing to protect students against this sort of rip-off. There is
essentially no benefit for students and the ruse merely transfers the
risk of injury due to the University's negligence to the student.
(Interestingly in the UK it is a criminal offence to insert into a
contract a disclaimer of liability to the other party for injuries
caused by one's negligence).
Rebeca did seek assistance from the SU but the President at that time (I
don't remember her name) stated she could not help because she was a
member of the Board of Governors (whom Rebeca was suing) and therefore
would be in a conflict of interest, soluble only by her refusing to get
the SU involved. I gather from Rebeca, this was the result of
Ex-President Tennant's advice to the then SU President. Bill Cade
adopted the same stance.
Rebeca's lawyer ditched the case after the Queen's Bench decision,
afraid that this meant he would receive no payment of the contingency
fee. Rebeca was a talented student bound for grad studies at the time of
the injuries but no longer mentally able to do the work required for
what was ironically to be in neuroscience.
Having pitched (pro bono of course) Rebeca's case to both panels of the
Appeals Commission, I am naturally biased in the legal arguments. The
University is of course pressing her for legal costs, likely
unattainable as Rebeca will likely declare bankruptcy if the Appeals
Commission does not pick up the costs.
It is a fond hope that the University will ever compensate her or even
apologize for injuring her. In Tennant's era a management student (not
in my class!) fell asleep in a U Hall D630 classroom, sustaining a minor
injury. This was not referred to the WCB and instead the student
received an out of court settlement. If the University had the ability
to settle that case, I fail to see why it should not do so in this case.
I can say that Rebeca who lives locally remains traumatized by the
incident and the unfairness of the callous treatment she has received.
Were she allowed to take this to court, i.e. not be deemed an employee,
her case would almost certainly succeed because there is clear evidence
that the University knew of the falling lights problem - one witness was
hit by such a light but happily not badly injured. Other employees on
the QT speak of their knowledge of the light problems and the failure to
spend the money until after the injuries to Rebeca..
If you have any questions I'll try to answer them.
As everything stated here is true, I have no problem in this account
being passed on. I would bwelcome any information others may have on
this distressing matter.
Thanks
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On Behalf
Of Kent Peacock
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:13 AM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
From siminovitch at uleth.ca Fri Nov 14 13:50:27 2008
From: siminovitch at uleth.ca (David Siminovitch)
Date: Fri Nov 14 13:47:47 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Ian McKenna wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
>
> --------------------
> Hi Kent and others.
>
> In November 1999, Rebeca Larreynaga was reading a textbook in the
> University Library (old building of course) when a metal light fixture
> fell out if its socket, swung down and hit Rebeca at great speed and
> with great force. She sustained injuries to her head, neck and back.
> Because the Alberta Government are allowed by law to permit the WCB to
> deem any class of persons to be employees of the Government of Alberta.
> Students (college, university and some secondary school) have been
> deemed by a regulation to be workers under the Workers' Compensation
> Act, whether or not they actually meet the legal test of employment,
> which is the provision of services to another person. While some
> students do provide services to universities and are rightly entitled
to
> WCB coverage, students such as Rebeca did not provide services to the
> University or the Government as she was employed by neither. This is
> true of all students who merely attend classes and pay their tuition
> fees.
>
> Rebeca learned of this the day after she sustained the injures when
> Edith Hepburn arrived at her bedside to obtain her signature of WCB
> documents. I was involved in assisting Rebeca to challenge the WCB
> decision that she was an injured worker and therefore not eligible to
> sue the University for negligently causing her injuries.
> The internal appeal was denied but several years later - I recall 2005
-
> the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission ruled unanimously that she
> was not barred from suing the University (she had already filed such a
> suit through a local lawyer) because neither the University nor the
> Government was her employer.
> The University appealed that decision to the Court of Queen's Bench and
> the single judge in Calgary ruled that the Appeals Commission had erred
> in law. That decision is publicly available which makes it no less
> incoherent.
> The judge ordered a review by the Appeals Commission and a new trio
> adhered to the judge's decision.
>
> It would be fair to say that the Students' Union has done absolutely
> nothing to protect students against this sort of rip-off. There is
> essentially no benefit for students and the ruse merely transfers the
> risk of injury due to the University's negligence to the student.
> (Interestingly in the UK it is a criminal offence to insert into a
> contract a disclaimer of liability to the other party for injuries
> caused by one's negligence).
> Rebeca did seek assistance from the SU but the President at that time
(I
> don't remember her name) stated she could not help because she was a
> member of the Board of Governors (whom Rebeca was suing) and therefore
> would be in a conflict of interest, soluble only by her refusing to get
> the SU involved. I gather from Rebeca, this was the result of
> Ex-President Tennant's advice to the then SU President. Bill Cade
> adopted the same stance.
>
> Rebeca's lawyer ditched the case after the Queen's Bench decision,
> afraid that this meant he would receive no payment of the contingency
> fee. Rebeca was a talented student bound for grad studies at the time
of
> the injuries but no longer mentally able to do the work required for
> what was ironically to be in neuroscience.
>
> Having pitched (pro bono of course) Rebeca's case to both panels of the
> Appeals Commission, I am naturally biased in the legal arguments. The
> University is of course pressing her for legal costs, likely
> unattainable as Rebeca will likely declare bankruptcy if the Appeals
> Commission does not pick up the costs.
>
> It is a fond hope that the University will ever compensate her or even
> apologize for injuring her. In Tennant's era a management student (not
> in my class!) fell asleep in a U Hall D630 classroom, sustaining a
minor
> injury. This was not referred to the WCB and instead the student
> received an out of court settlement. If the University had the ability
> to settle that case, I fail to see why it should not do so in this
case.
> I can say that Rebeca who lives locally remains traumatized by the
> incident and the unfairness of the callous treatment she has received.
> Were she allowed to take this to court, i.e. not be deemed an employee,
> her case would almost certainly succeed because there is clear evidence
> that the University knew of the falling lights problem - one witness
was
> hit by such a light but happily not badly injured. Other employees on
> the QT speak of their knowledge of the light problems and the failure
to
> spend the money until after the injuries to Rebeca..
>
> If you have any questions I'll try to answer them.
>
> As everything stated here is true, I have no problem in this account
> being passed on. I would bwelcome any information others may have on
> this distressing matter.
> Thanks
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On
Behalf
> Of Kent Peacock
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:13 AM
> To: cafr-l, MailList
> Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
> Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
> messages.
>
> --------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
Thank you Ian for this account.
Since students are deemed to be employees, they logically should be
represented on the Joint Health and Safety Committee. Undergraduate
students currently are not, and never have been. As the current ULFA
Alternate Rep on this Committee, I will raise this matter at our monthly
meeting next week.
David
From robinson at uleth.ca Fri Nov 14 14:03:04 2008
From: robinson at uleth.ca (Tom Robinson)
Date: Fri Nov 14 14:03:12 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
It has been suggested to me that I write a letter to the editor (or
that someone with more tact write a letter) and a number of us sign it.
Here is my attempt. Remember, we want tact. Or could we have two
versions, one which the tactless could sign?
Tom
Are students employees of the University?
Professor Ian McKenna, in his recent letter to the editor, expressed
his embarrassment that a student injured at the University of
Lethbridge was judged to be an employee of the University and thus
prohibited from bringing a lawsuit against the University. Professor
McKenna asks whether others are embarrassed too. We are.
If students are considered employees of the University, it must be the
strangest employee status in the history of the world. Not only do
students not get paid by the University, the University demands the
reverse?that students pay the University?a concept foreign even in
slave societies. If students are really employees of the University,
perhaps they should sue the University for unpaid wages. At about 5000
hours for a four-year degree, even at a McDonald's wage, that would be
about $50,000. This could offset the huge student loan debt that
students routinely accumulate, and it would make for a well attended
convocation ceremony, as graduating students receive both a diploma
and a cheque as they walk across the stage.
On 14-Nov-08, at 1:18 PM, Ian McKenna wrote:
> Hi Kent and others.
>
> In November 1999, Rebeca Larreynaga was reading a textbook in the
> University Library (old building of course) when a metal light fixture
> fell out if its socket, swung down and hit Rebeca at great speed and
> with great force. She sustained injuries to her head, neck and back.
> Because the Alberta Government are allowed by law to permit the WCB to
> deem any class of persons to be employees of the Government of
> Alberta.
> Students (college, university and some secondary school) have been
> deemed by a regulation to be workers under the Workers' Compensation
> Act, whether or not they actually meet the legal test of employment,
> which is the provision of services to another person. While some
> students do provide services to universities and are rightly
> entitled to
> WCB coverage, students such as Rebeca did not provide services to the
> University or the Government as she was employed by neither. This is
> true of all students who merely attend classes and pay their tuition
> fees.
>
> Rebeca learned of this the day after she sustained the injures when
> Edith Hepburn arrived at her bedside to obtain her signature of WCB
> documents. I was involved in assisting Rebeca to challenge the WCB
> decision that she was an injured worker and therefore not eligible to
> sue the University for negligently causing her injuries.
> The internal appeal was denied but several years later - I recall
> 2005 -
> the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission ruled unanimously that
> she
> was not barred from suing the University (she had already filed such a
> suit through a local lawyer) because neither the University nor the
> Government was her employer.
> The University appealed that decision to the Court of Queen's Bench
> and
> the single judge in Calgary ruled that the Appeals Commission had
> erred
> in law. That decision is publicly available which makes it no less
> incoherent.
> The judge ordered a review by the Appeals Commission and a new trio
> adhered to the judge's decision.
>
> It would be fair to say that the Students' Union has done absolutely
> nothing to protect students against this sort of rip-off. There is
> essentially no benefit for students and the ruse merely transfers the
> risk of injury due to the University's negligence to the student.
> (Interestingly in the UK it is a criminal offence to insert into a
> contract a disclaimer of liability to the other party for injuries
> caused by one's negligence).
> Rebeca did seek assistance from the SU but the President at that
> time (I
> don't remember her name) stated she could not help because she was a
> member of the Board of Governors (whom Rebeca was suing) and therefore
> would be in a conflict of interest, soluble only by her refusing to
> get
> the SU involved. I gather from Rebeca, this was the result of
> Ex-President Tennant's advice to the then SU President. Bill Cade
> adopted the same stance.
>
> Rebeca's lawyer ditched the case after the Queen's Bench decision,
> afraid that this meant he would receive no payment of the contingency
> fee. Rebeca was a talented student bound for grad studies at the
> time of
> the injuries but no longer mentally able to do the work required for
> what was ironically to be in neuroscience.
>
> Having pitched (pro bono of course) Rebeca's case to both panels of
> the
> Appeals Commission, I am naturally biased in the legal arguments. The
> University is of course pressing her for legal costs, likely
> unattainable as Rebeca will likely declare bankruptcy if the Appeals
> Commission does not pick up the costs.
>
> It is a fond hope that the University will ever compensate her or even
> apologize for injuring her. In Tennant's era a management student (not
> in my class!) fell asleep in a U Hall D630 classroom, sustaining a
> minor
> injury. This was not referred to the WCB and instead the student
> received an out of court settlement. If the University had the ability
> to settle that case, I fail to see why it should not do so in this
> case.
> I can say that Rebeca who lives locally remains traumatized by the
> incident and the unfairness of the callous treatment she has received.
> Were she allowed to take this to court, i.e. not be deemed an
> employee,
> her case would almost certainly succeed because there is clear
> evidence
> that the University knew of the falling lights problem - one witness
> was
> hit by such a light but happily not badly injured. Other employees on
> the QT speak of their knowledge of the light problems and the
> failure to
> spend the money until after the injuries to Rebeca..
>
> If you have any questions I'll try to answer them.
>
> As everything stated here is true, I have no problem in this account
> being passed on. I would bwelcome any information others may have on
> this distressing matter.
> Thanks
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On
> Behalf
> Of Kent Peacock
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:13 AM
> To: cafr-l, MailList
> Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
> Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
> messages.
>
> --------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ldskeptics-l mailing list
> ldskeptics-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/ldskeptics-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081114/40295161/attachment-0001.html
From vokey at uleth.ca Fri Nov 14 14:04:41 2008
From: vokey at uleth.ca (John Vokey)
Date: Fri Nov 14 14:05:24 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Works for me; I'll sign.
On 14-Nov-08, at 2:03 PM, Tom Robinson wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> It has been suggested to me that I write a letter to the editor (or
> that someone with more tact write a letter) and a number of us sign
> it.
> Here is my attempt. Remember, we want tact. Or could we have two
> versions, one which the tactless could sign?
> Tom
>
> Are students employees of the University?
>
> Professor Ian McKenna, in his recent letter to the editor, expressed
> his embarrassment that a student injured at the University of
> Lethbridge was judged to be an employee of the University and thus
> prohibited from bringing a lawsuit against the University. Professor
> McKenna asks whether others are embarrassed too. We are.
>
> If students are considered employees of the University, it must be
> the strangest employee status in the history of the world. Not only
> do students not get paid by the University, the University demands
> the reverse?that students pay the University?a concept foreign even
> in slave societies. If students are really employees of the
> University, perhaps they should sue the University for unpaid wages.
> At about 5000 hours for a four-year degree, even at a McDonald's
> wage, that would be about $50,000. This could offset the huge
> student loan debt that students routinely accumulate, and it would
> make for a well attended convocation ceremony, as graduating
> students receive both a diploma and a cheque as they walk across the
> stage.
>
>
>
> On 14-Nov-08, at 1:18 PM, Ian McKenna wrote:
>
>> Hi Kent and others.
>>
>> In November 1999, Rebeca Larreynaga was reading a textbook in the
>> University Library (old building of course) when a metal light
>> fixture
>> fell out if its socket, swung down and hit Rebeca at great speed and
>> with great force. She sustained injuries to her head, neck and back.
>> Because the Alberta Government are allowed by law to permit the WCB
>> to
>> deem any class of persons to be employees of the Government of
>> Alberta.
>> Students (college, university and some secondary school) have been
>> deemed by a regulation to be workers under the Workers' Compensation
>> Act, whether or not they actually meet the legal test of employment,
>> which is the provision of services to another person. While some
>> students do provide services to universities and are rightly
>> entitled to
>> WCB coverage, students such as Rebeca did not provide services to the
>> University or the Government as she was employed by neither. This is
>> true of all students who merely attend classes and pay their tuition
>> fees.
>>
>> Rebeca learned of this the day after she sustained the injures when
>> Edith Hepburn arrived at her bedside to obtain her signature of WCB
>> documents. I was involved in assisting Rebeca to challenge the WCB
>> decision that she was an injured worker and therefore not eligible to
>> sue the University for negligently causing her injuries.
>> The internal appeal was denied but several years later - I recall
>> 2005 -
>> the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission ruled unanimously that
>> she
>> was not barred from suing the University (she had already filed
>> such a
>> suit through a local lawyer) because neither the University nor the
>> Government was her employer.
>> The University appealed that decision to the Court of Queen's Bench
>> and
>> the single judge in Calgary ruled that the Appeals Commission had
>> erred
>> in law. That decision is publicly available which makes it no less
>> incoherent.
>> The judge ordered a review by the Appeals Commission and a new trio
>> adhered to the judge's decision.
>>
>> It would be fair to say that the Students' Union has done absolutely
>> nothing to protect students against this sort of rip-off. There is
>> essentially no benefit for students and the ruse merely transfers the
>> risk of injury due to the University's negligence to the student.
>> (Interestingly in the UK it is a criminal offence to insert into a
>> contract a disclaimer of liability to the other party for injuries
>> caused by one's negligence).
>> Rebeca did seek assistance from the SU but the President at that
>> time (I
>> don't remember her name) stated she could not help because she was a
>> member of the Board of Governors (whom Rebeca was suing) and
>> therefore
>> would be in a conflict of interest, soluble only by her refusing to
>> get
>> the SU involved. I gather from Rebeca, this was the result of
>> Ex-President Tennant's advice to the then SU President. Bill Cade
>> adopted the same stance.
>>
>> Rebeca's lawyer ditched the case after the Queen's Bench decision,
>> afraid that this meant he would receive no payment of the contingency
>> fee. Rebeca was a talented student bound for grad studies at the
>> time of
>> the injuries but no longer mentally able to do the work required for
>> what was ironically to be in neuroscience.
>>
>> Having pitched (pro bono of course) Rebeca's case to both panels of
>> the
>> Appeals Commission, I am naturally biased in the legal arguments. The
>> University is of course pressing her for legal costs, likely
>> unattainable as Rebeca will likely declare bankruptcy if the Appeals
>> Commission does not pick up the costs.
>>
>> It is a fond hope that the University will ever compensate her or
>> even
>> apologize for injuring her. In Tennant's era a management student
>> (not
>> in my class!) fell asleep in a U Hall D630 classroom, sustaining a
>> minor
>> injury. This was not referred to the WCB and instead the student
>> received an out of court settlement. If the University had the
>> ability
>> to settle that case, I fail to see why it should not do so in this
>> case.
>> I can say that Rebeca who lives locally remains traumatized by the
>> incident and the unfairness of the callous treatment she has
>> received.
>> Were she allowed to take this to court, i.e. not be deemed an
>> employee,
>> her case would almost certainly succeed because there is clear
>> evidence
>> that the University knew of the falling lights problem - one
>> witness was
>> hit by such a light but happily not badly injured. Other employees on
>> the QT speak of their knowledge of the light problems and the
>> failure to
>> spend the money until after the injuries to Rebeca..
>>
>> If you have any questions I'll try to answer them.
>>
>> As everything stated here is true, I have no problem in this account
>> being passed on. I would bwelcome any information others may have on
>> this distressing matter.
>> Thanks
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On
>> Behalf
>> Of Kent Peacock
>> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:13 AM
>> To: cafr-l, MailList
>> Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
>> Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>>
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>> messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ldskeptics-l mailing list
>> ldskeptics-l@uleth.ca
>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/ldskeptics-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
--
Everything of value that people get from religion can be had more
honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence. The
rest is self-deception, set to music. - Sam Harris
Dr John R. Vokey
vokey@uleth.ca
From vokey at uleth.ca Fri Nov 14 14:10:06 2008
From: vokey at uleth.ca (John Vokey)
Date: Fri Nov 14 14:10:51 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
I think we should also write a letter to the President and the Board
requesting that the university explicitly divorce itself from this
interpretation of the WCB, and/or it work out a fair compensation
package for the student in question.
On 14-Nov-08, at 2:04 PM, John Vokey wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Works for me; I'll sign.
>
> On 14-Nov-08, at 2:03 PM, Tom Robinson wrote:
>
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
>> of their messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> It has been suggested to me that I write a letter to the editor (or
>> that someone with more tact write a letter) and a number of us sign
>> it.
>> Here is my attempt. Remember, we want tact. Or could we have two
>> versions, one which the tactless could sign?
>> Tom
>>
>> Are students employees of the University?
>>
>> Professor Ian McKenna, in his recent letter to the editor,
>> expressed his embarrassment that a student injured at the
>> University of Lethbridge was judged to be an employee of the
>> University and thus prohibited from bringing a lawsuit against the
>> University. Professor McKenna asks whether others are embarrassed
>> too. We are.
>>
>> If students are considered employees of the University, it must be
>> the strangest employee status in the history of the world. Not only
>> do students not get paid by the University, the University demands
>> the reverse?that students pay the University?a concept foreign even
>> in slave societies. If students are really employees of the
>> University, perhaps they should sue the University for unpaid
>> wages. At about 5000 hours for a four-year degree, even at a
>> McDonald's wage, that would be about $50,000. This could offset the
>> huge student loan debt that students routinely accumulate, and it
>> would make for a well attended convocation ceremony, as graduating
>> students receive both a diploma and a cheque as they walk across
>> the stage.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 14-Nov-08, at 1:18 PM, Ian McKenna wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Kent and others.
>>>
>>> In November 1999, Rebeca Larreynaga was reading a textbook in the
>>> University Library (old building of course) when a metal light
>>> fixture
>>> fell out if its socket, swung down and hit Rebeca at great speed and
>>> with great force. She sustained injuries to her head, neck and back.
>>> Because the Alberta Government are allowed by law to permit the
>>> WCB to
>>> deem any class of persons to be employees of the Government of
>>> Alberta.
>>> Students (college, university and some secondary school) have been
>>> deemed by a regulation to be workers under the Workers' Compensation
>>> Act, whether or not they actually meet the legal test of employment,
>>> which is the provision of services to another person. While some
>>> students do provide services to universities and are rightly
>>> entitled to
>>> WCB coverage, students such as Rebeca did not provide services to
>>> the
>>> University or the Government as she was employed by neither. This is
>>> true of all students who merely attend classes and pay their tuition
>>> fees.
>>>
>>> Rebeca learned of this the day after she sustained the injures when
>>> Edith Hepburn arrived at her bedside to obtain her signature of WCB
>>> documents. I was involved in assisting Rebeca to challenge the WCB
>>> decision that she was an injured worker and therefore not eligible
>>> to
>>> sue the University for negligently causing her injuries.
>>> The internal appeal was denied but several years later - I recall
>>> 2005 -
>>> the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission ruled unanimously
>>> that she
>>> was not barred from suing the University (she had already filed
>>> such a
>>> suit through a local lawyer) because neither the University nor the
>>> Government was her employer.
>>> The University appealed that decision to the Court of Queen's
>>> Bench and
>>> the single judge in Calgary ruled that the Appeals Commission had
>>> erred
>>> in law. That decision is publicly available which makes it no less
>>> incoherent.
>>> The judge ordered a review by the Appeals Commission and a new trio
>>> adhered to the judge's decision.
>>>
>>> It would be fair to say that the Students' Union has done absolutely
>>> nothing to protect students against this sort of rip-off. There is
>>> essentially no benefit for students and the ruse merely transfers
>>> the
>>> risk of injury due to the University's negligence to the student.
>>> (Interestingly in the UK it is a criminal offence to insert into a
>>> contract a disclaimer of liability to the other party for injuries
>>> caused by one's negligence).
>>> Rebeca did seek assistance from the SU but the President at that
>>> time (I
>>> don't remember her name) stated she could not help because she was a
>>> member of the Board of Governors (whom Rebeca was suing) and
>>> therefore
>>> would be in a conflict of interest, soluble only by her refusing
>>> to get
>>> the SU involved. I gather from Rebeca, this was the result of
>>> Ex-President Tennant's advice to the then SU President. Bill Cade
>>> adopted the same stance.
>>>
>>> Rebeca's lawyer ditched the case after the Queen's Bench decision,
>>> afraid that this meant he would receive no payment of the
>>> contingency
>>> fee. Rebeca was a talented student bound for grad studies at the
>>> time of
>>> the injuries but no longer mentally able to do the work required for
>>> what was ironically to be in neuroscience.
>>>
>>> Having pitched (pro bono of course) Rebeca's case to both panels
>>> of the
>>> Appeals Commission, I am naturally biased in the legal arguments.
>>> The
>>> University is of course pressing her for legal costs, likely
>>> unattainable as Rebeca will likely declare bankruptcy if the Appeals
>>> Commission does not pick up the costs.
>>>
>>> It is a fond hope that the University will ever compensate her or
>>> even
>>> apologize for injuring her. In Tennant's era a management student
>>> (not
>>> in my class!) fell asleep in a U Hall D630 classroom, sustaining a
>>> minor
>>> injury. This was not referred to the WCB and instead the student
>>> received an out of court settlement. If the University had the
>>> ability
>>> to settle that case, I fail to see why it should not do so in this
>>> case.
>>> I can say that Rebeca who lives locally remains traumatized by the
>>> incident and the unfairness of the callous treatment she has
>>> received.
>>> Were she allowed to take this to court, i.e. not be deemed an
>>> employee,
>>> her case would almost certainly succeed because there is clear
>>> evidence
>>> that the University knew of the falling lights problem - one
>>> witness was
>>> hit by such a light but happily not badly injured. Other employees
>>> on
>>> the QT speak of their knowledge of the light problems and the
>>> failure to
>>> spend the money until after the injuries to Rebeca..
>>>
>>> If you have any questions I'll try to answer them.
>>>
>>> As everything stated here is true, I have no problem in this account
>>> being passed on. I would bwelcome any information others may have on
>>> this distressing matter.
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On
>>> Behalf
>>> Of Kent Peacock
>>> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:13 AM
>>> To: cafr-l, MailList
>>> Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
>>> Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>>>
>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>> unmoderated
>>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>>> messages.
>>>
>>> --------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ldskeptics-l mailing list
>>> ldskeptics-l@uleth.ca
>>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/ldskeptics-l
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cafr-l mailing list
>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
> --
> Everything of value that people get from religion can be had more
> honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence. The
> rest is self-deception, set to music. - Sam Harris
>
> Dr John R. Vokey
> vokey@uleth.ca
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
--
Everything of value that people get from religion can be had more
honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence. The
rest is self-deception, set to music. - Sam Harris
Dr John R. Vokey
vokey@uleth.ca
From kent.peacock at uleth.ca Fri Nov 14 14:13:45 2008
From: kent.peacock at uleth.ca (Kent Peacock)
Date: Fri Nov 14 14:13:55 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Ian --
Many thanks for the clarification. This is disgraceful and profoundly
embarrassing to this University. Is there anything that could be done,
apart from engaging in a long and probably futile battle to embarrass
the University publicly enough that it does the right thing? Any ideas
out there?
Kent
Ian McKenna wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
>
> --------------------
> Hi Kent and others.
>
> In November 1999, Rebeca Larreynaga was reading a textbook in the
> University Library (old building of course) when a metal light fixture
> fell out if its socket, swung down and hit Rebeca at great speed and
> with great force. She sustained injuries to her head, neck and back.
> Because the Alberta Government are allowed by law to permit the WCB to
> deem any class of persons to be employees of the Government of Alberta.
> Students (college, university and some secondary school) have been
> deemed by a regulation to be workers under the Workers' Compensation
> Act, whether or not they actually meet the legal test of employment,
> which is the provision of services to another person. While some
> students do provide services to universities and are rightly entitled
to
> WCB coverage, students such as Rebeca did not provide services to the
> University or the Government as she was employed by neither. This is
> true of all students who merely attend classes and pay their tuition
> fees.
>
> Rebeca learned of this the day after she sustained the injures when
> Edith Hepburn arrived at her bedside to obtain her signature of WCB
> documents. I was involved in assisting Rebeca to challenge the WCB
> decision that she was an injured worker and therefore not eligible to
> sue the University for negligently causing her injuries.
> The internal appeal was denied but several years later - I recall 2005
-
> the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission ruled unanimously that she
> was not barred from suing the University (she had already filed such a
> suit through a local lawyer) because neither the University nor the
> Government was her employer.
> The University appealed that decision to the Court of Queen's Bench and
> the single judge in Calgary ruled that the Appeals Commission had erred
> in law. That decision is publicly available which makes it no less
> incoherent.
> The judge ordered a review by the Appeals Commission and a new trio
> adhered to the judge's decision.
>
> It would be fair to say that the Students' Union has done absolutely
> nothing to protect students against this sort of rip-off. There is
> essentially no benefit for students and the ruse merely transfers the
> risk of injury due to the University's negligence to the student.
> (Interestingly in the UK it is a criminal offence to insert into a
> contract a disclaimer of liability to the other party for injuries
> caused by one's negligence).
> Rebeca did seek assistance from the SU but the President at that time
(I
> don't remember her name) stated she could not help because she was a
> member of the Board of Governors (whom Rebeca was suing) and therefore
> would be in a conflict of interest, soluble only by her refusing to get
> the SU involved. I gather from Rebeca, this was the result of
> Ex-President Tennant's advice to the then SU President. Bill Cade
> adopted the same stance.
>
> Rebeca's lawyer ditched the case after the Queen's Bench decision,
> afraid that this meant he would receive no payment of the contingency
> fee. Rebeca was a talented student bound for grad studies at the time
of
> the injuries but no longer mentally able to do the work required for
> what was ironically to be in neuroscience.
>
> Having pitched (pro bono of course) Rebeca's case to both panels of the
> Appeals Commission, I am naturally biased in the legal arguments. The
> University is of course pressing her for legal costs, likely
> unattainable as Rebeca will likely declare bankruptcy if the Appeals
> Commission does not pick up the costs.
>
> It is a fond hope that the University will ever compensate her or even
> apologize for injuring her. In Tennant's era a management student (not
> in my class!) fell asleep in a U Hall D630 classroom, sustaining a
minor
> injury. This was not referred to the WCB and instead the student
> received an out of court settlement. If the University had the ability
> to settle that case, I fail to see why it should not do so in this
case.
> I can say that Rebeca who lives locally remains traumatized by the
> incident and the unfairness of the callous treatment she has received.
> Were she allowed to take this to court, i.e. not be deemed an employee,
> her case would almost certainly succeed because there is clear evidence
> that the University knew of the falling lights problem - one witness
was
> hit by such a light but happily not badly injured. Other employees on
> the QT speak of their knowledge of the light problems and the failure
to
> spend the money until after the injuries to Rebeca..
>
> If you have any questions I'll try to answer them.
>
> As everything stated here is true, I have no problem in this account
> being passed on. I would bwelcome any information others may have on
> this distressing matter.
> Thanks
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On
Behalf
> Of Kent Peacock
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:13 AM
> To: cafr-l, MailList
> Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
> Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
> messages.
>
> --------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
From james.linville at uleth.ca Fri Nov 14 14:21:42 2008
From: james.linville at uleth.ca (Linville, James)
Date: Fri Nov 14 14:21:43 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
References:
Message-ID:
Tom, I think you are on the right tact (jeepers I crack myself up...).
I think the letter would be more effective if you added a few details,
such as when the accident happened and so on, and that apparently the
university is looking for repayment of its legal costs. That is just
plain cruel! Talk about kicking someone after you've knocked them down!
I suspect that a letter to the student newspaper might be a good idea
too, but perhaps some of the students on the skeptics list would feel
moved to do that.
James Linville
Dept. of Religious Studies
University of Lethbridge
403-329-2537
-----Original Message-----
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca on behalf of Tom Robinson
Sent: Fri 11/14/2008 2:03 PM
To: ldskeptics-l, MailList
Cc: cafr-l, MailList
Subject: Re: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081114/963c6021/attachment-0001.html
From dan.johnson at uleth.ca Fri Nov 14 14:36:18 2008
From: dan.johnson at uleth.ca (Dan Johnson)
Date: Fri Nov 14 14:36:19 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
If students are "employees", then they should have a clearer set of
employee "benefits". I don't think this really exists.
Kent Peacock wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
> messages.
>
> --------------------
> Ian --
>
> Many thanks for the clarification. This is disgraceful and profoundly
> embarrassing to this University. Is there anything that could be
> done, apart from engaging in a long and probably futile battle to
> embarrass the University publicly enough that it does the right
> thing? Any ideas out there?
>
> Kent
>
>
>
>
>
> Ian McKenna wrote:
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>> messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> Hi Kent and others.
>>
>> In November 1999, Rebeca Larreynaga was reading a textbook in the
>> University Library (old building of course) when a metal light fixture
>> fell out if its socket, swung down and hit Rebeca at great speed and
>> with great force. She sustained injuries to her head, neck and back.
>> Because the Alberta Government are allowed by law to permit the WCB to
>> deem any class of persons to be employees of the Government of
Alberta.
>> Students (college, university and some secondary school) have been
>> deemed by a regulation to be workers under the Workers' Compensation
>> Act, whether or not they actually meet the legal test of employment,
>> which is the provision of services to another person. While some
>> students do provide services to universities and are rightly entitled
to
>> WCB coverage, students such as Rebeca did not provide services to the
>> University or the Government as she was employed by neither. This is
>> true of all students who merely attend classes and pay their tuition
>> fees.
>>
>> Rebeca learned of this the day after she sustained the injures when
>> Edith Hepburn arrived at her bedside to obtain her signature of WCB
>> documents. I was involved in assisting Rebeca to challenge the WCB
>> decision that she was an injured worker and therefore not eligible to
>> sue the University for negligently causing her injuries.
>> The internal appeal was denied but several years later - I recall 2005
-
>> the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission ruled unanimously that
she
>> was not barred from suing the University (she had already filed such a
>> suit through a local lawyer) because neither the University nor the
>> Government was her employer.
>> The University appealed that decision to the Court of Queen's Bench
and
>> the single judge in Calgary ruled that the Appeals Commission had
erred
>> in law. That decision is publicly available which makes it no less
>> incoherent.
>> The judge ordered a review by the Appeals Commission and a new trio
>> adhered to the judge's decision.
>>
>> It would be fair to say that the Students' Union has done absolutely
>> nothing to protect students against this sort of rip-off. There is
>> essentially no benefit for students and the ruse merely transfers the
>> risk of injury due to the University's negligence to the student.
>> (Interestingly in the UK it is a criminal offence to insert into a
>> contract a disclaimer of liability to the other party for injuries
>> caused by one's negligence).
>> Rebeca did seek assistance from the SU but the President at that time
(I
>> don't remember her name) stated she could not help because she was a
>> member of the Board of Governors (whom Rebeca was suing) and therefore
>> would be in a conflict of interest, soluble only by her refusing to
get
>> the SU involved. I gather from Rebeca, this was the result of
>> Ex-President Tennant's advice to the then SU President. Bill Cade
>> adopted the same stance.
>>
>> Rebeca's lawyer ditched the case after the Queen's Bench decision,
>> afraid that this meant he would receive no payment of the contingency
>> fee. Rebeca was a talented student bound for grad studies at the time
of
>> the injuries but no longer mentally able to do the work required for
>> what was ironically to be in neuroscience.
>> Having pitched (pro bono of course) Rebeca's case to both panels of
the
>> Appeals Commission, I am naturally biased in the legal arguments. The
>> University is of course pressing her for legal costs, likely
>> unattainable as Rebeca will likely declare bankruptcy if the Appeals
>> Commission does not pick up the costs.
>>
>> It is a fond hope that the University will ever compensate her or even
>> apologize for injuring her. In Tennant's era a management student (not
>> in my class!) fell asleep in a U Hall D630 classroom, sustaining a
minor
>> injury. This was not referred to the WCB and instead the student
>> received an out of court settlement. If the University had the ability
>> to settle that case, I fail to see why it should not do so in this
case.
>> I can say that Rebeca who lives locally remains traumatized by the
>> incident and the unfairness of the callous treatment she has received.
>> Were she allowed to take this to court, i.e. not be deemed an
employee,
>> her case would almost certainly succeed because there is clear
evidence
>> that the University knew of the falling lights problem - one witness
was
>> hit by such a light but happily not badly injured. Other employees on
>> the QT speak of their knowledge of the light problems and the failure
to
>> spend the money until after the injuries to Rebeca..
>>
>> If you have any questions I'll try to answer them.
>>
>> As everything stated here is true, I have no problem in this account
>> being passed on. I would bwelcome any information others may have on
>> this distressing matter.
>> Thanks
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On
Behalf
>> Of Kent Peacock
>> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:13 AM
>> To: cafr-l, MailList
>> Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
>> Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>>
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>> messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cafr-l mailing list
>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dan_johnson.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 150 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081114/7c2d8173/dan_johnson.vcf
From vimip0 at uleth.ca Fri Nov 14 14:45:22 2008
From: vimip0 at uleth.ca (Paul Viminitz)
Date: Fri Nov 14 14:45:23 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Further to Kent's worry that any attempt to embarrass the University
publicly over this issue would be future, I dunno, why not give it a
try?! Publish an article in the Lethbridge Herald that says something
like this:
PARENTS WARNED NOT TO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO U OF L
The University of Lethbridge has adopted the legal fiction - a fiction
endorsed by the courts in Alberta - that students are employees of the
University. Accordingly, if a student is injured on the 'job' - as one
recently was - he or she cannot sue, but can only seek the much reduced
compensation available through the Workers Compensation Board. Worse
yet, the University is currently seeking legal costs from her for her
unsuccessfully appealing this fiction to the courts. Parents would be
well advised to consider this before enrolling their children at the U.
of L.
If this doesn't embarrass the University and/or reduce enrollment, well,
at least students and their parents have been put on notice, which, I
suppose, is all they're really entitled to. - Paul
Kent Peacock wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
> messages.
>
> --------------------
> Ian --
>
> Many thanks for the clarification. This is disgraceful and profoundly
> embarrassing to this University. Is there anything that could be
> done, apart from engaging in a long and probably futile battle to
> embarrass the University publicly enough that it does the right
> thing? Any ideas out there?
>
> Kent
>
>
>
>
>
> Ian McKenna wrote:
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>> messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> Hi Kent and others.
>>
>> In November 1999, Rebeca Larreynaga was reading a textbook in the
>> University Library (old building of course) when a metal light fixture
>> fell out if its socket, swung down and hit Rebeca at great speed and
>> with great force. She sustained injuries to her head, neck and back.
>> Because the Alberta Government are allowed by law to permit the WCB to
>> deem any class of persons to be employees of the Government of
Alberta.
>> Students (college, university and some secondary school) have been
>> deemed by a regulation to be workers under the Workers' Compensation
>> Act, whether or not they actually meet the legal test of employment,
>> which is the provision of services to another person. While some
>> students do provide services to universities and are rightly entitled
to
>> WCB coverage, students such as Rebeca did not provide services to the
>> University or the Government as she was employed by neither. This is
>> true of all students who merely attend classes and pay their tuition
>> fees.
>>
>> Rebeca learned of this the day after she sustained the injures when
>> Edith Hepburn arrived at her bedside to obtain her signature of WCB
>> documents. I was involved in assisting Rebeca to challenge the WCB
>> decision that she was an injured worker and therefore not eligible to
>> sue the University for negligently causing her injuries.
>> The internal appeal was denied but several years later - I recall 2005
-
>> the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission ruled unanimously that
she
>> was not barred from suing the University (she had already filed such a
>> suit through a local lawyer) because neither the University nor the
>> Government was her employer.
>> The University appealed that decision to the Court of Queen's Bench
and
>> the single judge in Calgary ruled that the Appeals Commission had
erred
>> in law. That decision is publicly available which makes it no less
>> incoherent.
>> The judge ordered a review by the Appeals Commission and a new trio
>> adhered to the judge's decision.
>>
>> It would be fair to say that the Students' Union has done absolutely
>> nothing to protect students against this sort of rip-off. There is
>> essentially no benefit for students and the ruse merely transfers the
>> risk of injury due to the University's negligence to the student.
>> (Interestingly in the UK it is a criminal offence to insert into a
>> contract a disclaimer of liability to the other party for injuries
>> caused by one's negligence).
>> Rebeca did seek assistance from the SU but the President at that time
(I
>> don't remember her name) stated she could not help because she was a
>> member of the Board of Governors (whom Rebeca was suing) and therefore
>> would be in a conflict of interest, soluble only by her refusing to
get
>> the SU involved. I gather from Rebeca, this was the result of
>> Ex-President Tennant's advice to the then SU President. Bill Cade
>> adopted the same stance.
>>
>> Rebeca's lawyer ditched the case after the Queen's Bench decision,
>> afraid that this meant he would receive no payment of the contingency
>> fee. Rebeca was a talented student bound for grad studies at the time
of
>> the injuries but no longer mentally able to do the work required for
>> what was ironically to be in neuroscience.
>> Having pitched (pro bono of course) Rebeca's case to both panels of
the
>> Appeals Commission, I am naturally biased in the legal arguments. The
>> University is of course pressing her for legal costs, likely
>> unattainable as Rebeca will likely declare bankruptcy if the Appeals
>> Commission does not pick up the costs.
>>
>> It is a fond hope that the University will ever compensate her or even
>> apologize for injuring her. In Tennant's era a management student (not
>> in my class!) fell asleep in a U Hall D630 classroom, sustaining a
minor
>> injury. This was not referred to the WCB and instead the student
>> received an out of court settlement. If the University had the ability
>> to settle that case, I fail to see why it should not do so in this
case.
>> I can say that Rebeca who lives locally remains traumatized by the
>> incident and the unfairness of the callous treatment she has received.
>> Were she allowed to take this to court, i.e. not be deemed an
employee,
>> her case would almost certainly succeed because there is clear
evidence
>> that the University knew of the falling lights problem - one witness
was
>> hit by such a light but happily not badly injured. Other employees on
>> the QT speak of their knowledge of the light problems and the failure
to
>> spend the money until after the injuries to Rebeca..
>>
>> If you have any questions I'll try to answer them.
>>
>> As everything stated here is true, I have no problem in this account
>> being passed on. I would bwelcome any information others may have on
>> this distressing matter.
>> Thanks
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On
Behalf
>> Of Kent Peacock
>> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:13 AM
>> To: cafr-l, MailList
>> Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
>> Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>>
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>> messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cafr-l mailing list
>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
From vimip0 at uleth.ca Fri Nov 14 14:47:03 2008
From: vimip0 at uleth.ca (Paul Viminitz)
Date: Fri Nov 14 14:47:05 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Sorry for the typo. Obviously by "future" I meant "futile". - Paul
Paul Viminitz wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
> messages.
>
> --------------------
> Further to Kent's worry that any attempt to embarrass the University
> publicly over this issue would be future, I dunno, why not give it a
> try?! Publish an article in the Lethbridge Herald that says something
> like this:
>
> PARENTS WARNED NOT TO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO U OF L
>
> The University of Lethbridge has adopted the legal fiction - a fiction
> endorsed by the courts in Alberta - that students are employees of the
> University. Accordingly, if a student is injured on the 'job' - as one
> recently was - he or she cannot sue, but can only seek the much
> reduced compensation available through the Workers Compensation Board.
> Worse yet, the University is currently seeking legal costs from her
> for her unsuccessfully appealing this fiction to the courts. Parents
> would be well advised to consider this before enrolling their children
> at the U. of L.
>
> If this doesn't embarrass the University and/or reduce enrollment,
> well, at least students and their parents have been put on notice,
> which, I suppose, is all they're really entitled to. - Paul
>
>
> Kent Peacock wrote:
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>> messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> Ian --
>>
>> Many thanks for the clarification. This is disgraceful and
>> profoundly embarrassing to this University. Is there anything that
>> could be done, apart from engaging in a long and probably futile
>> battle to embarrass the University publicly enough that it does the
>> right thing? Any ideas out there?
>>
>> Kent
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ian McKenna wrote:
>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
>>> of their messages.
>>>
>>> --------------------
>>> Hi Kent and others.
>>>
>>> In November 1999, Rebeca Larreynaga was reading a textbook in the
>>> University Library (old building of course) when a metal light
fixture
>>> fell out if its socket, swung down and hit Rebeca at great speed and
>>> with great force. She sustained injuries to her head, neck and back.
>>> Because the Alberta Government are allowed by law to permit the WCB
to
>>> deem any class of persons to be employees of the Government of
Alberta.
>>> Students (college, university and some secondary school) have been
>>> deemed by a regulation to be workers under the Workers' Compensation
>>> Act, whether or not they actually meet the legal test of employment,
>>> which is the provision of services to another person. While some
>>> students do provide services to universities and are rightly
>>> entitled to
>>> WCB coverage, students such as Rebeca did not provide services to the
>>> University or the Government as she was employed by neither. This is
>>> true of all students who merely attend classes and pay their tuition
>>> fees.
>>>
>>> Rebeca learned of this the day after she sustained the injures when
>>> Edith Hepburn arrived at her bedside to obtain her signature of WCB
>>> documents. I was involved in assisting Rebeca to challenge the WCB
>>> decision that she was an injured worker and therefore not eligible to
>>> sue the University for negligently causing her injuries.
>>> The internal appeal was denied but several years later - I recall
>>> 2005 -
>>> the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission ruled unanimously that
she
>>> was not barred from suing the University (she had already filed such
a
>>> suit through a local lawyer) because neither the University nor the
>>> Government was her employer.
>>> The University appealed that decision to the Court of Queen's Bench
and
>>> the single judge in Calgary ruled that the Appeals Commission had
erred
>>> in law. That decision is publicly available which makes it no less
>>> incoherent.
>>> The judge ordered a review by the Appeals Commission and a new trio
>>> adhered to the judge's decision.
>>>
>>> It would be fair to say that the Students' Union has done absolutely
>>> nothing to protect students against this sort of rip-off. There is
>>> essentially no benefit for students and the ruse merely transfers the
>>> risk of injury due to the University's negligence to the student.
>>> (Interestingly in the UK it is a criminal offence to insert into a
>>> contract a disclaimer of liability to the other party for injuries
>>> caused by one's negligence).
>>> Rebeca did seek assistance from the SU but the President at that
>>> time (I
>>> don't remember her name) stated she could not help because she was a
>>> member of the Board of Governors (whom Rebeca was suing) and
therefore
>>> would be in a conflict of interest, soluble only by her refusing to
get
>>> the SU involved. I gather from Rebeca, this was the result of
>>> Ex-President Tennant's advice to the then SU President. Bill Cade
>>> adopted the same stance.
>>>
>>> Rebeca's lawyer ditched the case after the Queen's Bench decision,
>>> afraid that this meant he would receive no payment of the contingency
>>> fee. Rebeca was a talented student bound for grad studies at the
>>> time of
>>> the injuries but no longer mentally able to do the work required for
>>> what was ironically to be in neuroscience.
>>> Having pitched (pro bono of course) Rebeca's case to both panels of
the
>>> Appeals Commission, I am naturally biased in the legal arguments. The
>>> University is of course pressing her for legal costs, likely
>>> unattainable as Rebeca will likely declare bankruptcy if the Appeals
>>> Commission does not pick up the costs.
>>>
>>> It is a fond hope that the University will ever compensate her or
even
>>> apologize for injuring her. In Tennant's era a management student
(not
>>> in my class!) fell asleep in a U Hall D630 classroom, sustaining a
>>> minor
>>> injury. This was not referred to the WCB and instead the student
>>> received an out of court settlement. If the University had the
ability
>>> to settle that case, I fail to see why it should not do so in this
>>> case.
>>> I can say that Rebeca who lives locally remains traumatized by the
>>> incident and the unfairness of the callous treatment she has
received.
>>> Were she allowed to take this to court, i.e. not be deemed an
employee,
>>> her case would almost certainly succeed because there is clear
evidence
>>> that the University knew of the falling lights problem - one witness
>>> was
>>> hit by such a light but happily not badly injured. Other employees on
>>> the QT speak of their knowledge of the light problems and the
>>> failure to
>>> spend the money until after the injuries to Rebeca..
>>>
>>> If you have any questions I'll try to answer them.
>>>
>>> As everything stated here is true, I have no problem in this account
>>> being passed on. I would bwelcome any information others may have on
>>> this distressing matter.
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On
>>> Behalf
>>> Of Kent Peacock
>>> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:13 AM
>>> To: cafr-l, MailList
>>> Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
>>> Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>>>
>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
>>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>>> messages.
>>>
>>> --------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cafr-l mailing list
>>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cafr-l mailing list
>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
From rodych at uleth.ca Fri Nov 14 14:48:13 2008
From: rodych at uleth.ca (Rodych, Victor)
Date: Fri Nov 14 14:48:25 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
For those of us (e.g., me) too obtuse to get any clarification, yours is
future.
Vic
_____________________
Dr. Victor Rodych
Professor
Department of Philosophy
University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, Alberta
T1K 3M4
CANADA
-----Original Message-----
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On Behalf
Of Paul Viminitz
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 2:47 PM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
Sorry for the typo. Obviously by "future" I meant "futile". - Paul
Paul Viminitz wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
> messages.
>
> --------------------
> Further to Kent's worry that any attempt to embarrass the University
> publicly over this issue would be future, I dunno, why not give it a
> try?! Publish an article in the Lethbridge Herald that says something
> like this:
>
> PARENTS WARNED NOT TO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO U OF L
>
> The University of Lethbridge has adopted the legal fiction - a fiction
> endorsed by the courts in Alberta - that students are employees of the
> University. Accordingly, if a student is injured on the 'job' - as one
> recently was - he or she cannot sue, but can only seek the much
> reduced compensation available through the Workers Compensation Board.
> Worse yet, the University is currently seeking legal costs from her
> for her unsuccessfully appealing this fiction to the courts. Parents
> would be well advised to consider this before enrolling their children
> at the U. of L.
>
> If this doesn't embarrass the University and/or reduce enrollment,
> well, at least students and their parents have been put on notice,
> which, I suppose, is all they're really entitled to. - Paul
>
>
> Kent Peacock wrote:
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>> messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> Ian --
>>
>> Many thanks for the clarification. This is disgraceful and
>> profoundly embarrassing to this University. Is there anything that
>> could be done, apart from engaging in a long and probably futile
>> battle to embarrass the University publicly enough that it does the
>> right thing? Any ideas out there?
>>
>> Kent
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ian McKenna wrote:
>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
>>> of their messages.
>>>
>>> --------------------
>>> Hi Kent and others.
>>>
>>> In November 1999, Rebeca Larreynaga was reading a textbook in the
>>> University Library (old building of course) when a metal light
fixture
>>> fell out if its socket, swung down and hit Rebeca at great speed and
>>> with great force. She sustained injuries to her head, neck and back.
>>> Because the Alberta Government are allowed by law to permit the WCB
to
>>> deem any class of persons to be employees of the Government of
Alberta.
>>> Students (college, university and some secondary school) have been
>>> deemed by a regulation to be workers under the Workers' Compensation
>>> Act, whether or not they actually meet the legal test of employment,
>>> which is the provision of services to another person. While some
>>> students do provide services to universities and are rightly
>>> entitled to
>>> WCB coverage, students such as Rebeca did not provide services to
the
>>> University or the Government as she was employed by neither. This is
>>> true of all students who merely attend classes and pay their tuition
>>> fees.
>>>
>>> Rebeca learned of this the day after she sustained the injures when
>>> Edith Hepburn arrived at her bedside to obtain her signature of WCB
>>> documents. I was involved in assisting Rebeca to challenge the WCB
>>> decision that she was an injured worker and therefore not eligible
to
>>> sue the University for negligently causing her injuries.
>>> The internal appeal was denied but several years later - I recall
>>> 2005 -
>>> the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission ruled unanimously that
she
>>> was not barred from suing the University (she had already filed such
a
>>> suit through a local lawyer) because neither the University nor the
>>> Government was her employer.
>>> The University appealed that decision to the Court of Queen's Bench
and
>>> the single judge in Calgary ruled that the Appeals Commission had
erred
>>> in law. That decision is publicly available which makes it no less
>>> incoherent.
>>> The judge ordered a review by the Appeals Commission and a new trio
>>> adhered to the judge's decision.
>>>
>>> It would be fair to say that the Students' Union has done absolutely
>>> nothing to protect students against this sort of rip-off. There is
>>> essentially no benefit for students and the ruse merely transfers
the
>>> risk of injury due to the University's negligence to the student.
>>> (Interestingly in the UK it is a criminal offence to insert into a
>>> contract a disclaimer of liability to the other party for injuries
>>> caused by one's negligence).
>>> Rebeca did seek assistance from the SU but the President at that
>>> time (I
>>> don't remember her name) stated she could not help because she was a
>>> member of the Board of Governors (whom Rebeca was suing) and
therefore
>>> would be in a conflict of interest, soluble only by her refusing to
get
>>> the SU involved. I gather from Rebeca, this was the result of
>>> Ex-President Tennant's advice to the then SU President. Bill Cade
>>> adopted the same stance.
>>>
>>> Rebeca's lawyer ditched the case after the Queen's Bench decision,
>>> afraid that this meant he would receive no payment of the
contingency
>>> fee. Rebeca was a talented student bound for grad studies at the
>>> time of
>>> the injuries but no longer mentally able to do the work required for
>>> what was ironically to be in neuroscience.
>>> Having pitched (pro bono of course) Rebeca's case to both panels of
the
>>> Appeals Commission, I am naturally biased in the legal arguments.
The
>>> University is of course pressing her for legal costs, likely
>>> unattainable as Rebeca will likely declare bankruptcy if the Appeals
>>> Commission does not pick up the costs.
>>>
>>> It is a fond hope that the University will ever compensate her or
even
>>> apologize for injuring her. In Tennant's era a management student
(not
>>> in my class!) fell asleep in a U Hall D630 classroom, sustaining a
>>> minor
>>> injury. This was not referred to the WCB and instead the student
>>> received an out of court settlement. If the University had the
ability
>>> to settle that case, I fail to see why it should not do so in this
>>> case.
>>> I can say that Rebeca who lives locally remains traumatized by the
>>> incident and the unfairness of the callous treatment she has
received.
>>> Were she allowed to take this to court, i.e. not be deemed an
employee,
>>> her case would almost certainly succeed because there is clear
evidence
>>> that the University knew of the falling lights problem - one witness
>>> was
>>> hit by such a light but happily not badly injured. Other employees
on
>>> the QT speak of their knowledge of the light problems and the
>>> failure to
>>> spend the money until after the injuries to Rebeca..
>>>
>>> If you have any questions I'll try to answer them.
>>>
>>> As everything stated here is true, I have no problem in this account
>>> being passed on. I would bwelcome any information others may have on
>>> this distressing matter.
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On
>>> Behalf
>>> Of Kent Peacock
>>> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:13 AM
>>> To: cafr-l, MailList
>>> Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
>>> Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>>>
>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
unmoderated
>>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>>> messages.
>>>
>>> --------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cafr-l mailing list
>>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cafr-l mailing list
>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
_______________________________________________
cafr-l mailing list
cafr-l@uleth.ca
http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
From james.linville at uleth.ca Fri Nov 14 15:17:57 2008
From: james.linville at uleth.ca (Linville, James)
Date: Fri Nov 14 15:19:05 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
References:
Message-ID:
Perhaps the bookstore should start stocking the new "fatal Lux" logo on a
line of official hardhats. Hell, employees have to wear hardhats on other
kinds of jobsites.
Jim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081114/24512ccd/attachment.html
From hawkms at uleth.ca Fri Nov 14 18:19:31 2008
From: hawkms at uleth.ca (Hawkins, Maureen)
Date: Fri Nov 14 18:20:46 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
References:
Message-ID:
I agree.
Maureen
Maureen S. G. Hawkins
Department of English
University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, Alberta
T1K 3M4
Canada
(403) 328-7961
-----Original Message-----
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca on behalf of John Vokey
Sent: Fri 11/14/2008 2:10 PM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Subject: Re: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
I think we should also write a letter to the President and the Board
requesting that the university explicitly divorce itself from this
interpretation of the WCB, and/or it work out a fair compensation
package for the student in question.
On 14-Nov-08, at 2:04 PM, John Vokey wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Works for me; I'll sign.
>
> On 14-Nov-08, at 2:03 PM, Tom Robinson wrote:
>
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
>> of their messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> It has been suggested to me that I write a letter to the editor (or
>> that someone with more tact write a letter) and a number of us sign
>> it.
>> Here is my attempt. Remember, we want tact. Or could we have two
>> versions, one which the tactless could sign?
>> Tom
>>
>> Are students employees of the University?
>>
>> Professor Ian McKenna, in his recent letter to the editor,
>> expressed his embarrassment that a student injured at the
>> University of Lethbridge was judged to be an employee of the
>> University and thus prohibited from bringing a lawsuit against the
>> University. Professor McKenna asks whether others are embarrassed
>> too. We are.
>>
>> If students are considered employees of the University, it must be
>> the strangest employee status in the history of the world. Not only
>> do students not get paid by the University, the University demands
>> the reverse-that students pay the University-a concept foreign even
>> in slave societies. If students are really employees of the
>> University, perhaps they should sue the University for unpaid
>> wages. At about 5000 hours for a four-year degree, even at a
>> McDonald's wage, that would be about $50,000. This could offset the
>> huge student loan debt that students routinely accumulate, and it
>> would make for a well attended convocation ceremony, as graduating
>> students receive both a diploma and a cheque as they walk across
>> the stage.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 14-Nov-08, at 1:18 PM, Ian McKenna wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Kent and others.
>>>
>>> In November 1999, Rebeca Larreynaga was reading a textbook in the
>>> University Library (old building of course) when a metal light
>>> fixture
>>> fell out if its socket, swung down and hit Rebeca at great speed and
>>> with great force. She sustained injuries to her head, neck and back.
>>> Because the Alberta Government are allowed by law to permit the
>>> WCB to
>>> deem any class of persons to be employees of the Government of
>>> Alberta.
>>> Students (college, university and some secondary school) have been
>>> deemed by a regulation to be workers under the Workers' Compensation
>>> Act, whether or not they actually meet the legal test of employment,
>>> which is the provision of services to another person. While some
>>> students do provide services to universities and are rightly
>>> entitled to
>>> WCB coverage, students such as Rebeca did not provide services to
>>> the
>>> University or the Government as she was employed by neither. This is
>>> true of all students who merely attend classes and pay their tuition
>>> fees.
>>>
>>> Rebeca learned of this the day after she sustained the injures when
>>> Edith Hepburn arrived at her bedside to obtain her signature of WCB
>>> documents. I was involved in assisting Rebeca to challenge the WCB
>>> decision that she was an injured worker and therefore not eligible
>>> to
>>> sue the University for negligently causing her injuries.
>>> The internal appeal was denied but several years later - I recall
>>> 2005 -
>>> the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission ruled unanimously
>>> that she
>>> was not barred from suing the University (she had already filed
>>> such a
>>> suit through a local lawyer) because neither the University nor the
>>> Government was her employer.
>>> The University appealed that decision to the Court of Queen's
>>> Bench and
>>> the single judge in Calgary ruled that the Appeals Commission had
>>> erred
>>> in law. That decision is publicly available which makes it no less
>>> incoherent.
>>> The judge ordered a review by the Appeals Commission and a new trio
>>> adhered to the judge's decision.
>>>
>>> It would be fair to say that the Students' Union has done absolutely
>>> nothing to protect students against this sort of rip-off. There is
>>> essentially no benefit for students and the ruse merely transfers
>>> the
>>> risk of injury due to the University's negligence to the student.
>>> (Interestingly in the UK it is a criminal offence to insert into a
>>> contract a disclaimer of liability to the other party for injuries
>>> caused by one's negligence).
>>> Rebeca did seek assistance from the SU but the President at that
>>> time (I
>>> don't remember her name) stated she could not help because she was a
>>> member of the Board of Governors (whom Rebeca was suing) and
>>> therefore
>>> would be in a conflict of interest, soluble only by her refusing
>>> to get
>>> the SU involved. I gather from Rebeca, this was the result of
>>> Ex-President Tennant's advice to the then SU President. Bill Cade
>>> adopted the same stance.
>>>
>>> Rebeca's lawyer ditched the case after the Queen's Bench decision,
>>> afraid that this meant he would receive no payment of the
>>> contingency
>>> fee. Rebeca was a talented student bound for grad studies at the
>>> time of
>>> the injuries but no longer mentally able to do the work required for
>>> what was ironically to be in neuroscience.
>>>
>>> Having pitched (pro bono of course) Rebeca's case to both panels
>>> of the
>>> Appeals Commission, I am naturally biased in the legal arguments.
>>> The
>>> University is of course pressing her for legal costs, likely
>>> unattainable as Rebeca will likely declare bankruptcy if the Appeals
>>> Commission does not pick up the costs.
>>>
>>> It is a fond hope that the University will ever compensate her or
>>> even
>>> apologize for injuring her. In Tennant's era a management student
>>> (not
>>> in my class!) fell asleep in a U Hall D630 classroom, sustaining a
>>> minor
>>> injury. This was not referred to the WCB and instead the student
>>> received an out of court settlement. If the University had the
>>> ability
>>> to settle that case, I fail to see why it should not do so in this
>>> case.
>>> I can say that Rebeca who lives locally remains traumatized by the
>>> incident and the unfairness of the callous treatment she has
>>> received.
>>> Were she allowed to take this to court, i.e. not be deemed an
>>> employee,
>>> her case would almost certainly succeed because there is clear
>>> evidence
>>> that the University knew of the falling lights problem - one
>>> witness was
>>> hit by such a light but happily not badly injured. Other employees
>>> on
>>> the QT speak of their knowledge of the light problems and the
>>> failure to
>>> spend the money until after the injuries to Rebeca..
>>>
>>> If you have any questions I'll try to answer them.
>>>
>>> As everything stated here is true, I have no problem in this account
>>> being passed on. I would bwelcome any information others may have on
>>> this distressing matter.
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On
>>> Behalf
>>> Of Kent Peacock
>>> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:13 AM
>>> To: cafr-l, MailList
>>> Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
>>> Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>>>
>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>> unmoderated
>>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>>> messages.
>>>
>>> --------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ldskeptics-l mailing list
>>> ldskeptics-l@uleth.ca
>>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/ldskeptics-l
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cafr-l mailing list
>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
> --
> Everything of value that people get from religion can be had more
> honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence. The
> rest is self-deception, set to music. - Sam Harris
>
> Dr John R. Vokey
> vokey@uleth.ca
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
--
Everything of value that people get from religion can be had more
honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence. The
rest is self-deception, set to music. - Sam Harris
Dr John R. Vokey
vokey@uleth.ca
_______________________________________________
cafr-l mailing list
cafr-l@uleth.ca
http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081114/9af8eb79/attachment.html
From hawkms at uleth.ca Fri Nov 14 18:23:06 2008
From: hawkms at uleth.ca (Hawkins, Maureen)
Date: Fri Nov 14 18:23:45 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
References:
Message-ID:
I'll sign.
Maureen
Maureen S. G. Hawkins
Department of English
University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, Alberta
T1K 3M4
Canada
(403) 328-7961
-----Original Message-----
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca on behalf of Tom Robinson
Sent: Fri 11/14/2008 2:03 PM
To: ldskeptics-l, MailList
Cc: cafr-l, MailList
Subject: Re: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081114/f50b0d2b/attachment-0001.html
From rodych at uleth.ca Fri Nov 14 19:16:28 2008
From: rodych at uleth.ca (Rodych, Victor)
Date: Fri Nov 14 19:16:48 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Ian:
Could you send the list(s) non-confidential documentation about this
case?
You say: "Because the Alberta Government are allowed by law to permit
the WCB to deem any class of persons to be employees of the Government
of Alberta." Would you please direct me to a website or document where
this permission is stated. It is striking-to put it mildly-that the
Alberta Government permits "the WCB to deem any class of persons to be
employees of the Government of Alberta."
This case, as described, is deplorable. Where might I access the
"decision [that] is publicly available"?
Many thanks.
Yrs.
Vic
_____________________
Dr. Victor Rodych
Professor
Department of Philosophy
University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, Alberta
T1K 3M4
CANADA
-----Original Message-----
From: ldskeptics-l-bounces@uleth.ca
[mailto:ldskeptics-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On Behalf Of Ian McKenna
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 1:19 PM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Hi Kent and others.
In November 1999, Rebeca Larreynaga was reading a textbook in the
University Library (old building of course) when a metal light fixture
fell out if its socket, swung down and hit Rebeca at great speed and
with great force. She sustained injuries to her head, neck and back.
Because the Alberta Government are allowed by law to permit the WCB to
deem any class of persons to be employees of the Government of Alberta.
Students (college, university and some secondary school) have been
deemed by a regulation to be workers under the Workers' Compensation
Act, whether or not they actually meet the legal test of employment,
which is the provision of services to another person. While some
students do provide services to universities and are rightly entitled to
WCB coverage, students such as Rebeca did not provide services to the
University or the Government as she was employed by neither. This is
true of all students who merely attend classes and pay their tuition
fees.
Rebeca learned of this the day after she sustained the injures when
Edith Hepburn arrived at her bedside to obtain her signature of WCB
documents. I was involved in assisting Rebeca to challenge the WCB
decision that she was an injured worker and therefore not eligible to
sue the University for negligently causing her injuries.
The internal appeal was denied but several years later - I recall 2005 -
the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission ruled unanimously that she
was not barred from suing the University (she had already filed such a
suit through a local lawyer) because neither the University nor the
Government was her employer.
The University appealed that decision to the Court of Queen's Bench and
the single judge in Calgary ruled that the Appeals Commission had erred
in law. That decision is publicly available which makes it no less
incoherent.
The judge ordered a review by the Appeals Commission and a new trio
adhered to the judge's decision.
It would be fair to say that the Students' Union has done absolutely
nothing to protect students against this sort of rip-off. There is
essentially no benefit for students and the ruse merely transfers the
risk of injury due to the University's negligence to the student.
(Interestingly in the UK it is a criminal offence to insert into a
contract a disclaimer of liability to the other party for injuries
caused by one's negligence).
Rebeca did seek assistance from the SU but the President at that time (I
don't remember her name) stated she could not help because she was a
member of the Board of Governors (whom Rebeca was suing) and therefore
would be in a conflict of interest, soluble only by her refusing to get
the SU involved. I gather from Rebeca, this was the result of
Ex-President Tennant's advice to the then SU President. Bill Cade
adopted the same stance.
Rebeca's lawyer ditched the case after the Queen's Bench decision,
afraid that this meant he would receive no payment of the contingency
fee. Rebeca was a talented student bound for grad studies at the time of
the injuries but no longer mentally able to do the work required for
what was ironically to be in neuroscience.
Having pitched (pro bono of course) Rebeca's case to both panels of the
Appeals Commission, I am naturally biased in the legal arguments. The
University is of course pressing her for legal costs, likely
unattainable as Rebeca will likely declare bankruptcy if the Appeals
Commission does not pick up the costs.
It is a fond hope that the University will ever compensate her or even
apologize for injuring her. In Tennant's era a management student (not
in my class!) fell asleep in a U Hall D630 classroom, sustaining a minor
injury. This was not referred to the WCB and instead the student
received an out of court settlement. If the University had the ability
to settle that case, I fail to see why it should not do so in this case.
I can say that Rebeca who lives locally remains traumatized by the
incident and the unfairness of the callous treatment she has received.
Were she allowed to take this to court, i.e. not be deemed an employee,
her case would almost certainly succeed because there is clear evidence
that the University knew of the falling lights problem - one witness was
hit by such a light but happily not badly injured. Other employees on
the QT speak of their knowledge of the light problems and the failure to
spend the money until after the injuries to Rebeca..
If you have any questions I'll try to answer them.
As everything stated here is true, I have no problem in this account
being passed on. I would bwelcome any information others may have on
this distressing matter.
Thanks
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On Behalf
Of Kent Peacock
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:13 AM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
_______________________________________________
ldskeptics-l mailing list
ldskeptics-l@uleth.ca
http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/ldskeptics-l
From richard.mueller at uleth.ca Fri Nov 14 19:27:27 2008
From: richard.mueller at uleth.ca (Mueller, Richard)
Date: Fri Nov 14 19:30:50 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
References:
Message-ID:
Hello all,
I think that Tom put it best this morning when he said that the
university treats students like employees on one hand, and like clients
or customers on the other; they want their cake and to eat it too.
Clearly this is inconsistent. It is also deplorable that they would treat
a student like this. I have brought this case up in my classes a couple
of times and students are completely unaware that they are deemed to be
employees of the university in this type of case. I am curious as to why
the university didn't simply pay this person hush money as they seem to
have done so many times in the past. Not that I agree with this, I am
simply curious. My understanding is that they didn't want to set an
unpalatable (from the admin's perspective) precedent.
I would be happy to sign (indeed draft) a letter to the editor using
something similar to the wording in Tom's paradox, mentioning that I am
embarassed that the university administration handled the case in this
way.
That said, there are two sides to every story. One colleague brought up
the point (and I think this is improbable) that the student might be
milking the system for what it's worth. I think that we ought to
eliminate this possibility before we draft and sign a letter. If we can
eliminate it with reasonable certainty, I'm in.
Best,
Rick
________________________________
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca on behalf of Hawkins, Maureen
Sent: Fri 14/11/2008 6:23 PM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Subject: RE: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081114/dcb02582/attachment.html
From siminovitch at uleth.ca Fri Nov 14 21:39:25 2008
From: siminovitch at uleth.ca (David Siminovitch)
Date: Fri Nov 14 21:39:26 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list
> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Ian:
>
> Could you send the list(s) non-confidential documentation about this
> case?
>
> You say: "Because the Alberta Government are allowed by law to permit
> the WCB to deem any class of persons to be employees of the Government
> of Alberta." Would you please direct me to a website or document where
> this permission is stated. It is striking-to put it mildly-that the
> Alberta Government permits "the WCB to deem any class of persons to be
> employees of the Government of Alberta."
>
> This case, as described, is deplorable. Where might I access the
> "decision [that] is publicly available"?
>
> Many thanks.
>
> Yrs.
>
> Vic
>
> _____________________
>
> Dr. Victor Rodych
> Professor
> Department of Philosophy
> University of Lethbridge
> 4401 University Drive
> Lethbridge, Alberta
> T1K 3M4
> CANADA
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ldskeptics-l-bounces@uleth.ca
> [mailto:ldskeptics-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On Behalf Of Ian McKenna
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 1:19 PM
> To: cafr-l, MailList
> Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
> Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>
> Hi Kent and others.
>
> In November 1999, Rebeca Larreynaga was reading a textbook in the
> University Library (old building of course) when a metal light fixture
> fell out if its socket, swung down and hit Rebeca at great speed and
> with great force. She sustained injuries to her head, neck and back.
> Because the Alberta Government are allowed by law to permit the WCB to
> deem any class of persons to be employees of the Government of Alberta.
> Students (college, university and some secondary school) have been
> deemed by a regulation to be workers under the Workers' Compensation
> Act, whether or not they actually meet the legal test of employment,
> which is the provision of services to another person. While some
> students do provide services to universities and are rightly entitled
to
> WCB coverage, students such as Rebeca did not provide services to the
> University or the Government as she was employed by neither. This is
> true of all students who merely attend classes and pay their tuition
> fees.
>
> Rebeca learned of this the day after she sustained the injures when
> Edith Hepburn arrived at her bedside to obtain her signature of WCB
> documents. I was involved in assisting Rebeca to challenge the WCB
> decision that she was an injured worker and therefore not eligible to
> sue the University for negligently causing her injuries.
> The internal appeal was denied but several years later - I recall 2005
-
> the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission ruled unanimously that she
> was not barred from suing the University (she had already filed such a
> suit through a local lawyer) because neither the University nor the
> Government was her employer.
> The University appealed that decision to the Court of Queen's Bench and
> the single judge in Calgary ruled that the Appeals Commission had erred
> in law. That decision is publicly available which makes it no less
> incoherent.
> The judge ordered a review by the Appeals Commission and a new trio
> adhered to the judge's decision.
>
> It would be fair to say that the Students' Union has done absolutely
> nothing to protect students against this sort of rip-off. There is
> essentially no benefit for students and the ruse merely transfers the
> risk of injury due to the University's negligence to the student.
> (Interestingly in the UK it is a criminal offence to insert into a
> contract a disclaimer of liability to the other party for injuries
> caused by one's negligence).
> Rebeca did seek assistance from the SU but the President at that time
(I
> don't remember her name) stated she could not help because she was a
> member of the Board of Governors (whom Rebeca was suing) and therefore
> would be in a conflict of interest, soluble only by her refusing to get
> the SU involved. I gather from Rebeca, this was the result of
> Ex-President Tennant's advice to the then SU President. Bill Cade
> adopted the same stance.
>
> Rebeca's lawyer ditched the case after the Queen's Bench decision,
> afraid that this meant he would receive no payment of the contingency
> fee. Rebeca was a talented student bound for grad studies at the time
of
> the injuries but no longer mentally able to do the work required for
> what was ironically to be in neuroscience.
>
> Having pitched (pro bono of course) Rebeca's case to both panels of the
> Appeals Commission, I am naturally biased in the legal arguments. The
> University is of course pressing her for legal costs, likely
> unattainable as Rebeca will likely declare bankruptcy if the Appeals
> Commission does not pick up the costs.
>
> It is a fond hope that the University will ever compensate her or even
> apologize for injuring her. In Tennant's era a management student (not
> in my class!) fell asleep in a U Hall D630 classroom, sustaining a
minor
> injury. This was not referred to the WCB and instead the student
> received an out of court settlement. If the University had the ability
> to settle that case, I fail to see why it should not do so in this
case.
> I can say that Rebeca who lives locally remains traumatized by the
> incident and the unfairness of the callous treatment she has received.
> Were she allowed to take this to court, i.e. not be deemed an employee,
> her case would almost certainly succeed because there is clear evidence
> that the University knew of the falling lights problem - one witness
was
> hit by such a light but happily not badly injured. Other employees on
> the QT speak of their knowledge of the light problems and the failure
to
> spend the money until after the injuries to Rebeca..
>
> If you have any questions I'll try to answer them.
>
> As everything stated here is true, I have no problem in this account
> being passed on. I would bwelcome any information others may have on
> this distressing matter.
> Thanks
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On
Behalf
> Of Kent Peacock
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:13 AM
> To: cafr-l, MailList
> Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
> Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
> messages.
>
> --------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ldskeptics-l mailing list
> ldskeptics-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/ldskeptics-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
This case should be governed by provincial OHS legislation.
Unfortunately,
it would appear the language in the Act is, perhaps deliberately, very
nebulous:
"worker" means a person engaged in an occupation.
?occupation? means every occupation, employment, business, calling or
pursuit over which the Legislature has jurisdiction, except
farming or ranching operations specified in the regulations, and
work in, to or around a private dwelling or any land used in connection
with the dwelling that is performed by an occupant or owner who lives in
the private dwelling or a household servant of the occupant or owner;
However, the employer has certain obligations under the same legislation,
one of which is that supervisors must review a safety orientation
checklist with each new employee. Such information must be provided to
all
new employees. If the university is not doing this currently with every
incoming student, they would appear to be in violation of the Act.
David
From mckenna at uleth.ca Sat Nov 15 00:12:37 2008
From: mckenna at uleth.ca (Ian McKenna)
Date: Sat Nov 15 00:12:39 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
David:
Interestingly, students are not (qua students) considered or deemed to be
workers for purposes of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) for
the very reason that they provide no services to an employer. This need
not rule out their representation on the U of L Joint Health and Safety
Committee.
For several years, students were considered under the OHSA to be
independent sub-contractors working for the main contractor, the
University. Several years ago, Alberta Justice recommended that this be
stopped because, while students meet the requirement of "workers" under
the OHSA, the Alberta universities receive no services from students and
cannot be considered as employers of students under the OHSA.
For this reason students were dropped from the OHSA but not the Workers'
Compensation Act.
Weird eh?
Thanks
Ian
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list
> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Ian McKenna wrote:
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>> messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> Hi Kent and others.
>>
>> In November 1999, Rebeca Larreynaga was reading a textbook in the
>> University Library (old building of course) when a metal light fixture
>> fell out if its socket, swung down and hit Rebeca at great speed and
>> with great force. She sustained injuries to her head, neck and back.
>> Because the Alberta Government are allowed by law to permit the WCB to
>> deem any class of persons to be employees of the Government of
Alberta.
>> Students (college, university and some secondary school) have been
>> deemed by a regulation to be workers under the Workers' Compensation
>> Act, whether or not they actually meet the legal test of employment,
>> which is the provision of services to another person. While some
>> students do provide services to universities and are rightly entitled
to
>> WCB coverage, students such as Rebeca did not provide services to the
>> University or the Government as she was employed by neither. This is
>> true of all students who merely attend classes and pay their tuition
>> fees.
>>
>> Rebeca learned of this the day after she sustained the injures when
>> Edith Hepburn arrived at her bedside to obtain her signature of WCB
>> documents. I was involved in assisting Rebeca to challenge the WCB
>> decision that she was an injured worker and therefore not eligible to
>> sue the University for negligently causing her injuries.
>> The internal appeal was denied but several years later - I recall 2005
-
>> the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission ruled unanimously that
she
>> was not barred from suing the University (she had already filed such a
>> suit through a local lawyer) because neither the University nor the
>> Government was her employer.
>> The University appealed that decision to the Court of Queen's Bench
and
>> the single judge in Calgary ruled that the Appeals Commission had
erred
>> in law. That decision is publicly available which makes it no less
>> incoherent.
>> The judge ordered a review by the Appeals Commission and a new trio
>> adhered to the judge's decision.
>>
>> It would be fair to say that the Students' Union has done absolutely
>> nothing to protect students against this sort of rip-off. There is
>> essentially no benefit for students and the ruse merely transfers the
>> risk of injury due to the University's negligence to the student.
>> (Interestingly in the UK it is a criminal offence to insert into a
>> contract a disclaimer of liability to the other party for injuries
>> caused by one's negligence).
>> Rebeca did seek assistance from the SU but the President at that time
(I
>> don't remember her name) stated she could not help because she was a
>> member of the Board of Governors (whom Rebeca was suing) and therefore
>> would be in a conflict of interest, soluble only by her refusing to
get
>> the SU involved. I gather from Rebeca, this was the result of
>> Ex-President Tennant's advice to the then SU President. Bill Cade
>> adopted the same stance.
>>
>> Rebeca's lawyer ditched the case after the Queen's Bench decision,
>> afraid that this meant he would receive no payment of the contingency
>> fee. Rebeca was a talented student bound for grad studies at the time
of
>> the injuries but no longer mentally able to do the work required for
>> what was ironically to be in neuroscience.
>>
>> Having pitched (pro bono of course) Rebeca's case to both panels of
the
>> Appeals Commission, I am naturally biased in the legal arguments. The
>> University is of course pressing her for legal costs, likely
>> unattainable as Rebeca will likely declare bankruptcy if the Appeals
>> Commission does not pick up the costs.
>>
>> It is a fond hope that the University will ever compensate her or even
>> apologize for injuring her. In Tennant's era a management student (not
>> in my class!) fell asleep in a U Hall D630 classroom, sustaining a
minor
>> injury. This was not referred to the WCB and instead the student
>> received an out of court settlement. If the University had the ability
>> to settle that case, I fail to see why it should not do so in this
case.
>> I can say that Rebeca who lives locally remains traumatized by the
>> incident and the unfairness of the callous treatment she has received.
>> Were she allowed to take this to court, i.e. not be deemed an
employee,
>> her case would almost certainly succeed because there is clear
evidence
>> that the University knew of the falling lights problem - one witness
was
>> hit by such a light but happily not badly injured. Other employees on
>> the QT speak of their knowledge of the light problems and the failure
to
>> spend the money until after the injuries to Rebeca..
>>
>> If you have any questions I'll try to answer them.
>>
>> As everything stated here is true, I have no problem in this account
>> being passed on. I would bwelcome any information others may have on
>> this distressing matter.
>> Thanks
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On
Behalf
>> Of Kent Peacock
>> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:13 AM
>> To: cafr-l, MailList
>> Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
>> Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>>
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>> messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cafr-l mailing list
>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>
> Thank you Ian for this account.
>
> Since students are deemed to be employees, they logically should be
> represented on the Joint Health and Safety Committee. Undergraduate
> students currently are not, and never have been. As the current ULFA
> Alternate Rep on this Committee, I will raise this matter at our
monthly
> meeting next week.
>
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
From mckenna at uleth.ca Sat Nov 15 00:24:36 2008
From: mckenna at uleth.ca (Ian McKenna)
Date: Sat Nov 15 00:24:38 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Tom and others
I like the idea of a letter signed by those willing to do so. While it
will not move the administration to any ethical position, it will be a
tremendous boost for Rebeca's morale and I dare say for the morale of
current students, many of whom must be bewitched bothered and bewildered
by it all.
The draft referred to students not being employees of the U of L (and
other universities and colleges). The Workers' Compensation Regulation
deems them employed by the Government of Alberta. That should be the
reference in the suggested letter.
Many thanks
Ian
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list
> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
>
> --------------------It has been suggested to me that I write a letter
to
> the editor (or
> that someone with more tact write a letter) and a number of us sign it.
> Here is my attempt. Remember, we want tact. Or could we have two
> versions, one which the tactless could sign?
> Tom
>
> Are students employees of the University?
>
> Professor Ian McKenna, in his recent letter to the editor, expressed
> his embarrassment that a student injured at the University of
> Lethbridge was judged to be an employee of the University and thus
> prohibited from bringing a lawsuit against the University. Professor
> McKenna asks whether others are embarrassed too. We are.
>
> If students are considered employees of the University, it must be the
> strangest employee status in the history of the world. Not only do
> students not get paid by the University, the University demands the
> reverse?that students pay the University?a concept foreign even in
> slave societies. If students are really employees of the University,
> perhaps they should sue the University for unpaid wages. At about 5000
> hours for a four-year degree, even at a McDonald's wage, that would be
> about $50,000. This could offset the huge student loan debt that
> students routinely accumulate, and it would make for a well attended
> convocation ceremony, as graduating students receive both a diploma
> and a cheque as they walk across the stage.
>
>
>
> On 14-Nov-08, at 1:18 PM, Ian McKenna wrote:
>
>> Hi Kent and others.
>>
>> In November 1999, Rebeca Larreynaga was reading a textbook in the
>> University Library (old building of course) when a metal light fixture
>> fell out if its socket, swung down and hit Rebeca at great speed and
>> with great force. She sustained injuries to her head, neck and back.
>> Because the Alberta Government are allowed by law to permit the WCB to
>> deem any class of persons to be employees of the Government of
>> Alberta.
>> Students (college, university and some secondary school) have been
>> deemed by a regulation to be workers under the Workers' Compensation
>> Act, whether or not they actually meet the legal test of employment,
>> which is the provision of services to another person. While some
>> students do provide services to universities and are rightly
>> entitled to
>> WCB coverage, students such as Rebeca did not provide services to the
>> University or the Government as she was employed by neither. This is
>> true of all students who merely attend classes and pay their tuition
>> fees.
>>
>> Rebeca learned of this the day after she sustained the injures when
>> Edith Hepburn arrived at her bedside to obtain her signature of WCB
>> documents. I was involved in assisting Rebeca to challenge the WCB
>> decision that she was an injured worker and therefore not eligible to
>> sue the University for negligently causing her injuries.
>> The internal appeal was denied but several years later - I recall
>> 2005 -
>> the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission ruled unanimously that
>> she
>> was not barred from suing the University (she had already filed such a
>> suit through a local lawyer) because neither the University nor the
>> Government was her employer.
>> The University appealed that decision to the Court of Queen's Bench
>> and
>> the single judge in Calgary ruled that the Appeals Commission had
>> erred
>> in law. That decision is publicly available which makes it no less
>> incoherent.
>> The judge ordered a review by the Appeals Commission and a new trio
>> adhered to the judge's decision.
>>
>> It would be fair to say that the Students' Union has done absolutely
>> nothing to protect students against this sort of rip-off. There is
>> essentially no benefit for students and the ruse merely transfers the
>> risk of injury due to the University's negligence to the student.
>> (Interestingly in the UK it is a criminal offence to insert into a
>> contract a disclaimer of liability to the other party for injuries
>> caused by one's negligence).
>> Rebeca did seek assistance from the SU but the President at that
>> time (I
>> don't remember her name) stated she could not help because she was a
>> member of the Board of Governors (whom Rebeca was suing) and therefore
>> would be in a conflict of interest, soluble only by her refusing to
>> get
>> the SU involved. I gather from Rebeca, this was the result of
>> Ex-President Tennant's advice to the then SU President. Bill Cade
>> adopted the same stance.
>>
>> Rebeca's lawyer ditched the case after the Queen's Bench decision,
>> afraid that this meant he would receive no payment of the contingency
>> fee. Rebeca was a talented student bound for grad studies at the
>> time of
>> the injuries but no longer mentally able to do the work required for
>> what was ironically to be in neuroscience.
>>
>> Having pitched (pro bono of course) Rebeca's case to both panels of
>> the
>> Appeals Commission, I am naturally biased in the legal arguments. The
>> University is of course pressing her for legal costs, likely
>> unattainable as Rebeca will likely declare bankruptcy if the Appeals
>> Commission does not pick up the costs.
>>
>> It is a fond hope that the University will ever compensate her or even
>> apologize for injuring her. In Tennant's era a management student (not
>> in my class!) fell asleep in a U Hall D630 classroom, sustaining a
>> minor
>> injury. This was not referred to the WCB and instead the student
>> received an out of court settlement. If the University had the ability
>> to settle that case, I fail to see why it should not do so in this
>> case.
>> I can say that Rebeca who lives locally remains traumatized by the
>> incident and the unfairness of the callous treatment she has received.
>> Were she allowed to take this to court, i.e. not be deemed an
>> employee,
>> her case would almost certainly succeed because there is clear
>> evidence
>> that the University knew of the falling lights problem - one witness
>> was
>> hit by such a light but happily not badly injured. Other employees on
>> the QT speak of their knowledge of the light problems and the
>> failure to
>> spend the money until after the injuries to Rebeca..
>>
>> If you have any questions I'll try to answer them.
>>
>> As everything stated here is true, I have no problem in this account
>> being passed on. I would bwelcome any information others may have on
>> this distressing matter.
>> Thanks
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On
>> Behalf
>> Of Kent Peacock
>> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:13 AM
>> To: cafr-l, MailList
>> Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
>> Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>>
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>> messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ldskeptics-l mailing list
>> ldskeptics-l@uleth.ca
>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/ldskeptics-l
>
>
From vokey at uleth.ca Sat Nov 15 00:32:51 2008
From: vokey at uleth.ca (John Vokey)
Date: Sat Nov 15 00:32:53 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Two (simple) things:
a) the law is stupid, ignorant and ugly: but it is the law of ALBERTA-
STAN
b) our response is not one of legality (as in: who gives a flying
phuck!), but moral rights. As we, the University, seriously injured
the student, we (the university) need to do every thing we can within
in reason to ameliorate that injury. Morally, we have no option. We
have to assist this poor woman. WE (the phucking collective we call
the U of L) NEEDS to do this. There is no option, other than the
degree of support. I vote for beggar ourselves before her. Really.
I cannot tolerate what we have done as an institution. Like most I
have interrogated on the issue, it was assumed by that we had settled
to the student's advantage. Nope. We (our university) are now suing
her for legal costs. Something is clearly phucked, and, for once, it
isn't my take on things. Or, I suspect, the take of most (all?) of us.
On 15-Nov-08, at 12:12 AM, Ian McKenna wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> David:
>
> Interestingly, students are not (qua students) considered or deemed
> to be
> workers for purposes of the Occupational Health and Safety Act
> (OHSA) for
> the very reason that they provide no services to an employer. This
> need
> not rule out their representation on the U of L Joint Health and
> Safety
> Committee.
>
> For several years, students were considered under the OHSA to be
> independent sub-contractors working for the main contractor, the
> University. Several years ago, Alberta Justice recommended that this
> be
> stopped because, while students meet the requirement of "workers"
> under
> the OHSA, the Alberta universities receive no services from students
> and
> cannot be considered as employers of students under the OHSA.
> For this reason students were dropped from the OHSA but not the
> Workers'
> Compensation Act.
> Weird eh?
> Thanks
> Ian
>
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list
>> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> Ian McKenna wrote:
>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>> unmoderated
>>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>>> messages.
>>>
>>> --------------------
>>> Hi Kent and others.
>>>
>>> In November 1999, Rebeca Larreynaga was reading a textbook in the
>>> University Library (old building of course) when a metal light
>>> fixture
>>> fell out if its socket, swung down and hit Rebeca at great speed and
>>> with great force. She sustained injuries to her head, neck and back.
>>> Because the Alberta Government are allowed by law to permit the
>>> WCB to
>>> deem any class of persons to be employees of the Government of
>>> Alberta.
>>> Students (college, university and some secondary school) have been
>>> deemed by a regulation to be workers under the Workers' Compensation
>>> Act, whether or not they actually meet the legal test of employment,
>>> which is the provision of services to another person. While some
>>> students do provide services to universities and are rightly
>>> entitled to
>>> WCB coverage, students such as Rebeca did not provide services to
>>> the
>>> University or the Government as she was employed by neither. This is
>>> true of all students who merely attend classes and pay their tuition
>>> fees.
>>>
>>> Rebeca learned of this the day after she sustained the injures when
>>> Edith Hepburn arrived at her bedside to obtain her signature of WCB
>>> documents. I was involved in assisting Rebeca to challenge the WCB
>>> decision that she was an injured worker and therefore not eligible
>>> to
>>> sue the University for negligently causing her injuries.
>>> The internal appeal was denied but several years later - I recall
>>> 2005 -
>>> the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission ruled unanimously
>>> that she
>>> was not barred from suing the University (she had already filed
>>> such a
>>> suit through a local lawyer) because neither the University nor the
>>> Government was her employer.
>>> The University appealed that decision to the Court of Queen's
>>> Bench and
>>> the single judge in Calgary ruled that the Appeals Commission had
>>> erred
>>> in law. That decision is publicly available which makes it no less
>>> incoherent.
>>> The judge ordered a review by the Appeals Commission and a new trio
>>> adhered to the judge's decision.
>>>
>>> It would be fair to say that the Students' Union has done absolutely
>>> nothing to protect students against this sort of rip-off. There is
>>> essentially no benefit for students and the ruse merely transfers
>>> the
>>> risk of injury due to the University's negligence to the student.
>>> (Interestingly in the UK it is a criminal offence to insert into a
>>> contract a disclaimer of liability to the other party for injuries
>>> caused by one's negligence).
>>> Rebeca did seek assistance from the SU but the President at that
>>> time (I
>>> don't remember her name) stated she could not help because she was a
>>> member of the Board of Governors (whom Rebeca was suing) and
>>> therefore
>>> would be in a conflict of interest, soluble only by her refusing
>>> to get
>>> the SU involved. I gather from Rebeca, this was the result of
>>> Ex-President Tennant's advice to the then SU President. Bill Cade
>>> adopted the same stance.
>>>
>>> Rebeca's lawyer ditched the case after the Queen's Bench decision,
>>> afraid that this meant he would receive no payment of the
>>> contingency
>>> fee. Rebeca was a talented student bound for grad studies at the
>>> time of
>>> the injuries but no longer mentally able to do the work required for
>>> what was ironically to be in neuroscience.
>>>
>>> Having pitched (pro bono of course) Rebeca's case to both panels
>>> of the
>>> Appeals Commission, I am naturally biased in the legal arguments.
>>> The
>>> University is of course pressing her for legal costs, likely
>>> unattainable as Rebeca will likely declare bankruptcy if the Appeals
>>> Commission does not pick up the costs.
>>>
>>> It is a fond hope that the University will ever compensate her or
>>> even
>>> apologize for injuring her. In Tennant's era a management student
>>> (not
>>> in my class!) fell asleep in a U Hall D630 classroom, sustaining a
>>> minor
>>> injury. This was not referred to the WCB and instead the student
>>> received an out of court settlement. If the University had the
>>> ability
>>> to settle that case, I fail to see why it should not do so in this
>>> case.
>>> I can say that Rebeca who lives locally remains traumatized by the
>>> incident and the unfairness of the callous treatment she has
>>> received.
>>> Were she allowed to take this to court, i.e. not be deemed an
>>> employee,
>>> her case would almost certainly succeed because there is clear
>>> evidence
>>> that the University knew of the falling lights problem - one
>>> witness was
>>> hit by such a light but happily not badly injured. Other employees
>>> on
>>> the QT speak of their knowledge of the light problems and the
>>> failure to
>>> spend the money until after the injuries to Rebeca..
>>>
>>> If you have any questions I'll try to answer them.
>>>
>>> As everything stated here is true, I have no problem in this account
>>> being passed on. I would bwelcome any information others may have on
>>> this distressing matter.
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On
>>> Behalf
>>> Of Kent Peacock
>>> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:13 AM
>>> To: cafr-l, MailList
>>> Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
>>> Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>>>
>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>> unmoderated
>>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>>> messages.
>>>
>>> --------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cafr-l mailing list
>>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>>
>> Thank you Ian for this account.
>>
>> Since students are deemed to be employees, they logically should be
>> represented on the Joint Health and Safety Committee. Undergraduate
>> students currently are not, and never have been. As the current ULFA
>> Alternate Rep on this Committee, I will raise this matter at our
>> monthly
>> meeting next week.
>>
>> David
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cafr-l mailing list
>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
From mckenna at uleth.ca Sat Nov 15 00:40:56 2008
From: mckenna at uleth.ca (Ian McKenna)
Date: Sat Nov 15 00:40:58 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
John:
While I have little faith in the University administration's morality,
your idea would attract media interest in and beyond Alberta. A copy of
the letter might also go to our two MLAs. If students got on board here,
we might also consider a petition to the Legislature. The
administration's
position will be that their hands are (conveniently) tied by the law.
It is interesting that there was a recent falling of lights elsewhere in
the University - no casualties mercifully. However this does raise
questions about how important student, faculty, administrative staff, and
APOs is.
Thanks
Ian
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list
> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> I think we should also write a letter to the President and the Board
> requesting that the university explicitly divorce itself from this
> interpretation of the WCB, and/or it work out a fair compensation
> package for the student in question.
>
> On 14-Nov-08, at 2:04 PM, John Vokey wrote:
>
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
>> of their messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> Works for me; I'll sign.
>>
>> On 14-Nov-08, at 2:03 PM, Tom Robinson wrote:
>>
>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
>>> of their messages.
>>>
>>> --------------------
>>> It has been suggested to me that I write a letter to the editor (or
>>> that someone with more tact write a letter) and a number of us sign
>>> it.
>>> Here is my attempt. Remember, we want tact. Or could we have two
>>> versions, one which the tactless could sign?
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> Are students employees of the University?
>>>
>>> Professor Ian McKenna, in his recent letter to the editor,
>>> expressed his embarrassment that a student injured at the
>>> University of Lethbridge was judged to be an employee of the
>>> University and thus prohibited from bringing a lawsuit against the
>>> University. Professor McKenna asks whether others are embarrassed
>>> too. We are.
>>>
>>> If students are considered employees of the University, it must be
>>> the strangest employee status in the history of the world. Not only
>>> do students not get paid by the University, the University demands
>>> the reverse?that students pay the University?a concept foreign even
>>> in slave societies. If students are really employees of the
>>> University, perhaps they should sue the University for unpaid
>>> wages. At about 5000 hours for a four-year degree, even at a
>>> McDonald's wage, that would be about $50,000. This could offset the
>>> huge student loan debt that students routinely accumulate, and it
>>> would make for a well attended convocation ceremony, as graduating
>>> students receive both a diploma and a cheque as they walk across
>>> the stage.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14-Nov-08, at 1:18 PM, Ian McKenna wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Kent and others.
>>>>
>>>> In November 1999, Rebeca Larreynaga was reading a textbook in the
>>>> University Library (old building of course) when a metal light
>>>> fixture
>>>> fell out if its socket, swung down and hit Rebeca at great speed and
>>>> with great force. She sustained injuries to her head, neck and back.
>>>> Because the Alberta Government are allowed by law to permit the
>>>> WCB to
>>>> deem any class of persons to be employees of the Government of
>>>> Alberta.
>>>> Students (college, university and some secondary school) have been
>>>> deemed by a regulation to be workers under the Workers' Compensation
>>>> Act, whether or not they actually meet the legal test of employment,
>>>> which is the provision of services to another person. While some
>>>> students do provide services to universities and are rightly
>>>> entitled to
>>>> WCB coverage, students such as Rebeca did not provide services to
>>>> the
>>>> University or the Government as she was employed by neither. This is
>>>> true of all students who merely attend classes and pay their tuition
>>>> fees.
>>>>
>>>> Rebeca learned of this the day after she sustained the injures when
>>>> Edith Hepburn arrived at her bedside to obtain her signature of WCB
>>>> documents. I was involved in assisting Rebeca to challenge the WCB
>>>> decision that she was an injured worker and therefore not eligible
>>>> to
>>>> sue the University for negligently causing her injuries.
>>>> The internal appeal was denied but several years later - I recall
>>>> 2005 -
>>>> the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission ruled unanimously
>>>> that she
>>>> was not barred from suing the University (she had already filed
>>>> such a
>>>> suit through a local lawyer) because neither the University nor the
>>>> Government was her employer.
>>>> The University appealed that decision to the Court of Queen's
>>>> Bench and
>>>> the single judge in Calgary ruled that the Appeals Commission had
>>>> erred
>>>> in law. That decision is publicly available which makes it no less
>>>> incoherent.
>>>> The judge ordered a review by the Appeals Commission and a new trio
>>>> adhered to the judge's decision.
>>>>
>>>> It would be fair to say that the Students' Union has done absolutely
>>>> nothing to protect students against this sort of rip-off. There is
>>>> essentially no benefit for students and the ruse merely transfers
>>>> the
>>>> risk of injury due to the University's negligence to the student.
>>>> (Interestingly in the UK it is a criminal offence to insert into a
>>>> contract a disclaimer of liability to the other party for injuries
>>>> caused by one's negligence).
>>>> Rebeca did seek assistance from the SU but the President at that
>>>> time (I
>>>> don't remember her name) stated she could not help because she was a
>>>> member of the Board of Governors (whom Rebeca was suing) and
>>>> therefore
>>>> would be in a conflict of interest, soluble only by her refusing
>>>> to get
>>>> the SU involved. I gather from Rebeca, this was the result of
>>>> Ex-President Tennant's advice to the then SU President. Bill Cade
>>>> adopted the same stance.
>>>>
>>>> Rebeca's lawyer ditched the case after the Queen's Bench decision,
>>>> afraid that this meant he would receive no payment of the
>>>> contingency
>>>> fee. Rebeca was a talented student bound for grad studies at the
>>>> time of
>>>> the injuries but no longer mentally able to do the work required for
>>>> what was ironically to be in neuroscience.
>>>>
>>>> Having pitched (pro bono of course) Rebeca's case to both panels
>>>> of the
>>>> Appeals Commission, I am naturally biased in the legal arguments.
>>>> The
>>>> University is of course pressing her for legal costs, likely
>>>> unattainable as Rebeca will likely declare bankruptcy if the Appeals
>>>> Commission does not pick up the costs.
>>>>
>>>> It is a fond hope that the University will ever compensate her or
>>>> even
>>>> apologize for injuring her. In Tennant's era a management student
>>>> (not
>>>> in my class!) fell asleep in a U Hall D630 classroom, sustaining a
>>>> minor
>>>> injury. This was not referred to the WCB and instead the student
>>>> received an out of court settlement. If the University had the
>>>> ability
>>>> to settle that case, I fail to see why it should not do so in this
>>>> case.
>>>> I can say that Rebeca who lives locally remains traumatized by the
>>>> incident and the unfairness of the callous treatment she has
>>>> received.
>>>> Were she allowed to take this to court, i.e. not be deemed an
>>>> employee,
>>>> her case would almost certainly succeed because there is clear
>>>> evidence
>>>> that the University knew of the falling lights problem - one
>>>> witness was
>>>> hit by such a light but happily not badly injured. Other employees
>>>> on
>>>> the QT speak of their knowledge of the light problems and the
>>>> failure to
>>>> spend the money until after the injuries to Rebeca..
>>>>
>>>> If you have any questions I'll try to answer them.
>>>>
>>>> As everything stated here is true, I have no problem in this account
>>>> being passed on. I would bwelcome any information others may have on
>>>> this distressing matter.
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On
>>>> Behalf
>>>> Of Kent Peacock
>>>> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:13 AM
>>>> To: cafr-l, MailList
>>>> Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
>>>> Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>>>>
>>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>>> unmoderated
>>>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>>>> messages.
>>>>
>>>> --------------------
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ldskeptics-l mailing list
>>>> ldskeptics-l@uleth.ca
>>>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/ldskeptics-l
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cafr-l mailing list
>>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>
>> --
>> Everything of value that people get from religion can be had more
>> honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence. The
>> rest is self-deception, set to music. - Sam Harris
>>
>> Dr John R. Vokey
>> vokey@uleth.ca
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cafr-l mailing list
>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
> --
> Everything of value that people get from religion can be had more
> honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence. The
> rest is self-deception, set to music. - Sam Harris
>
> Dr John R. Vokey
> vokey@uleth.ca
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
From mckenna at uleth.ca Sat Nov 15 01:06:03 2008
From: mckenna at uleth.ca (Ian McKenna)
Date: Sat Nov 15 01:06:04 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Message-ID:
Kent:
I can't see the administration changing its tune. It has had several
opportunities to do so but did not. One way of embarrassing the
administration would be if faculty, undergrad students and grad students
voiced complaints and backed them up with cash. $1 per student would net
something in the regional of $7000. $20 per faculty member would I guess
accumulate $4000. Of course by no means will everyone contribute but
those
who do will likely contribute more than suggested above. There are also
other possibilties for fundraising. A jail with no bail event would be
interesting where people contribute money to keep the relevant
administrators behind bars would work for me.
We would likely generate media attention and we could play it one of two
ways. Ask the administration to match the amount raised by faculty and
students or simply portray the administration as callous
golddiggers....not in itself difficult.
Thanks so much for your concern.
Ian
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list
> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Ian --
>
> Many thanks for the clarification. This is disgraceful and profoundly
> embarrassing to this University. Is there anything that could be done,
> apart from engaging in a long and probably futile battle to embarrass
> the University publicly enough that it does the right thing? Any ideas
> out there?
>
>
> Kent
>
>
>
>
>
> Ian McKenna wrote:
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>> messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> Hi Kent and others.
>>
>> In November 1999, Rebeca Larreynaga was reading a textbook in the
>> University Library (old building of course) when a metal light fixture
>> fell out if its socket, swung down and hit Rebeca at great speed and
>> with great force. She sustained injuries to her head, neck and back.
>> Because the Alberta Government are allowed by law to permit the WCB to
>> deem any class of persons to be employees of the Government of
Alberta.
>> Students (college, university and some secondary school) have been
>> deemed by a regulation to be workers under the Workers' Compensation
>> Act, whether or not they actually meet the legal test of employment,
>> which is the provision
From dan.johnson at uleth.ca Sat Nov 15 01:58:30 2008
From: dan.johnson at uleth.ca (Johnson, Dan)
Date: Sat Nov 15 01:58:55 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
References:
Message-ID:
Now you are talking. A letter will seem "merely academic" unless we have
also offer something substantial that backs up the sentiment. Signing a
cheque speaks more loudly than signing a protest (and both are better,
still). Who collects, and how? I'll donate right away. It's one thing
to bankrupt outspoken faculty who had a choice, and who make good
salaries, and quite another thing entirely to financially abuse a student
who was simply sitting in the library, in harm's way.
Question: Does the student currently have legal counsel? Are we sure the
student and her representatives are OK with this plan, the publicity and
the collection of funds? If so, then we need a collection point.
-----Original Message-----
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca on behalf of Ian McKenna
Sent: Sat 11/15/2008 1:06 AM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
Kent:
I can't see the administration changing its tune. It has had several
opportunities to do so but did not. One way of embarrassing the
administration would be if faculty, undergrad students and grad students
voiced complaints and backed them up with cash. $1 per student would net
something in the regional of $7000. $20 per faculty member would I guess
accumulate $4000. Of course by no means will everyone contribute but
those
who do will likely contribute more than suggested above. There are also
other possibilties for fundraising. A jail with no bail event would be
interesting where people contribute money to keep the relevant
administrators behind bars would work for me.
We would likely generate media attention and we could play it one of two
ways. Ask the administration to match the amount raised by faculty and
students or simply portray the administration as callous
golddiggers....not in itself difficult.
Thanks so much for your concern.
Ian
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list
> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Ian --
>
> Many thanks for the clarification. This is disgraceful and profoundly
> embarrassing to this University. Is there anything that could be done,
> apart from engaging in a long and probably futile battle to embarrass
> the University publicly enough that it does the right thing? Any ideas
> out there?
>
>
> Kent
>
>
>
>
>
> Ian McKenna wrote:
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>> messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> Hi Kent and others.
>>
>> In November 1999, Rebeca Larreynaga was reading a textbook in the
>> University Library (old building of course) when a metal light fixture
>> fell out if its socket, swung down and hit Rebeca at great speed and
>> with great force. She sustained injuries to her head, neck and back.
>> Because the Alberta Government are allowed by law to permit the WCB to
>> deem any class of persons to be employees of the Government of
Alberta.
>> Students (college, university and some secondary school) have been
>> deemed by a regulation to be workers under the Workers' Compensation
>> Act, whether or not they actually meet the legal test of employment,
>> which is the provision
_______________________________________________
cafr-l mailing list
cafr-l@uleth.ca
http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081115/444fd9c4/attachment.html
From robinson at uleth.ca Sat Nov 15 06:05:14 2008
From: robinson at uleth.ca (Tom Robinson)
Date: Sat Nov 15 06:05:20 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
I think there are two issues here. One is the particular case of this
student, and we don't have the medical history of the injury and
resulting complications. Someone suggested that the student might be
trying to milk the system, and no one would favour that--well, except
for senior administrators whose excessive salaries suggest that they
favour milking. Whatever the case here, it is strange that it is being
resolved by classifying the student as an employee. If she is trying
to milk the system, let that be the legal ground for the rejection of
her claim--not an appeal to some fiction of the student as an
employee, which would seem to accept that the student was injured but
not entitled to sue. That the University is now suing the student for
legal costs is a sad reflection on the case and an embarrassment to all.
The other issue, and I thing the principal one here, is that the
classification of students as employees is simply stupid and
fundamental wrong. The OHSA seems to have recognized that, as would
almost anyone beyond grade three. Indeed, I think my two-year-old
grandson would have a better sense than our administrators on that
issue (and other issues, but I digress). What is particularly
troubling is the ability of those in power (at whatever level--courts,
legislators, administrators) are able to classify people simply by
definition, without any need for that definition to have a basis in
reality. Were anyone else to do that, their definitions would be
disregarded--the "anyone owning a blue car is a jaywalker" kind of
silliness, or, more dangerously, the"anyone who criticizes government
is a terrorist or traitor" kind of silliness. To both, we would simply
reply, "NO." Such definitions are defective and cannot be used in
meaningful discourse. So with the classification of students as
employees.
Someone (Rick? John? Bill? (oh, cross out the last one) should draft a
letter that we can sign, and this letter should be circulated as
widely as possible (nationally would be good). I will put my nuanced
and tactful comments on the onebananashort site, but I would be very
happy, as well, to put you all in tainted company by signing the same
letter that you sign.
Tom
From robinson at uleth.ca Sat Nov 15 07:20:33 2008
From: robinson at uleth.ca (Tom Robinson)
Date: Sat Nov 15 07:20:43 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
For all those who have caught the several errors in my previous post,
please do not criticize unless your day started at 4 am too--with the
first cup of coffee yet to release its full power.
Tom
On 15-Nov-08, at 6:05 AM, Tom Robinson wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> I think there are two issues here. One is the particular case of
> this student, and we don't have the medical history of the injury
> and resulting complications. Someone suggested that the student
> might be trying to milk the system, and no one would favour that--
> well, except for senior administrators whose excessive salaries
> suggest that they favour milking. Whatever the case here, it is
> strange that it is being resolved by classifying the student as an
> employee. If she is trying to milk the system, let that be the legal
> ground for the rejection of her claim--not an appeal to some fiction
> of the student as an employee, which would seem to accept that the
> student was injured but not entitled to sue. That the University is
> now suing the student for legal costs is a sad reflection on the
> case and an embarrassment to all.
>
> The other issue, and I thing the principal one here, is that the
> classification of students as employees is simply stupid and
> fundamental wrong. The OHSA seems to have recognized that, as would
> almost anyone beyond grade three. Indeed, I think my two-year-old
> grandson would have a better sense than our administrators on that
> issue (and other issues, but I digress). What is particularly
> troubling is the ability of those in power (at whatever level--
> courts, legislators, administrators) are able to classify people
> simply by definition, without any need for that definition to have a
> basis in reality. Were anyone else to do that, their definitions
> would be disregarded--the "anyone owning a blue car is a jaywalker"
> kind of silliness, or, more dangerously, the"anyone who criticizes
> government is a terrorist or traitor" kind of silliness. To both, we
> would simply reply, "NO." Such definitions are defective and cannot
> be used in meaningful discourse. So with the classification of
> students as employees.
>
> Someone (Rick? John? Bill? (oh, cross out the last one) should draft
> a letter that we can sign, and this letter should be circulated as
> widely as possible (nationally would be good). I will put my nuanced
> and tactful comments on the onebananashort site, but I would be very
> happy, as well, to put you all in tainted company by signing the
> same letter that you sign.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
From james.linville at uleth.ca Sat Nov 15 08:30:41 2008
From: james.linville at uleth.ca (Linville, James)
Date: Sat Nov 15 08:30:44 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
References:
Message-ID:
I will sign/donate, what ever.
I think what we do need to do for the long term is start a campaign to
get the government to define students as students. Why do people in an
educational institution need to be defined as "customers", "employees" or
whatever. What the hell is so mysterious about the word "student" that it
can't be used? I think we need to push the Gov. into recognizing that the
circumstances of students in their respective institutions is unique
enough a situation to require its own body of laws etc. to define rights,
obligations, liability and so forth.
I think we should do what we can for the particular student (and it
should include an open letter with lots of signatures in the
Meliorist...we should embarrass the S.U. into action as well), and we
should perhaps try to put a little pressure on the MLAs, premier, etc.
for proper recognition of the student/institution relationship.
Jim
James Linville
Dept. of Religious Studies
University of Lethbridge
403-329-2537
-----Original Message-----
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca on behalf of Tom Robinson
Sent: Sat 11/15/2008 6:05 AM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
I think there are two issues here. One is the particular case of this
student, and we don't have the medical history of the injury and
resulting complications. Someone suggested that the student might be
trying to milk the system, and no one would favour that--well, except
for senior administrators whose excessive salaries suggest that they
favour milking. Whatever the case here, it is strange that it is being
resolved by classifying the student as an employee. If she is trying
to milk the system, let that be the legal ground for the rejection of
her claim--not an appeal to some fiction of the student as an
employee, which would seem to accept that the student was injured but
not entitled to sue. That the University is now suing the student for
legal costs is a sad reflection on the case and an embarrassment to all.
The other issue, and I thing the principal one here, is that the
classification of students as employees is simply stupid and
fundamental wrong. The OHSA seems to have recognized that, as would
almost anyone beyond grade three. Indeed, I think my two-year-old
grandson would have a better sense than our administrators on that
issue (and other issues, but I digress). What is particularly
troubling is the ability of those in power (at whatever level--courts,
legislators, administrators) are able to classify people simply by
definition, without any need for that definition to have a basis in
reality. Were anyone else to do that, their definitions would be
disregarded--the "anyone owning a blue car is a jaywalker" kind of
silliness, or, more dangerously, the"anyone who criticizes government
is a terrorist or traitor" kind of silliness. To both, we would simply
reply, "NO." Such definitions are defective and cannot be used in
meaningful discourse. So with the classification of students as
employees.
Someone (Rick? John? Bill? (oh, cross out the last one) should draft a
letter that we can sign, and this letter should be circulated as
widely as possible (nationally would be good). I will put my nuanced
and tactful comments on the onebananashort site, but I would be very
happy, as well, to put you all in tainted company by signing the same
letter that you sign.
Tom
_______________________________________________
cafr-l mailing list
cafr-l@uleth.ca
http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081115/b4b77030/attachment-0001.html
From mckenna at uleth.ca Sat Nov 15 09:01:06 2008
From: mckenna at uleth.ca (Ian McKenna)
Date: Sat Nov 15 09:01:08 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
The Alberta Government (who else?) has produced the classic Henry VIII
clause. That is, a subservient legislature passes legislation permitting
the King (government) to do anything it likes. In this case the
government
and the WCB have been awarded power to deem any class of persons to be
workers and therefore denied their right of legal action. The effect is
to
transfer the "employer's" risk of paying for its own negligence to the
"worker" the student.
Yes it is an ethical issue now rather than a legal one - as John
indicated.
Ian
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list
> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
>
> --------------------
From mckenna at uleth.ca Sat Nov 15 09:11:17 2008
From: mckenna at uleth.ca (Ian McKenna)
Date: Sat Nov 15 09:11:18 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Message-ID:
Such a letter would do no harm. Of course this implicates the Lethbridge
College (who used this ploy to avoid injuries sustained by a 10 year old
girl in the course of a community course at the College. The letter would
need to point to all Alberta universities and colleges as well as
secondary schools where students in shop and cullinary classes are deemed
employees!
A good idea I'd say.
I
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list
> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Further to Kent's worry that any attempt to embarrass the University
> publicly over this issue would be future, I dunno, why not give it a
> try?! Publish an article in the Lethbridge Herald that says something
> like this:
>
> PARENTS WARNED NOT TO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO U OF L
>
> The University of Lethbridge has adopted the legal fiction - a fiction
> endorsed by the courts in Alberta - that students are employees of the
> University. Accordingly, if a student is injured on the 'job' - as one
> recently was - he or she cannot sue, but can only seek the much reduced
> compensation available through the Workers Compensation Board. Worse
> yet, the University is currently seeking legal costs from her for her
> unsuccessfully appealing this fiction to the courts. Parents would be
> well advised to consider this before enrolling their children at the U.
> of L.
>
> If this doesn't embarrass the University and/or reduce enrollment,
well,
> at least students and their parents have been put on notice, which, I
> suppose, is all they're really entitled to. - Paul
>
>
> Kent Peacock wrote:
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>> messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> Ian --
>>
>> Many thanks for the clarification. This is disgraceful and profoundly
>> embarrassing to this University. Is there anything that could be
>> done, apart from engaging in a long and probably futile battle to
>> embarrass the University publicly enough that it does the right
>> thing? Any ideas out there?
>>
>> Kent
>>
>>
>>
%0
From robinson at uleth.ca Sat Nov 15 09:38:06 2008
From: robinson at uleth.ca (Tom Robinson)
Date: Sat Nov 15 09:38:10 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
If students are considered employees, does WCB pay only for lost
salary, and would this mean that students would receive nothing as a
result of their injuries since their salary is zero?
Tom
On 15-Nov-08, at 9:11 AM, Ian McKenna wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Such a letter would do no harm. Of course this implicates the
> Lethbridge
> College (who used this ploy to avoid injuries sustained by a 10 year
> old
> girl in the course of a community course at the College. The letter
> would
> need to point to all Alberta universities and colleges as well as
> secondary schools where students in shop and cullinary classes are
> deemed
> employees!
> A good idea I'd say.
> I
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list
>> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> Further to Kent's worry that any attempt to embarrass the University
>> publicly over this issue would be future, I dunno, why not give it a
>> try?! Publish an article in the Lethbridge Herald that says something
>> like this:
>>
>> PARENTS WARNED NOT TO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO U OF L
>>
>> The University of Lethbridge has adopted the legal fiction - a
>> fiction
>> endorsed by the courts in Alberta - that students are employees of
>> the
>> University. Accordingly, if a student is injured on the 'job' - as
>> one
>> recently was - he or she cannot sue, but can only seek the much
>> reduced
>> compensation available through the Workers Compensation Board. Worse
>> yet, the University is currently seeking legal costs from her for her
>> unsuccessfully appealing this fiction to the courts. Parents would be
>> well advised to consider this before enrolling their children at
>> the U.
>> of L.
>>
>> If this doesn't embarrass the University and/or reduce enrollment,
>> well,
>> at least students and their parents have been put on notice, which, I
>> suppose, is all they're really entitled to. - Paul
>>
>>
>> Kent Peacock wrote:
>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>> unmoderated
>>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>>> messages.
>>>
>>> --------------------
>>> Ian --
>>>
>>> Many thanks for the clarification. This is disgraceful and
>>> profoundly
>>> embarrassing to this University. Is there anything that could be
>>> done, apart from engaging in a long and probably futile battle to
>>> embarrass the University publicly enough that it does the right
>>> thing? Any ideas out there?
>>>
>>> Kent
>>>
>>>
>>>
> %0
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
From james.linville at uleth.ca Sat Nov 15 09:39:39 2008
From: james.linville at uleth.ca (Linville, James)
Date: Sat Nov 15 09:41:32 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
References:
Message-ID:
Since students must PAY for the privilege to be employees of the
government, perhaps the student's tuition is increased to compensate the
WCB for their efforts on their behalf...
James Linville
Dept. of Religious Studies
University of Lethbridge
403-329-2537
-----Original Message-----
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca on behalf of Tom Robinson
Sent: Sat 11/15/2008 9:38 AM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
If students are considered employees, does WCB pay only for lost
salary, and would this mean that students would receive nothing as a
result of their injuries since their salary is zero?
Tom
On 15-Nov-08, at 9:11 AM, Ian McKenna wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Such a letter would do no harm. Of course this implicates the
> Lethbridge
> College (who used this ploy to avoid injuries sustained by a 10 year
> old
> girl in the course of a community course at the College. The letter
> would
> need to point to all Alberta universities and colleges as well as
> secondary schools where students in shop and cullinary classes are
> deemed
> employees!
> A good idea I'd say.
> I
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list
>> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> Further to Kent's worry that any attempt to embarrass the University
>> publicly over this issue would be future, I dunno, why not give it a
>> try?! Publish an article in the Lethbridge Herald that says something
>> like this:
>>
>> PARENTS WARNED NOT TO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO U OF L
>>
>> The University of Lethbridge has adopted the legal fiction - a
>> fiction
>> endorsed by the courts in Alberta - that students are employees of
>> the
>> University. Accordingly, if a student is injured on the 'job' - as
>> one
>> recently was - he or she cannot sue, but can only seek the much
>> reduced
>> compensation available through the Workers Compensation Board. Worse
>> yet, the University is currently seeking legal costs from her for her
>> unsuccessfully appealing this fiction to the courts. Parents would be
>> well advised to consider this before enrolling their children at
>> the U.
>> of L.
>>
>> If this doesn't embarrass the University and/or reduce enrollment,
>> well,
>> at least students and their parents have been put on notice, which, I
>> suppose, is all they're really entitled to. - Paul
>>
>>
>> Kent Peacock wrote:
>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>> unmoderated
>>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>>> messages.
>>>
>>> --------------------
>>> Ian --
>>>
>>> Many thanks for the clarification. This is disgraceful and
>>> profoundly
>>> embarrassing to this University. Is there anything that could be
>>> done, apart from engaging in a long and probably futile battle to
>>> embarrass the University publicly enough that it does the right
>>> thing? Any ideas out there?
>>>
>>> Kent
>>>
>>>
>>>
> %0
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
_______________________________________________
cafr-l mailing list
cafr-l@uleth.ca
http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081115/96389208/attachment.html
From dan.johnson at uleth.ca Sat Nov 15 09:42:32 2008
From: dan.johnson at uleth.ca (Johnson, Dan)
Date: Sat Nov 15 09:49:01 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
References:
Message-ID:
More recent e.g., Charter Clause 33?
-----Original Message-----
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca on behalf of Ian McKenna
Sent: Sat 11/15/2008 9:01 AM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
The Alberta Government (who else?) has produced the classic Henry VIII
clause. That is, a subservient legislature passes legislation permitting
the King (government) to do anything it likes. In this case the
government
and the WCB have been awarded power to deem any class of persons to be
workers and therefore denied their right of legal action. The effect is
to
transfer the "employer's" risk of paying for its own negligence to the
"worker" the student.
Yes it is an ethical issue now rather than a legal one - as John
indicated.
Ian
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list
> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
>
> --------------------
_______________________________________________
cafr-l mailing list
cafr-l@uleth.ca
http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081115/f791e006/attachment.html
From daniel.odonnell at uleth.ca Sat Nov 15 10:37:00 2008
From: daniel.odonnell at uleth.ca (O'Donnell, Dan)
Date: Sat Nov 15 10:51:03 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Message-ID:
I agree with Paul. But I'd say the Globe and Mail. And an article perhaps
collecting examples to attack the larger questions of
a) the situation as the logical outcome of the trend to not seeing
students as students
b) the increasingly moral bankrupcy of university and college
administrations that are not resisting but rather taking advantage of
this crazy law.
When I worked as a speechwriter I used to tell politicians that you lost
arguments if you couldn't phrase your position so that superman agreed
with you. There is no way of superman-izing the U of L or province's
position on this: it just looks terrible and it will attract attention
like flies to the proverbial pile. This case and the case of the college
girl have a very clarifying effect on the issue.
I suppose the question is 'how forward?'
Dan @ Treo
-----Original Message-----
From: "Ian McKenna"
Subj: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Date: Sat 15 Nov 2008 9:11
Size: 2K
To: "Faculty Caucus for Academic Freedom and Responsibility mailing
list"
cc: "ldskeptics-l, MailList"
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
Such a letter would do no harm. Of course this implicates the Lethbridge
College (who used this ploy to avoid injuries sustained by a 10 year old
girl in the course of a community course at the College. The letter would
need to point to all Alberta universities and colleges as well as
secondary schools where students in shop and cullinary classes are deemed
employees!
A good idea I'd say.
I
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list
> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Further to Kent's worry that any attempt to embarrass the University
> publicly over this issue would be future, I dunno, why not give it a
> try?! Publish an article in the Lethbridge Herald that says something
> like this:
>
> PARENTS WARNED NOT TO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO U OF L
>
> The University of Lethbridge has adopted the legal fiction - a fiction
> endorsed by the courts in Alberta - that students are employees of the
> University. Accordingly, if a student is injured on the 'job' - as one
> recently was - he or she cannot sue, but can only seek the much reduced
> compensation available through the Workers Compensation Board. Worse
> yet, the University is currently seeking legal costs from her for her
> unsuccessfully appealing this fiction to the courts. Parents would be
> well advised to consider this before enrolling their children at the U.
> of L.
>
> If this doesn't embarrass the University and/or reduce enrollment,
well,
> at least students and their parents have been put on notice, which, I
> suppose, is all they're really entitled to. - Paul
>
>
> Kent Peacock wrote:
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>> messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> Ian --
>>
>> Many thanks for the clarification. This is disgraceful and profoundly
>> embarrassing to this University. Is there anything that could be
>> done, apart from engaging in a long and probably futile battle to
>> embarrass the University publicly enough that it does the right
>> thing? Any ideas out there?
>>
>> Kent
>>
>>
>>
%0
_______________________________________________
cafr-l mailing list
cafr-l@uleth.ca
http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
From james.linville at uleth.ca Sat Nov 15 11:03:30 2008
From: james.linville at uleth.ca (Linville, James)
Date: Sat Nov 15 11:03:33 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
References:
Message-ID:
Dan O'D asks "how forward?"
One step may be to solidify CAFR's existence and identity beyond a
subscriber -e-list. Letters and articles are likely to get lost in the
shuffle. In the very least, we should get a permanent website and use it
to post our own position statements, archive our letters, and whatever
publicity we earn. We could document various cases and so forth.
This would be a good focal point for widening the discussion beyond the U
of L.. and giving us a presence that the media and faculty of other
institutions to join or just listen in and hopefully get inspired to work
for a better system.
If we do go that route, though, we would need a webmaster, editor, etc.
and probably someone as chairperson to as a contact person. This would
mean a degree of organization that CAFR at present does not have.
I also wonder if it should be separate from CAFR per se, or if CAFR
should evolve into an organization (however loose) that has a wider
mandate.
Any, I'm not very good at websites or anything like that , but this might
be a way to make a bit of progress.
In the very least, we must reassure the student body that the actions of
the admin or government does not reflect the opinions of the faculty, and
that we really do care about their well being on campus.
Jim
James Linville
Dept. of Religious Studies
University of Lethbridge
403-329-2537
-----Original Message-----
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca on behalf of O'Donnell, Dan
Sent: Sat 11/15/2008 10:37 AM
To: cafr-l, MailList; cafr-l, MailList
Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
I agree with Paul. But I'd say the Globe and Mail. And an article perhaps
collecting examples to attack the larger questions of
a) the situation as the logical outcome of the trend to not seeing
students as students
b) the increasingly moral bankrupcy of university and college
administrations that are not resisting but rather taking advantage of
this crazy law.
When I worked as a speechwriter I used to tell politicians that you lost
arguments if you couldn't phrase your position so that superman agreed
with you. There is no way of superman-izing the U of L or province's
position on this: it just looks terrible and it will attract attention
like flies to the proverbial pile. This case and the case of the college
girl have a very clarifying effect on the issue.
I suppose the question is 'how forward?'
Dan @ Treo
-----Original Message-----
From: "Ian McKenna"
Subj: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Date: Sat 15 Nov 2008 9:11
Size: 2K
To: "Faculty Caucus for Academic Freedom and Responsibility mailing
list"
cc: "ldskeptics-l, MailList"
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
Such a letter would do no harm. Of course this implicates the Lethbridge
College (who used this ploy to avoid injuries sustained by a 10 year old
girl in the course of a community course at the College. The letter would
need to point to all Alberta universities and colleges as well as
secondary schools where students in shop and cullinary classes are deemed
employees!
A good idea I'd say.
I
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list
> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Further to Kent's worry that any attempt to embarrass the University
> publicly over this issue would be future, I dunno, why not give it a
> try?! Publish an article in the Lethbridge Herald that says something
> like this:
>
> PARENTS WARNED NOT TO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO U OF L
>
> The University of Lethbridge has adopted the legal fiction - a fiction
> endorsed by the courts in Alberta - that students are employees of the
> University. Accordingly, if a student is injured on the 'job' - as one
> recently was - he or she cannot sue, but can only seek the much reduced
> compensation available through the Workers Compensation Board. Worse
> yet, the University is currently seeking legal costs from her for her
> unsuccessfully appealing this fiction to the courts. Parents would be
> well advised to consider this before enrolling their children at the U.
> of L.
>
> If this doesn't embarrass the University and/or reduce enrollment,
well,
> at least students and their parents have been put on notice, which, I
> suppose, is all they're really entitled to. - Paul
>
>
> Kent Peacock wrote:
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>> messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> Ian --
>>
>> Many thanks for the clarification. This is disgraceful and profoundly
>> embarrassing to this University. Is there anything that could be
>> done, apart from engaging in a long and probably futile battle to
>> embarrass the University publicly enough that it does the right
>> thing? Any ideas out there?
>>
>> Kent
>>
>>
>>
%0
_______________________________________________
cafr-l mailing list
cafr-l@uleth.ca
http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
_______________________________________________
cafr-l mailing list
cafr-l@uleth.ca
http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081115/ccba3f3a/attachment.html
From daniel.odonnell at uleth.ca Sat Nov 15 11:04:00 2008
From: daniel.odonnell at uleth.ca (O'Donnell, Dan)
Date: Sat Nov 15 11:06:03 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] List Moderation
Message-ID:
Hi all,
while this vigorous discussion is going on, I'd like to raise an
administrative question about list moderation/administration.
There is no moderation, which I think is a good thing: people should take
responsibility for what they say and be open about what they think and
half the problems at the U of L and elsewhere would disappear.
But it doesn't seem reasobnable in that light to have a single list
administrator. We can't be fully open in the sense of 'let anybody
subscribe automatically' because then we open ourselves up to spammers
and the like. But we should be more hydra-headed.
Should we keep a single admin but make it an elected position (I suppose
as close to a chair as this group would have)? Of should we go to
multiple administrators? I think the former option might be best. But
either way, I think we should move to make the collective ownership of
the list more obvious.
My proposal would be that we go to elected or simply alphabetically
rotating, 1 year list adminstration, perhaps following the calendar year.
Dan @ Treo
From kent.peacock at uleth.ca Sat Nov 15 11:36:37 2008
From: kent.peacock at uleth.ca (Kent Peacock)
Date: Sat Nov 15 11:36:45 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081115/9d51caaf/attachment.html
From dan.johnson at uleth.ca Sat Nov 15 12:39:53 2008
From: dan.johnson at uleth.ca (Johnson, Dan)
Date: Sat Nov 15 12:42:04 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] List Moderation
References:
Message-ID:
It makes sense to have several moderators. A warning: I have managed 6
or 7 U of L lists over the past decade, and within a year or two the
spammers always find the list address and basically destroy the
discussion. The more recent filters might help, but in any case there
will be more need for moderation, in part to guard against outside
invasions.
-----Original Message-----
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca on behalf of O'Donnell, Dan
Sent: Sat 11/15/2008 11:04 AM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Subject: [CAFR-L] List Moderation
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
Hi all,
while this vigorous discussion is going on, I'd like to raise an
administrative question about list moderation/administration.
There is no moderation, which I think is a good thing: people should take
responsibility for what they say and be open about what they think and
half the problems at the U of L and elsewhere would disappear.
But it doesn't seem reasobnable in that light to have a single list
administrator. We can't be fully open in the sense of 'let anybody
subscribe automatically' because then we open ourselves up to spammers
and the like. But we should be more hydra-headed.
Should we keep a single admin but make it an elected position (I suppose
as close to a chair as this group would have)? Of should we go to
multiple administrators? I think the former option might be best. But
either way, I think we should move to make the collective ownership of
the list more obvious.
My proposal would be that we go to elected or simply alphabetically
rotating, 1 year list adminstration, perhaps following the calendar year.
Dan @ Treo
_______________________________________________
cafr-l mailing list
cafr-l@uleth.ca
http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081115/669866bc/attachment-0001.html
From dan.johnson at uleth.ca Sat Nov 15 13:09:42 2008
From: dan.johnson at uleth.ca (Johnson, Dan)
Date: Sat Nov 15 13:21:06 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
References:
Message-ID:
Good points, but one small caution. If it is not already too obvious, I
think we would need to follow the wishes of the affected student. That
information is personal and confidential, and any letters or actions
should probably be general statements unless the student is in full
support of being put in the spotlight.
Dan
////
Hello Everyone --
I have been following these discussions with great interest, and I would
be glad to sign a letter and perhaps contribute to other action as well.
However, I suggest there are a few numbers we need in order to make sure
we know what we are talking about. First, presumably the student has
been receiving WCB payments. How much? For how long? Will they
continue indefinitely? I know that WCB payments tend to not be very
generous, but if this has been going on for nine or so years already the
Dark Side could well say, look, she has already gotten $x out of this,
what more could one ask?
Also, suppose a member of the public, neither a student nor an employee,
happened to be grievously and similarly injured by a falling light when
they happened to be walking through a University Building. Based on
precedents in similar cases, how much $$ would such a person be likely to
receive, either as the result of a suit or settlement? That would afford
a standard of comparison with what the student has actually received.
One could also look at cases in which a customer in a retail store, say,
has been injured by something in the store. (The depressing answer to
the question, how much do people in such cases tend to receive?, might
turn out to be, "surprisingly little".)
None of this would alter the fact that the University should be
embarrassed into dropping the threat of legal action against the student.
Wouldn't it be an interesting coincidence if it turned out that they try
to sue her for the amount she has received from the WCB over the past so-
many years?
Kent
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081115/b2979321/attachment.html
From mckenna at uleth.ca Sat Nov 15 13:21:25 2008
From: mckenna at uleth.ca (Ian McKenna)
Date: Sat Nov 15 13:22:05 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Good ideas Tom. There are medical records regarding Rebeca's injuries.
She did receive small WCB compensation for about a year as she was
unable to continue with her part-time low-paid job at Walmart. Problem
is it is short term and the amount doesn't take account of expected
future earnings - nor pain and suffering.
If the various ideas go ahead, it might not be a bad idea to have a
group chat with Rebeca.
Thanks
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On Behalf
Of Tom Robinson
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 6:05 AM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
I think there are two issues here. One is the particular case of this
student, and we don't have the medical history of the injury and
resulting complications. Someone suggested that the student might be
trying to milk the system, and no one would favour that--well, except
for senior administrators whose excessive salaries suggest that they
favour milking. Whatever the case here, it is strange that it is being
resolved by classifying the student as an employee. If she is trying
to milk the system, let that be the legal ground for the rejection of
her claim--not an appeal to some fiction of the student as an
employee, which would seem to accept that the student was injured but
not entitled to sue. That the University is now suing the student for
legal costs is a sad reflection on the case and an embarrassment to all.
The other issue, and I thing the principal one here, is that the
classification of students as employees is simply stupid and
fundamental wrong. The OHSA seems to have recognized that, as would
almost anyone beyond grade three. Indeed, I think my two-year-old
grandson would have a better sense than our administrators on that
issue (and other issues, but I digress). What is particularly
troubling is the ability of those in power (at whatever level--courts,
legislators, administrators) are able to classify people simply by
definition, without any need for that definition to have a basis in
reality. Were anyone else to do that, their definitions would be
disregarded--the "anyone owning a blue car is a jaywalker" kind of
silliness, or, more dangerously, the"anyone who criticizes government
is a terrorist or traitor" kind of silliness. To both, we would simply
reply, "NO." Such definitions are defective and cannot be used in
meaningful discourse. So with the classification of students as
employees.
Someone (Rick? John? Bill? (oh, cross out the last one) should draft a
letter that we can sign, and this letter should be circulated as
widely as possible (nationally would be good). I will put my nuanced
and tactful comments on the onebananashort site, but I would be very
happy, as well, to put you all in tainted company by signing the same
letter that you sign.
Tom
_______________________________________________
cafr-l mailing list
cafr-l@uleth.ca
http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
From hawkms at uleth.ca Sat Nov 15 13:25:41 2008
From: hawkms at uleth.ca (Hawkins, Maureen)
Date: Sat Nov 15 13:35:06 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
References:
Message-ID:
Does anyone know what, if anything, the student has received from the
WCB?
Maureen
Maureen S. G. Hawkins
Department of English
University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, Alberta
T1K 3M4
Canada
(403) 328-7961
-----Original Message-----
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca on behalf of Ian McKenna
Sent: Sat 11/15/2008 9:01 AM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
The Alberta Government (who else?) has produced the classic Henry VIII
clause. That is, a subservient legislature passes legislation permitting
the King (government) to do anything it likes. In this case the
government
and the WCB have been awarded power to deem any class of persons to be
workers and therefore denied their right of legal action. The effect is
to
transfer the "employer's" risk of paying for its own negligence to the
"worker" the student.
Yes it is an ethical issue now rather than a legal one - as John
indicated.
Ian
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list
> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
>
> --------------------
_______________________________________________
cafr-l mailing list
cafr-l@uleth.ca
http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081115/7d394bb2/attachment-0001.html
From hawkms at uleth.ca Sat Nov 15 13:27:07 2008
From: hawkms at uleth.ca (Hawkins, Maureen)
Date: Sat Nov 15 13:35:08 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
References:
Message-ID:
Would a petition to the government--with all possible publicitym of
course--be an use? We wouldn't have to restrict it to our area; we could
all email copies to friends in other parts of the province, and ask them
to do the same.
Maureen
Maureen S. G. Hawkins
Department of English
University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, Alberta
T1K 3M4
Canada
(403) 328-7961
-----Original Message-----
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca on behalf of Ian McKenna
Sent: Sat 11/15/2008 9:11 AM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
Such a letter would do no harm. Of course this implicates the Lethbridge
College (who used this ploy to avoid injuries sustained by a 10 year old
girl in the course of a community course at the College. The letter would
need to point to all Alberta universities and colleges as well as
secondary schools where students in shop and cullinary classes are deemed
employees!
A good idea I'd say.
I
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list
> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Further to Kent's worry that any attempt to embarrass the University
> publicly over this issue would be future, I dunno, why not give it a
> try?! Publish an article in the Lethbridge Herald that says something
> like this:
>
> PARENTS WARNED NOT TO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO U OF L
>
> The University of Lethbridge has adopted the legal fiction - a fiction
> endorsed by the courts in Alberta - that students are employees of the
> University. Accordingly, if a student is injured on the 'job' - as one
> recently was - he or she cannot sue, but can only seek the much reduced
> compensation available through the Workers Compensation Board. Worse
> yet, the University is currently seeking legal costs from her for her
> unsuccessfully appealing this fiction to the courts. Parents would be
> well advised to consider this before enrolling their children at the U.
> of L.
>
> If this doesn't embarrass the University and/or reduce enrollment,
well,
> at least students and their parents have been put on notice, which, I
> suppose, is all they're really entitled to. - Paul
>
>
> Kent Peacock wrote:
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>> messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> Ian --
>>
>> Many thanks for the clarification. This is disgraceful and profoundly
>> embarrassing to this University. Is there anything that could be
>> done, apart from engaging in a long and probably futile battle to
>> embarrass the University publicly enough that it does the right
>> thing? Any ideas out there?
>>
>> Kent
>>
>>
>>
%0
_______________________________________________
cafr-l mailing list
cafr-l@uleth.ca
http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081115/aed54fc8/attachment-0001.html
From mckenna at uleth.ca Sat Nov 15 13:30:25 2008
From: mckenna at uleth.ca (Ian McKenna)
Date: Sat Nov 15 13:35:08 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Jim it is perhaps possible to influence government but the other Alberta
universities and colleges are addicted to the financial handout that
government makes in paying the "employer" contributions to WCB.
The Regulation applies to ever post-secondary institution but perhaps
pressure could be put on government to allow individual universities or
colleges to pull out of the arrangement. Perhaps our Tory MLA could be
approached but it is unlikely he would rock the boat. The U of L Board
of Governors seems to be mainly hand-picked by government but that would
be a place where faculty reps could raise the issue and allow for some
enlightenment on the matter. Of course this will depend on who the reps
are.
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On Behalf
Of Linville, James
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 8:31 AM
To: cafr-l, MailList; cafr-l, MailList
Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
Subject: RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
From hawkms at uleth.ca Sat Nov 15 13:30:03 2008
From: hawkms at uleth.ca (Hawkins, Maureen)
Date: Sat Nov 15 13:35:09 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
References:
Message-ID:
Sorry, what is Charter Clause 33?
Maureen
Maureen S. G. Hawkins
Department of English
University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, Alberta
T1K 3M4
Canada
(403) 328-7961
-----Original Message-----
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca on behalf of Johnson, Dan
Sent: Sat 11/15/2008 9:42 AM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Subject: RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081115/7e3b6603/attachment.html
From mckenna at uleth.ca Sat Nov 15 13:41:27 2008
From: mckenna at uleth.ca (Ian McKenna)
Date: Sat Nov 15 13:48:04 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Tom and others.
If a student has a part-time job which he or she cannot perform because
of the injuries, they get about 50% of lost wages. If they have no job
they get no compensation for lost earnings - one of the few sane
elements of the legislation. If there is long term injury serious enough
to prevent the student from working, long term disability may kick in
(assuming it was caused by the accident - which WCB determines). The
amount of long term disability is based on the lowest wage on the list
i.e. essentially minimum wage. This is of little comfort to one who has
lost the opportunity to earn a professional salary - one of the main
purposes of going to university.
It remains possible for Rebeca to claim WCB but the compensation would
be somewhat less than the loss of expected earnings of an above average
student.
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On Behalf
Of Tom Robinson
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 9:38 AM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
If students are considered employees, does WCB pay only for lost
salary, and would this mean that students would receive nothing as a
result of their injuries since their salary is zero?
Tom
On 15-Nov-08, at 9:11 AM, Ian McKenna wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Such a letter would do no harm. Of course this implicates the
> Lethbridge
> College (who used this ploy to avoid injuries sustained by a 10 year
> old
> girl in the course of a community course at the College. The letter
> would
> need to point to all Alberta universities and colleges as well as
> secondary schools where students in shop and cullinary classes are
> deemed
> employees!
> A good idea I'd say.
> I
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list
>> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> Further to Kent's worry that any attempt to embarrass the University
>> publicly over this issue would be future, I dunno, why not give it a
>> try?! Publish an article in the Lethbridge Herald that says something
>> like this:
>>
>> PARENTS WARNED NOT TO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO U OF L
>>
>> The University of Lethbridge has adopted the legal fiction - a
>> fiction
>> endorsed by the courts in Alberta - that students are employees of
>> the
>> University. Accordingly, if a student is injured on the 'job' - as
>> one
>> recently was - he or she cannot sue, but can only seek the much
>> reduced
>> compensation available through the Workers Compensation Board. Worse
>> yet, the University is currently seeking legal costs from her for her
>> unsuccessfully appealing this fiction to the courts. Parents would be
>> well advised to consider this before enrolling their children at
>> the U.
>> of L.
>>
>> If this doesn't embarrass the University and/or reduce enrollment,
>> well,
>> at least students and their parents have been put on notice, which, I
>> suppose, is all they're really entitled to. - Paul
>>
>>
>> Kent Peacock wrote:
>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>> unmoderated
>>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>>> messages.
>>>
>>> --------------------
>>> Ian --
>>>
>>> Many thanks for the clarification. This is disgraceful and
>>> profoundly
>>> embarrassing to this University. Is there anything that could be
>>> done, apart from engaging in a long and probably futile battle to
>>> embarrass the University publicly enough that it does the right
>>> thing? Any ideas out there?
>>>
>>> Kent
>>>
>>>
>>>
> %0
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
_______________________________________________
cafr-l mailing list
cafr-l@uleth.ca
http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
From mckenna at uleth.ca Sat Nov 15 13:52:01 2008
From: mckenna at uleth.ca (Ian McKenna)
Date: Sat Nov 15 14:01:05 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Really good points Jim though there have never been any signs that the
SU leadership cares about this issue - and no doubt others less serious
and less public. However perhaps faculty leadership in this would
inspire student action or voice.
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On Behalf
Of Linville, James
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 11:04 AM
To: cafr-l, MailList; cafr-l, MailList; cafr-l, MailList
Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
Subject: RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
From james.linville at uleth.ca Sat Nov 15 14:19:43 2008
From: james.linville at uleth.ca (Linville, James)
Date: Sat Nov 15 14:22:42 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
References:
Message-ID:
It might be time for the professors to start staging sit in at the
student's union offices (I missed the 60's by just a little bit..)!
I wonder if we might throw a little light on this situation by sending
our letters etc. to the opposition parties. Sure, they have virtually no
voice, but they might want to make a stink about it.
Jim
James Linville
Dept. of Religious Studies
University of Lethbridge
403-329-2537
-----Original Message-----
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca on behalf of Ian McKenna
Sent: Sat 11/15/2008 1:52 PM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
Subject: RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
Really good points Jim though there have never been any signs that the
SU leadership cares about this issue - and no doubt others less serious
and less public. However perhaps faculty leadership in this would
inspire student action or voice.
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On Behalf
Of Linville, James
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 11:04 AM
To: cafr-l, MailList; cafr-l, MailList; cafr-l, MailList
Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
Subject: RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
_______________________________________________
cafr-l mailing list
cafr-l@uleth.ca
http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081115/02276704/attachment.html
From richard.mueller at uleth.ca Sat Nov 15 14:22:55 2008
From: richard.mueller at uleth.ca (Mueller, Richard)
Date: Sat Nov 15 14:28:05 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
References:
Message-ID:
Does anyone know exactly what part of the light fell on the student? Was
it the plastic insert that covers the flourescent bulbs, or the entire
fixture? I,m on the fifth floor, just down from the old library and so I
assume that the fixtures in our research room are of the same vintage as
the one that came down. We have had a number of instances when the
plastic inserts have fallen out of the fixtures. Luckily, no one was hit
nor was there anyone in the room at the time.
Ian mentioned that the Lethbridge police were warned of the problem in
advance of the student being struck by the light. This in itself appears
to be negligent, but what if there are still a building full of these
fixtures? Surely not removing or repairing these fixtures would be
negligent.
Does anyone know if these fixtures are an inevitable accident waiting to
happen?
________________________________
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca on behalf of Ian McKenna
Sent: Sat 15/11/2008 1:52 PM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
Subject: RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
Really good points Jim though there have never been any signs that the
SU leadership cares about this issue - and no doubt others less serious
and less public. However perhaps faculty leadership in this would
inspire student action or voice.
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On Behalf
Of Linville, James
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 11:04 AM
To: cafr-l, MailList; cafr-l, MailList; cafr-l, MailList
Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
Subject: RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
_______________________________________________
cafr-l mailing list
cafr-l@uleth.ca
http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081115/175a7bd8/attachment.html
From raprockprof at gmail.com Sat Nov 15 14:29:56 2008
From: raprockprof at gmail.com (Anthony Hall)
Date: Sat Nov 15 14:30:00 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] insurance? limited liability?
Message-ID:
Can Ian or anyone else clarify the origins, rationale and full meaning
of the principle that employees of corporate bodies in Alberta or
elsewhere are prohibited from suing our institutions for injuries
suffered on the job? Is there no accountability for negligence on the
part of those who have responsibility for workplace safety? Doesn't
the University have insurance policies which are meant to kick in if
and when students, employees or political appointees are injured in
the act of performing our duties? Did any insurance entity intervene
as a party to the litigation in the case of the injured student? What
kind of insurance protections are purchased or declined for different
individuals, constituencies, and other entities at our University? Who
decides these matters? Who at the University is personally protected
against law suits for alleged injuries and who isn't?
TH
From rodych at uleth.ca Mon Nov 17 10:39:21 2008
From: rodych at uleth.ca (Rodych, Victor)
Date: Mon Nov 17 10:39:24 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Ian:
Would you please clarify the following: "It remains possible for Rebeca
to claim WCB but the compensation would
be somewhat less than the loss of expected earnings of an above average
student."
Rebeca's (potential?) LTD is based on "the lowest wage on the list" and,
as you say, she has "lost the opportunity to earn a professional
salary." Perhaps I am misreading your email, but are you saying that it
remains possible that Rebeca could claim WCB compensation for "the loss
of expected earnings of an above average student" for lost earnings of
an above average student (i.e., for the lifetime of her/his career)?
"If they have no job
they get no compensation for lost earnings - one of the few sane
elements of the legislation."
I take it you mean that this is sane because if a student has no job
s/he cannot be compensated for lost earnings, since there are no lost
earnings. Still, it is insane, is it not? A student is allegedly an
employee of the University-and 'employee' standardly means "paid worker"
(with benefits, eligible for EI, etc.)-but s/he gets compensated only if
s/he has ANOTHER JOB and only at 50% of the wages of the OTHER job!!??
As virtually everyone on this list has said (roughly):
If a student is an employee of the University, s/he must be paid a
salary/wages, and her WCB compensation should be a function of that
salary (those wages).
If a student is not an employee of the University, WCB is irrelevant.
My wife, Raquel Trillia (a faculty member here), our two adult children
who are students here, and I are outraged by what we know of this case.
I would very much appreciate more information about the case; e.g., any
guidance to the relevant legislation and any publicly accessible
documentation concerning the case.
Vic
_____________________
Dr. Victor Rodych
Professor
Department of Philosophy
University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, Alberta
T1K 3M4
CANADA
-----Original Message-----
From: ldskeptics-l-bounces@uleth.ca
[mailto:ldskeptics-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On Behalf Of Ian McKenna
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 1:41 PM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Tom and others.
If a student has a part-time job which he or she cannot perform because
of the injuries, they get about 50% of lost wages. If they have no job
they get no compensation for lost earnings - one of the few sane
elements of the legislation. If there is long term injury serious enough
to prevent the student from working, long term disability may kick in
(assuming it was caused by the accident - which WCB determines). The
amount of long term disability is based on the lowest wage on the list
i.e. essentially minimum wage. This is of little comfort to one who has
lost the opportunity to earn a professional salary - one of the main
purposes of going to university.
It remains possible for Rebeca to claim WCB but the compensation would
be somewhat less than the loss of expected earnings of an above average
student.
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On Behalf
Of Tom Robinson
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 9:38 AM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
If students are considered employees, does WCB pay only for lost
salary, and would this mean that students would receive nothing as a
result of their injuries since their salary is zero?
Tom
On 15-Nov-08, at 9:11 AM, Ian McKenna wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Such a letter would do no harm. Of course this implicates the
> Lethbridge
> College (who used this ploy to avoid injuries sustained by a 10 year
> old
> girl in the course of a community course at the College. The letter
> would
> need to point to all Alberta universities and colleges as well as
> secondary schools where students in shop and cullinary classes are
> deemed
> employees!
> A good idea I'd say.
> I
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list
>> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> Further to Kent's worry that any attempt to embarrass the University
>> publicly over this issue would be future, I dunno, why not give it a
>> try?! Publish an article in the Lethbridge Herald that says something
>> like this:
>>
>> PARENTS WARNED NOT TO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO U OF L
>>
>> The University of Lethbridge has adopted the legal fiction - a
>> fiction
>> endorsed by the courts in Alberta - that students are employees of
>> the
>> University. Accordingly, if a student is injured on the 'job' - as
>> one
>> recently was - he or she cannot sue, but can only seek the much
>> reduced
>> compensation available through the Workers Compensation Board. Worse
>> yet, the University is currently seeking legal costs from her for her
>> unsuccessfully appealing this fiction to the courts. Parents would be
>> well advised to consider this before enrolling their children at
>> the U.
>> of L.
>>
>> If this doesn't embarrass the University and/or reduce enrollment,
>> well,
>> at least students and their parents have been put on notice, which, I
>> suppose, is all they're really entitled to. - Paul
>>
>>
>> Kent Peacock wrote:
>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>> unmoderated
>>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>>> messages.
>>>
>>> --------------------
>>> Ian --
>>>
>>> Many thanks for the clarification. This is disgraceful and
>>> profoundly
>>> embarrassing to this University. Is there anything that could be
>>> done, apart from engaging in a long and probably futile battle to
>>> embarrass the University publicly enough that it does the right
>>> thing? Any ideas out there?
>>>
>>> Kent
>>>
>>>
>>>
> %0
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
_______________________________________________
cafr-l mailing list
cafr-l@uleth.ca
http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
_______________________________________________
ldskeptics-l mailing list
ldskeptics-l@uleth.ca
http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/ldskeptics-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081117/286fdca4/attachment.html
From siminovitch at uleth.ca Mon Nov 17 11:00:27 2008
From: siminovitch at uleth.ca (David Siminovitch)
Date: Mon Nov 17 10:57:47 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Rodych, Victor wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
>
> --------------------
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
> Ian:
>
> Would you please clarify the following: "It remains possible for
> Rebeca to claim WCB but the compensation would
>
> be somewhat less than the loss of expected earnings of an above average
>
> student."
>
> Rebeca's (potential?) LTD is based on "the lowest wage on the list"
> and, as you say, she has "lost the opportunity to earn a professional
> salary." Perhaps I am misreading your email, but are you saying that
> it remains possible that Rebeca could claim WCB compensation for "the
> loss of expected earnings of an above average student" for lost
> earnings of an above average student (i.e., for the lifetime of
> her/his career)?
>
> "If they have no job
>
> they get no compensation for lost earnings - one of the few sane
>
> elements of the legislation."
>
> I take it you mean that this is sane because if a student has no job
> s/he cannot be compensated for lost earnings, since there are no lost
> earnings. Still, it is insane, is it not? A student is allegedly an
> employee of the University?and 'employee' standardly means "paid
> worker" (with benefits, eligible for EI, etc.)?but s/he gets
> compensated /only if/ s/he has ANOTHER JOB and only at 50% of the
> wages of the OTHER job!!??
>
> As virtually everyone on this list has said (roughly):
>
> If a student is an employee of the University, s/he must be paid a
> salary/wages, and her WCB compensation should be a function of that
> salary (those wages).
>
> If a student is not an employee of the University, WCB is irrelevant.
>
> My wife, Raquel Trillia (a faculty member here), our two adult
> children who are students here, and I are outraged by what we know of
> this case. I would very much appreciate more information about the
> case; e.g., any guidance to the relevant legislation and any publicly
> accessible documentation concerning the case.
>
> Vic
>
> _____________________
>
> Dr. Victor Rodych
>
> Professor
>
> Department of Philosophy
>
> University of Lethbridge
>
> 4401 University Drive
>
> Lethbridge, Alberta
>
> T1K 3M4
>
> CANADA
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ldskeptics-l-bounces@uleth.ca
> [mailto:ldskeptics-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On Behalf Of Ian McKenna
> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 1:41 PM
> To: cafr-l, MailList
> Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
> Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>
> Tom and others.
>
> If a student has a part-time job which he or she cannot perform because
>
> of the injuries, they get about 50% of lost wages. If they have no job
>
> they get no compensation for lost earnings - one of the few sane
>
> elements of the legislation. If there is long term injury serious
enough
>
> to prevent the student from working, long term disability may kick in
>
> (assuming it was caused by the accident - which WCB determines). The
>
> amount of long term disability is based on the lowest wage on the list
>
> i.e. essentially minimum wage. This is of little comfort to one who has
>
> lost the opportunity to earn a professional salary - one of the main
>
> purposes of going to university.
>
> It remains possible for Rebeca to claim WCB but the compensation would
>
> be somewhat less than the loss of expected earnings of an above average
>
> student.
>
> Ian
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On
Behalf
>
> Of Tom Robinson
>
> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 9:38 AM
>
> To: cafr-l, MailList
>
> Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
>
> Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
>
> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>
> messages.
>
> --------------------
>
> If students are considered employees, does WCB pay only for lost
>
> salary, and would this mean that students would receive nothing as a
>
> result of their injuries since their salary is zero?
>
> Tom
>
> On 15-Nov-08, at 9:11 AM, Ian McKenna wrote:
>
> > Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>
> > unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
>
> > of their messages.
>
> >
>
> > --------------------
>
> > Such a letter would do no harm. Of course this implicates the
>
> > Lethbridge
>
> > College (who used this ploy to avoid injuries sustained by a 10 year
>
> > old
>
> > girl in the course of a community course at the College. The letter
>
> > would
>
> > need to point to all Alberta universities and colleges as well as
>
> > secondary schools where students in shop and cullinary classes are
>
> > deemed
>
> > employees!
>
> > A good idea I'd say.
>
> > I
>
> > Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>
> > unmoderated list
>
> >> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
>
> >>
>
> >> --------------------
>
> >> Further to Kent's worry that any attempt to embarrass the University
>
> >> publicly over this issue would be future, I dunno, why not give it a
>
> >> try?! Publish an article in the Lethbridge Herald that says
something
>
> >> like this:
>
> >>
>
> >> PARENTS WARNED NOT TO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO U OF L
>
> >>
>
> >> The University of Lethbridge has adopted the legal fiction - a
>
> >> fiction
>
> >> endorsed by the courts in Alberta - that students are employees of
>
> >> the
>
> >> University. Accordingly, if a student is injured on the 'job' - as
>
> >> one
>
> >> recently was - he or she cannot sue, but can only seek the much
>
> >> reduced
>
> >> compensation available through the Workers Compensation Board. Worse
>
> >> yet, the University is currently seeking legal costs from her for
her
>
> >> unsuccessfully appealing this fiction to the courts. Parents would
be
>
> >> well advised to consider this before enrolling their children at
>
> >> the U.
>
> >> of L.
>
> >>
>
> >> If this doesn't embarrass the University and/or reduce enrollment,
>
> >> well,
>
> >> at least students and their parents have been put on notice, which,
I
>
> >> suppose, is all they're really entitled to. - Paul
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Kent Peacock wrote:
>
> >>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>
> >>> unmoderated
>
> >>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>
> >>> messages.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> --------------------
>
> >>> Ian --
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Many thanks for the clarification. This is disgraceful and
>
> >>> profoundly
>
> >>> embarrassing to this University. Is there anything that could be
>
> >>> done, apart from engaging in a long and probably futile battle to
>
> >>> embarrass the University publicly enough that it does the right
>
> >>> thing? Any ideas out there?
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Kent
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> > %0
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > cafr-l mailing list
>
> > cafr-l@uleth.ca
>
> > http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> cafr-l mailing list
>
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> ldskeptics-l mailing list
>
> ldskeptics-l@uleth.ca
>
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/ldskeptics-l
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
I asked the opinion of Laura Lozanski, CAUT Safety Officer (Ottawa)
about this, and from her point of view, WCB coverage is a positive
because elsewhere students are not covered. (see text below). There is
little information about this on our university's OHS website, but at
least one safety website at the U of A says quite plainly: "For students
(undergraduate and graduate) who are registered in an academic program
leading to a degree, the Government of Alberta is considered the
Employer for WCB purposes ....." This is exactly what Ian has
emphasized. What then would be the consequences for those students not
covered under WCB? Is their only avenue a lawsuit?
David
Hi David,
I'll check into this, but if this is so, it's great news, of course.
Elsewhere, to my knowledge, students are excluded unless employed.
I'm glad you enjoyed the conference. We're starting to plan for our next
conference for spring 2010.
Laura
-----Original Message-----
From: David Siminovitch [mailto:siminovitch@uleth.ca]
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 5:25 PM
To: Laura Lozanski
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.]
Hi Laura - what do you make of this? Is is really true elsewhere in
Canada (or North America) that students can be considered as employees
of the university??? If so, they should have representation on our
JWSHSC, but they currently do not, nor have they ever had such
representation. We hope to have graduate students represented soon, but
then they are actually doing work for the University and being paid for
it. The vast majority of undergraduates are not in this category.
David
From rodych at uleth.ca Mon Nov 17 11:19:29 2008
From: rodych at uleth.ca (Rodych, Victor)
Date: Mon Nov 17 11:19:32 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
David:
Thanks for the email and the information.
Due to my ignorance of the law, I am quite confused.
In Canada, are, e.g., retail stores strictly liable for falling lights,
etc., that cause bodily harm to (potential) customers? Ditto for
people who are NOT U. of L. employees, who are at the U. of L. for a
concert ? Ditto for U. of L. students who are injured by falling lights
in the former U. of L. Library?
As you ask, David: "What then would be the consequences for those
students not
covered under WCB? Is their only avenue a lawsuit?"
My (poor?) understanding of what Ian has been saying is that whatever
WCB coverage Rebeca is eligible for, it will not compare to what she
could sue for if she wasn't covered by WCB. I thought Ian was saying
that Rebeca would be much better of if she wasn't covered as a
pseudo-employee by WCB.
Is this correct Ian? If so, what do you make of Laura Lozanski's claim
that "WCB coverage is a positive because elsewhere students are not
covered"? Is she perhaps referring to minor injuries that prevent a
student from working a part-time job for, say, 8 months? If so, one
wonders whether she is aware of the downside to this (i.e., if I
understand it).
Vic
_____________________
Dr. Victor Rodych
Professor
Department of Philosophy
University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, Alberta
T1K 3M4
CANADA
-----Original Message-----
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On Behalf
Of David Siminovitch
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 11:00 AM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Subject: Re: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
Rodych, Victor wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
>
> --------------------
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ian:
>
> Would you please clarify the following: "It remains possible for
> Rebeca to claim WCB but the compensation would
>
> be somewhat less than the loss of expected earnings of an above
average
>
> student."
>
> Rebeca's (potential?) LTD is based on "the lowest wage on the list"
> and, as you say, she has "lost the opportunity to earn a professional
> salary." Perhaps I am misreading your email, but are you saying that
> it remains possible that Rebeca could claim WCB compensation for "the
> loss of expected earnings of an above average student" for lost
> earnings of an above average student (i.e., for the lifetime of
> her/his career)?
>
> "If they have no job
>
> they get no compensation for lost earnings - one of the few sane
>
> elements of the legislation."
>
> I take it you mean that this is sane because if a student has no job
> s/he cannot be compensated for lost earnings, since there are no lost
> earnings. Still, it is insane, is it not? A student is allegedly an
> employee of the University-and 'employee' standardly means "paid
> worker" (with benefits, eligible for EI, etc.)-but s/he gets
> compensated /only if/ s/he has ANOTHER JOB and only at 50% of the
> wages of the OTHER job!!??
>
> As virtually everyone on this list has said (roughly):
>
> If a student is an employee of the University, s/he must be paid a
> salary/wages, and her WCB compensation should be a function of that
> salary (those wages).
>
> If a student is not an employee of the University, WCB is irrelevant.
>
> My wife, Raquel Trillia (a faculty member here), our two adult
> children who are students here, and I are outraged by what we know of
> this case. I would very much appreciate more information about the
> case; e.g., any guidance to the relevant legislation and any publicly
> accessible documentation concerning the case.
>
> Vic
>
> _____________________
>
> Dr. Victor Rodych
>
> Professor
>
> Department of Philosophy
>
> University of Lethbridge
>
> 4401 University Drive
>
> Lethbridge, Alberta
>
> T1K 3M4
>
> CANADA
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ldskeptics-l-bounces@uleth.ca
> [mailto:ldskeptics-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On Behalf Of Ian McKenna
> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 1:41 PM
> To: cafr-l, MailList
> Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
> Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>
> Tom and others.
>
> If a student has a part-time job which he or she cannot perform
because
>
> of the injuries, they get about 50% of lost wages. If they have no job
>
> they get no compensation for lost earnings - one of the few sane
>
> elements of the legislation. If there is long term injury serious
enough
>
> to prevent the student from working, long term disability may kick in
>
> (assuming it was caused by the accident - which WCB determines). The
>
> amount of long term disability is based on the lowest wage on the list
>
> i.e. essentially minimum wage. This is of little comfort to one who
has
>
> lost the opportunity to earn a professional salary - one of the main
>
> purposes of going to university.
>
> It remains possible for Rebeca to claim WCB but the compensation would
>
> be somewhat less than the loss of expected earnings of an above
average
>
> student.
>
> Ian
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On
Behalf
>
> Of Tom Robinson
>
> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 9:38 AM
>
> To: cafr-l, MailList
>
> Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
>
> Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
>
> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>
> messages.
>
> --------------------
>
> If students are considered employees, does WCB pay only for lost
>
> salary, and would this mean that students would receive nothing as a
>
> result of their injuries since their salary is zero?
>
> Tom
>
> On 15-Nov-08, at 9:11 AM, Ian McKenna wrote:
>
> > Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>
> > unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
>
> > of their messages.
>
> >
>
> > --------------------
>
> > Such a letter would do no harm. Of course this implicates the
>
> > Lethbridge
>
> > College (who used this ploy to avoid injuries sustained by a 10 year
>
> > old
>
> > girl in the course of a community course at the College. The letter
>
> > would
>
> > need to point to all Alberta universities and colleges as well as
>
> > secondary schools where students in shop and cullinary classes are
>
> > deemed
>
> > employees!
>
> > A good idea I'd say.
>
> > I
>
> > Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>
> > unmoderated list
>
> >> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
>
> >>
>
> >> --------------------
>
> >> Further to Kent's worry that any attempt to embarrass the
University
>
> >> publicly over this issue would be future, I dunno, why not give it
a
>
> >> try?! Publish an article in the Lethbridge Herald that says
something
>
> >> like this:
>
> >>
>
> >> PARENTS WARNED NOT TO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO U OF L
>
> >>
>
> >> The University of Lethbridge has adopted the legal fiction - a
>
> >> fiction
>
> >> endorsed by the courts in Alberta - that students are employees of
>
> >> the
>
> >> University. Accordingly, if a student is injured on the 'job' - as
>
> >> one
>
> >> recently was - he or she cannot sue, but can only seek the much
>
> >> reduced
>
> >> compensation available through the Workers Compensation Board.
Worse
>
> >> yet, the University is currently seeking legal costs from her for
her
>
> >> unsuccessfully appealing this fiction to the courts. Parents would
be
>
> >> well advised to consider this before enrolling their children at
>
> >> the U.
>
> >> of L.
>
> >>
>
> >> If this doesn't embarrass the University and/or reduce enrollment,
>
> >> well,
>
> >> at least students and their parents have been put on notice, which,
I
>
> >> suppose, is all they're really entitled to. - Paul
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Kent Peacock wrote:
>
> >>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>
> >>> unmoderated
>
> >>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>
> >>> messages.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> --------------------
>
> >>> Ian --
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Many thanks for the clarification. This is disgraceful and
>
> >>> profoundly
>
> >>> embarrassing to this University. Is there anything that could be
>
> >>> done, apart from engaging in a long and probably futile battle to
>
> >>> embarrass the University publicly enough that it does the right
>
> >>> thing? Any ideas out there?
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Kent
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> > %0
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > cafr-l mailing list
>
> > cafr-l@uleth.ca
>
> > http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> cafr-l mailing list
>
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> ldskeptics-l mailing list
>
> ldskeptics-l@uleth.ca
>
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/ldskeptics-l
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
I asked the opinion of Laura Lozanski, CAUT Safety Officer (Ottawa)
about this, and from her point of view, WCB coverage is a positive
because elsewhere students are not covered. (see text below). There is
little information about this on our university's OHS website, but at
least one safety website at the U of A says quite plainly: "For students
(undergraduate and graduate) who are registered in an academic program
leading to a degree, the Government of Alberta is considered the
Employer for WCB purposes ....." This is exactly what Ian has
emphasized. What then would be the consequences for those students not
covered under WCB? Is their only avenue a lawsuit?
David
Hi David,
I'll check into this, but if this is so, it's great news, of course.
Elsewhere, to my knowledge, students are excluded unless employed.
I'm glad you enjoyed the conference. We're starting to plan for our
next conference for spring 2010.
Laura
-----Original Message-----
From: David Siminovitch [mailto:siminovitch@uleth.ca]
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 5:25 PM
To: Laura Lozanski
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.]
Hi Laura - what do you make of this? Is is really true elsewhere in
Canada (or North America) that students can be considered as employees
of the university??? If so, they should have representation on our
JWSHSC, but they currently do not, nor have they ever had such
representation. We hope to have graduate students represented soon, but
then they are actually doing work for the University and being paid for
it. The vast majority of undergraduates are not in this category.
David
_______________________________________________
cafr-l mailing list
cafr-l@uleth.ca
http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081117/48447a82/attachment-0001.html
From rodych at uleth.ca Mon Nov 17 11:53:28 2008
From: rodych at uleth.ca (Rodych, Victor)
Date: Mon Nov 17 11:53:31 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
I note that Ian says in his November 14th email below that "I was
involved in assisting Rebeca to challenge the WCB
decision that she was an injured worker and therefore not eligible to
sue the University for negligently causing her injuries."
Ian also says: "Were she allowed to take this to court, i.e. not be
deemed an employee,
her case would almost certainly succeed because there is clear evidence
that the University knew of the falling lights problem - one witness was
hit by such a light but happily not badly injured. Other employees on
the QT speak of their knowledge of the light problems and the failure to
spend the money until after the injuries to Rebeca."
So, it seems, if the WCB legislation did not exist, the University
would, presumably, be strictly liable AND negligent.
Perhaps Laura Lozanski at CAUT is simply not aware that WCB coverage
precludes litigation of this/these types (?).
Vic
_____________________
Dr. Victor Rodych
Professor
Department of Philosophy
University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, Alberta
T1K 3M4
CANADA
-----Original Message-----
From: ldskeptics-l-bounces@uleth.ca
[mailto:ldskeptics-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On Behalf Of Ian McKenna
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 1:19 PM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Hi Kent and others.
In November 1999, Rebeca Larreynaga was reading a textbook in the
University Library (old building of course) when a metal light fixture
fell out if its socket, swung down and hit Rebeca at great speed and
with great force. She sustained injuries to her head, neck and back.
Because the Alberta Government are allowed by law to permit the WCB to
deem any class of persons to be employees of the Government of Alberta.
Students (college, university and some secondary school) have been
deemed by a regulation to be workers under the Workers' Compensation
Act, whether or not they actually meet the legal test of employment,
which is the provision of services to another person. While some
students do provide services to universities and are rightly entitled to
WCB coverage, students such as Rebeca did not provide services to the
University or the Government as she was employed by neither. This is
true of all students who merely attend classes and pay their tuition
fees.
Rebeca learned of this the day after she sustained the injures when
Edith Hepburn arrived at her bedside to obtain her signature of WCB
documents. I was involved in assisting Rebeca to challenge the WCB
decision that she was an injured worker and therefore not eligible to
sue the University for negligently causing her injuries.
The internal appeal was denied but several years later - I recall 2005 -
the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission ruled unanimously that she
was not barred from suing the University (she had already filed such a
suit through a local lawyer) because neither the University nor the
Government was her employer.
The University appealed that decision to the Court of Queen's Bench and
the single judge in Calgary ruled that the Appeals Commission had erred
in law. That decision is publicly available which makes it no less
incoherent.
The judge ordered a review by the Appeals Commission and a new trio
adhered to the judge's decision.
It would be fair to say that the Students' Union has done absolutely
nothing to protect students against this sort of rip-off. There is
essentially no benefit for students and the ruse merely transfers the
risk of injury due to the University's negligence to the student.
(Interestingly in the UK it is a criminal offence to insert into a
contract a disclaimer of liability to the other party for injuries
caused by one's negligence).
Rebeca did seek assistance from the SU but the President at that time (I
don't remember her name) stated she could not help because she was a
member of the Board of Governors (whom Rebeca was suing) and therefore
would be in a conflict of interest, soluble only by her refusing to get
the SU involved. I gather from Rebeca, this was the result of
Ex-President Tennant's advice to the then SU President. Bill Cade
adopted the same stance.
Rebeca's lawyer ditched the case after the Queen's Bench decision,
afraid that this meant he would receive no payment of the contingency
fee. Rebeca was a talented student bound for grad studies at the time of
the injuries but no longer mentally able to do the work required for
what was ironically to be in neuroscience.
Having pitched (pro bono of course) Rebeca's case to both panels of the
Appeals Commission, I am naturally biased in the legal arguments. The
University is of course pressing her for legal costs, likely
unattainable as Rebeca will likely declare bankruptcy if the Appeals
Commission does not pick up the costs.
It is a fond hope that the University will ever compensate her or even
apologize for injuring her. In Tennant's era a management student (not
in my class!) fell asleep in a U Hall D630 classroom, sustaining a minor
injury. This was not referred to the WCB and instead the student
received an out of court settlement. If the University had the ability
to settle that case, I fail to see why it should not do so in this case.
I can say that Rebeca who lives locally remains traumatized by the
incident and the unfairness of the callous treatment she has received.
Were she allowed to take this to court, i.e. not be deemed an employee,
her case would almost certainly succeed because there is clear evidence
that the University knew of the falling lights problem - one witness was
hit by such a light but happily not badly injured. Other employees on
the QT speak of their knowledge of the light problems and the failure to
spend the money until after the injuries to Rebeca..
If you have any questions I'll try to answer them.
As everything stated here is true, I have no problem in this account
being passed on. I would bwelcome any information others may have on
this distressing matter.
Thanks
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On Behalf
Of Kent Peacock
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:13 AM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
_______________________________________________
ldskeptics-l mailing list
ldskeptics-l@uleth.ca
http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/ldskeptics-l
From siminovitch at uleth.ca Mon Nov 17 12:11:28 2008
From: siminovitch at uleth.ca (David Siminovitch)
Date: Mon Nov 17 12:08:49 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Rodych, Victor wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
>
> --------------------
> I note that Ian says in his November 14th email below that "I was
> involved in assisting Rebeca to challenge the WCB
> decision that she was an injured worker and therefore not eligible to
> sue the University for negligently causing her injuries."
>
> Ian also says: "Were she allowed to take this to court, i.e. not be
> deemed an employee,
> her case would almost certainly succeed because there is clear evidence
> that the University knew of the falling lights problem - one witness
was
> hit by such a light but happily not badly injured. Other employees on
> the QT speak of their knowledge of the light problems and the failure
to
> spend the money until after the injuries to Rebeca."
>
> So, it seems, if the WCB legislation did not exist, the University
> would, presumably, be strictly liable AND negligent.
>
> Perhaps Laura Lozanski at CAUT is simply not aware that WCB coverage
> precludes litigation of this/these types (?).
>
> Vic
>
>
> _____________________
>
> Dr. Victor Rodych
> Professor
> Department of Philosophy
> University of Lethbridge
> 4401 University Drive
> Lethbridge, Alberta
> T1K 3M4
> CANADA
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ldskeptics-l-bounces@uleth.ca
> [mailto:ldskeptics-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On Behalf Of Ian McKenna
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 1:19 PM
> To: cafr-l, MailList
> Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
> Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>
> Hi Kent and others.
>
> In November 1999, Rebeca Larreynaga was reading a textbook in the
> University Library (old building of course) when a metal light fixture
> fell out if its socket, swung down and hit Rebeca at great speed and
> with great force. She sustained injuries to her head, neck and back.
> Because the Alberta Government are allowed by law to permit the WCB to
> deem any class of persons to be employees of the Government of Alberta.
> Students (college, university and some secondary school) have been
> deemed by a regulation to be workers under the Workers' Compensation
> Act, whether or not they actually meet the legal test of employment,
> which is the provision of services to another person. While some
> students do provide services to universities and are rightly entitled
to
> WCB coverage, students such as Rebeca did not provide services to the
> University or the Government as she was employed by neither. This is
> true of all students who merely attend classes and pay their tuition
> fees.
>
> Rebeca learned of this the day after she sustained the injures when
> Edith Hepburn arrived at her bedside to obtain her signature of WCB
> documents. I was involved in assisting Rebeca to challenge the WCB
> decision that she was an injured worker and therefore not eligible to
> sue the University for negligently causing her injuries.
> The internal appeal was denied but several years later - I recall 2005
-
> the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission ruled unanimously that she
> was not barred from suing the University (she had already filed such a
> suit through a local lawyer) because neither the University nor the
> Government was her employer.
> The University appealed that decision to the Court of Queen's Bench and
> the single judge in Calgary ruled that the Appeals Commission had erred
> in law. That decision is publicly available which makes it no less
> incoherent.
> The judge ordered a review by the Appeals Commission and a new trio
> adhered to the judge's decision.
>
> It would be fair to say that the Students' Union has done absolutely
> nothing to protect students against this sort of rip-off. There is
> essentially no benefit for students and the ruse merely transfers the
> risk of injury due to the University's negligence to the student.
> (Interestingly in the UK it is a criminal offence to insert into a
> contract a disclaimer of liability to the other party for injuries
> caused by one's negligence).
> Rebeca did seek assistance from the SU but the President at that time
(I
> don't remember her name) stated she could not help because she was a
> member of the Board of Governors (whom Rebeca was suing) and therefore
> would be in a conflict of interest, soluble only by her refusing to get
> the SU involved. I gather from Rebeca, this was the result of
> Ex-President Tennant's advice to the then SU President. Bill Cade
> adopted the same stance.
>
> Rebeca's lawyer ditched the case after the Queen's Bench decision,
> afraid that this meant he would receive no payment of the contingency
> fee. Rebeca was a talented student bound for grad studies at the time
of
> the injuries but no longer mentally able to do the work required for
> what was ironically to be in neuroscience.
>
> Having pitched (pro bono of course) Rebeca's case to both panels of the
> Appeals Commission, I am naturally biased in the legal arguments. The
> University is of course pressing her for legal costs, likely
> unattainable as Rebeca will likely declare bankruptcy if the Appeals
> Commission does not pick up the costs.
>
> It is a fond hope that the University will ever compensate her or even
> apologize for injuring her. In Tennant's era a management student (not
> in my class!) fell asleep in a U Hall D630 classroom, sustaining a
minor
> injury. This was not referred to the WCB and instead the student
> received an out of court settlement. If the University had the ability
> to settle that case, I fail to see why it should not do so in this
case.
> I can say that Rebeca who lives locally remains traumatized by the
> incident and the unfairness of the callous treatment she has received.
> Were she allowed to take this to court, i.e. not be deemed an employee,
> her case would almost certainly succeed because there is clear evidence
> that the University knew of the falling lights problem - one witness
was
> hit by such a light but happily not badly injured. Other employees on
> the QT speak of their knowledge of the light problems and the failure
to
> spend the money until after the injuries to Rebeca..
>
> If you have any questions I'll try to answer them.
>
> As everything stated here is true, I have no problem in this account
> being passed on. I would bwelcome any information others may have on
> this distressing matter.
> Thanks
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On
Behalf
> Of Kent Peacock
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:13 AM
> To: cafr-l, MailList
> Cc: ldskeptics-l, MailList
> Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
> messages.
>
> --------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ldskeptics-l mailing list
> ldskeptics-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/ldskeptics-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
Hi Vic - I copied Ian's original Nov 14 email in its entirety to Laura,
so I think she would have been aware of the consequences of WCB
coverage. But I will follow up with her on this point.
David
From robinson at uleth.ca Thu Nov 20 02:39:45 2008
From: robinson at uleth.ca (Tom Robinson)
Date: Thu Nov 20 02:39:51 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Anyone know who is working on a letter regarding the Workers'
Compensation Board designation?
You might be interested in (some of) the following, which I have
posted on the onebananashort site.
Tom
The Alberta Workers? Compensation Board Appeals Commission ruled that
a student at a university was not an employee under the Workers?
Compensation Board legislation. The University of Lethbridge appealed
that decision and won, in a ruling available at:
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2003-
/qb/civil/2007/2007abqb0551.cor1.pdf
A number of matters are troubling about this decision. The ruling
states that university students are considered employees* of of the
Government of Alberta because the Workers? Compensation Act includes
?learner? in the definition of employee, and because the Workers?
Compensation Board Regulations allow the Board to ?make orders
declaring that the Act applies to the following classes of persons:
(c) students registered in and attending: (i) a university as defined
in the Universities Act.?
QUESTIONS:
(1)The Workers? Compensation Act defines ?learner? as:
?a person who, although not under a contract of service or
apprenticeship, becomes subject to the hazards of an industry to which
this Act applies for the purpose of undergoing testing, training or
probationary work preliminary to employment in an industry to which
this Act applies?. WHAT?
(2)Should we not recognize that the definition is silly? No other
province designates their students as employees, and it appears that
neither the Alberta Occupational Health and Safety Act nor the Appeals
Commission of the Workers? Compensation Board sees this as a
reasonable designation.
(3)Should a university use its resources to defend a silly
designation? Is our obligation not to promote clear thinking and
reasoned judgments? And does this designation not fail both tests?
(4)Given the potentially serious consequences of such designation (as
already experienced by one student), are our universities not
obligated to warn students in every possible way from the very first
contact that we consider our students to be employees (unpaid?of
course)? We know that our students are not aware of their status as
employees nor of the implications of that designation. Do we want them
to remain ignorant of that situation?
*The Workers? Compensation Act and Regulations uses the term ?worker?
or ?worker employed? rather than ?employee.? The term ?employer? is a
standard one in the Act and in the Regulations.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081120/530863cd/attachment-0001.html
From richard.mueller at uleth.ca Thu Nov 20 09:28:32 2008
From: richard.mueller at uleth.ca (Mueller, Richard)
Date: Thu Nov 20 09:29:13 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
References:
Message-ID:
Hi Tom,
Nice spread in the Meliorist today. I assume that you'll keep us informed
of any fallout from this.
Rick
________________________________
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca on behalf of Tom Robinson
Sent: Thu 20/11/2008 2:39 AM
To: ldskeptics-l, MailList
Cc: cafr-l, MailList
Subject: Re: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081120/c61b162a/attachment.html
From robinson at uleth.ca Thu Nov 20 10:17:38 2008
From: robinson at uleth.ca (Tom Robinson)
Date: Thu Nov 20 10:17:51 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Folks,
That interview was done sometime in September. I guess the new
Meliorist staff was curious why the Meliorist had not covered the
story when it was happening and wanted to explore the matter.
Tom
On 20-Nov-08, at 9:28 AM, Mueller, Richard wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Hi Tom,
>
> Nice spread in the Meliorist today. I assume that you'll keep us
> informed of any fallout from this.
>
> Rick
>
>
>
> From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca on behalf of Tom Robinson
> Sent: Thu 20/11/2008 2:39 AM
> To: ldskeptics-l, MailList
> Cc: cafr-l, MailList
> Subject: Re: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081120/b5dc3c66/attachment.html
From robinson at uleth.ca Thu Nov 20 14:16:02 2008
From: robinson at uleth.ca (Tom Robinson)
Date: Thu Nov 20 14:21:09 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
It appears that the WCB Regulations do not require, but only permit,
the WCB to designate students as workers (7.1.c.i).
http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/documents/Regs/2002_325.cfm?frm_isbn=0779743539
Order declaring Act to apply
7(1) The Board may make orders declaring that the Act applies to the
following classes of persons
(c) students registered in and attending
(i) a university as defined in the Universities Act
One question is when and why that designation was made. Was it made
prior to the UofL incident and applied to all students in all
universities or was it a designation made at the request of the
University of Lethbridge for this particular case? Does anyone know?
One would think that if it was the intention to so designate all
students in some general way that this would have been done in the
Act, where such designations have been made. But the matter quoted
above is in the Regulations, which permits such designation but does
not so designate. Where, then, was that designation made and for what
reason? Let's hope it doesn't fall at the UofL doorstep.
Tom
opp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081120/fddbc841/attachment.html
From vokey at uleth.ca Thu Nov 20 14:30:30 2008
From: vokey at uleth.ca (John Vokey)
Date: Thu Nov 20 14:30:32 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
> It appears that the WCB Regulations do not require, but only permit,
> the WCB to designate students as workers (7.1.c.i).
>
> http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/documents/Regs/2002_325.cfm?
> frm_isbn=0779743539
>
> Order declaring Act to apply
> 7(1) The Board may make orders declaring that the Act applies to
> the following classes of persons
> (c) students registered in and attending
> (i) a university as defined in the Universities Act
>
> One question is when and why that designation was made. Was it made
> prior to the UofL incident and applied to all students in all
> universities or was it a designation made at the request of the
> University of Lethbridge for this particular case? Does anyone know?
>
> One would think that if it was the intention to so designate all
> students in some general way that this would have been done in the
> Act, where such designations have been made. But the matter quoted
> above is in the Regulations, which permits such designation but does
> not so designate. Where, then, was that designation made and for
> what reason? Let's hope it doesn't fall at the UofL doorstep.
>
> Tom
This really needs to be made more widely known. Tom, are you going to
add it to onebannashort?
--
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See
-Dr. John R. Vokey
From mckenna at uleth.ca Thu Nov 20 14:47:33 2008
From: mckenna at uleth.ca (McKenna, Ian)
Date: Thu Nov 20 14:48:05 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Tom and others>
I contacted a past President of U of L (Smith I recall) who replied from
BC that he knew nothing about the regulation. I also consulted the
archive of old Meliorists and there is nary a line written about this.
Interestingly, prior to Rebeca's "accident" there was no mention of the
WCB etc. in the University Calendar. Even now, the reference is vague.
It was originally passed to encourage employers (real ones) to provide
students with workplace experience. To make this more appealing to
employers, the Government paid WCB premiums of such students. For
whatever reason and absolutely no one in government, universities or the
WCB knows why, the WCB deemed all P.S. students to be workers merely by
being registered and in attendance at a university or college. The
result is that there is no paper trail regarding the purpose of the
Regulation. One assumes the purpose is simply to ease the financial
burden of universities twofold. The Government pays the WCB premiums and
the universities are rendered immune from legal action for negligence.
I don't think the U of L was involved in the passing of the Regulation
but it has certainly taken advantage of a highly questionable "law". I
can e-mail to those interested the arguments made on behalf of Rebeca to
the two Appeals Commission panels.
Cheers
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On Behalf
Of Tom Robinson
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 2:16 PM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Subject: Re: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
From robinson at uleth.ca Thu Nov 20 15:01:05 2008
From: robinson at uleth.ca (Tom Robinson)
Date: Thu Nov 20 15:06:16 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Regarding Ian's helpful explanation, I am still puzzled how the clause
in the Regulations came to be applied. The clause does not require
such designation of students but permits it. There must have been some
action after the passing of the Regulations that appealed to this
clause in the Regulations in order to have students so designated. The
Regulations do not make the designation, at least as I read it. There
must be some formal decision by WCB to so designate students--which
the Regulations permit WCB to do, but which the Regulations don't
themselves do. Or do I just not understand the language of legislation?
To John's question, some matters are posted on OBS, and I will post
more when I can get a clear history of how the designation came about.
Tom
On 20-Nov-08, at 2:47 PM, McKenna, Ian wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Tom and others>
>
> I contacted a past President of U of L (Smith I recall) who replied
> from
> BC that he knew nothing about the regulation. I also consulted the
> archive of old Meliorists and there is nary a line written about this.
> Interestingly, prior to Rebeca's "accident" there was no mention of
> the
> WCB etc. in the University Calendar. Even now, the reference is vague.
> It was originally passed to encourage employers (real ones) to provide
> students with workplace experience. To make this more appealing to
> employers, the Government paid WCB premiums of such students. For
> whatever reason and absolutely no one in government, universities or
> the
> WCB knows why, the WCB deemed all P.S. students to be workers merely
> by
> being registered and in attendance at a university or college. The
> result is that there is no paper trail regarding the purpose of the
> Regulation. One assumes the purpose is simply to ease the financial
> burden of universities twofold. The Government pays the WCB premiums
> and
> the universities are rendered immune from legal action for negligence.
> I don't think the U of L was involved in the passing of the Regulation
> but it has certainly taken advantage of a highly questionable "law". I
> can e-mail to those interested the arguments made on behalf of
> Rebeca to
> the two Appeals Commission panels.
> Cheers
> Ian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On
> Behalf
> Of Tom Robinson
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 2:16 PM
> To: cafr-l, MailList
> Subject: Re: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
> messages.
>
> --------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081120/264cfd58/attachment-0001.html
From forgie at uleth.ca Thu Nov 20 15:28:44 2008
From: forgie at uleth.ca (Margaret Forgie)
Date: Thu Nov 20 15:33:53 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
This is important! It implies that the U can designate at a whim
whomever they wish to be in this category... ? after the incident has
occurred? Does anyone know the timeline of the college case?? M.
_______________________
Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
Academic Assistant/Lecturer
Department of Psychology
Uhall - D850
The University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
T1K 3M4
phone: 403-329-2437
department: 403-329-2235
fax: 403-329-2555
email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
On 20-Nov-08, at 3:01 PM, Tom Robinson wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Regarding Ian's helpful explanation, I am still puzzled how the
> clause in the Regulations came to be applied. The clause does not
> require such designation of students but permits it. There must
> have been some action after the passing of the Regulations that
> appealed to this clause in the Regulations in order to have
> students so designated. The Regulations do not make the
> designation, at least as I read it. There must be some formal
> decision by WCB to so designate students--which the Regulations
> permit WCB to do, but which the Regulations don't themselves do. Or
> do I just not understand the language of legislation?
>
> To John's question, some matters are posted on OBS, and I will post
> more when I can get a clear history of how the designation came about.
>
> Tom
>
> On 20-Nov-08, at 2:47 PM, McKenna, Ian wrote:
>
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the
>> content of their messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> Tom and others>
>>
>> I contacted a past President of U of L (Smith I recall) who
>> replied from
>> BC that he knew nothing about the regulation. I also consulted the
>> archive of old Meliorists and there is nary a line written about
>> this.
>> Interestingly, prior to Rebeca's "accident" there was no mention
>> of the
>> WCB etc. in the University Calendar. Even now, the reference is
>> vague.
>> It was originally passed to encourage employers (real ones) to
>> provide
>> students with workplace experience. To make this more appealing to
>> employers, the Government paid WCB premiums of such students. For
>> whatever reason and absolutely no one in government, universities
>> or the
>> WCB knows why, the WCB deemed all P.S. students to be workers
>> merely by
>> being registered and in attendance at a university or college. The
>> result is that there is no paper trail regarding the purpose of the
>> Regulation. One assumes the purpose is simply to ease the financial
>> burden of universities twofold. The Government pays the WCB
>> premiums and
>> the universities are rendered immune from legal action for
>> negligence.
>> I don't think the U of L was involved in the passing of the
>> Regulation
>> but it has certainly taken advantage of a highly questionable
>> "law". I
>> can e-mail to those interested the arguments made on behalf of
>> Rebeca to
>> the two Appeals Commission panels.
>> Cheers
>> Ian
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On
>> Behalf
>> Of Tom Robinson
>> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 2:16 PM
>> To: cafr-l, MailList
>> Subject: Re: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>>
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>> messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cafr-l mailing list
>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081120/003c1f65/attachment.html
From forgie at uleth.ca Thu Nov 20 15:37:19 2008
From: forgie at uleth.ca (Margaret Forgie)
Date: Thu Nov 20 15:42:27 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Not sure why this didn't go through. Apologies for doubles. M.
Indeed. It would seem to be then that the U could designate on a
case by case basis, or a "whim", depending on the severity of the
situation for the face and finances of the U? Correct me if I am
wrong. M
_______________________
Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
Academic Assistant/Lecturer
Department of Psychology
Uhall - D850
The University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
T1K 3M4
phone: 403-329-2437
department: 403-329-2235
fax: 403-329-2555
email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
On 20-Nov-08, at 2:30 PM, John Vokey wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
>> It appears that the WCB Regulations do not require, but only
>> permit, the WCB to designate students as workers (7.1.c.i).
>>
>> http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/documents/Regs/2002_325.cfm?
>> frm_isbn=0779743539
>>
>> Order declaring Act to apply
>> 7(1) The Board may make orders declaring that the Act applies to
>> the following classes of persons
>> (c) students registered in and attending
>> (i) a university as defined in the Universities Act
>>
>> One question is when and why that designation was made. Was it
>> made prior to the UofL incident and applied to all students in all
>> universities or was it a designation made at the request of the
>> University of Lethbridge for this particular case? Does anyone know?
>>
>> One would think that if it was the intention to so designate all
>> students in some general way that this would have been done in the
>> Act, where such designations have been made. But the matter quoted
>> above is in the Regulations, which permits such designation but
>> does not so designate. Where, then, was that designation made and
>> for what reason? Let's hope it doesn't fall at the UofL doorstep.
>>
>> Tom
>
> This really needs to be made more widely known. Tom, are you going
> to add it to onebannashort?
>
>
> --
> Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
> See
>
> -Dr. John R. Vokey
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
From vokey at uleth.ca Thu Nov 20 15:59:05 2008
From: vokey at uleth.ca (John Vokey)
Date: Thu Nov 20 15:59:07 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
IS the Alberta gov't currently paying the WCB premiums for all
students at the U of L? Really?
On 20-Nov-08, at 2:47 PM, McKenna, Ian wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Tom and others>
>
> I contacted a past President of U of L (Smith I recall) who replied
> from
> BC that he knew nothing about the regulation. I also consulted the
> archive of old Meliorists and there is nary a line written about this.
> Interestingly, prior to Rebeca's "accident" there was no mention of
> the
> WCB etc. in the University Calendar. Even now, the reference is vague.
> It was originally passed to encourage employers (real ones) to provide
> students with workplace experience. To make this more appealing to
> employers, the Government paid WCB premiums of such students. For
> whatever reason and absolutely no one in government, universities or
> the
> WCB knows why, the WCB deemed all P.S. students to be workers merely
> by
> being registered and in attendance at a university or college. The
> result is that there is no paper trail regarding the purpose of the
> Regulation. One assumes the purpose is simply to ease the financial
> burden of universities twofold. The Government pays the WCB premiums
> and
> the universities are rendered immune from legal action for negligence.
> I don't think the U of L was involved in the passing of the Regulation
> but it has certainly taken advantage of a highly questionable "law". I
> can e-mail to those interested the arguments made on behalf of
> Rebeca to
> the two Appeals Commission panels.
> Cheers
> Ian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On
> Behalf
> Of Tom Robinson
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 2:16 PM
> To: cafr-l, MailList
> Subject: Re: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
> messages.
>
> --------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
From andrea.glover at uleth.ca Thu Nov 20 16:14:24 2008
From: andrea.glover at uleth.ca (Glover, Andrea)
Date: Thu Nov 20 16:16:44 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
References:
Message-ID:
Tracking the legislative changes and encouraging those who have not to
read CANLii's recap:
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=WCB+university+students+&l
anguage=en&searchTitle=Alberta&path=/en/ab/abqb/doc/2007/2007abqb551/2007
abqb551.html
Andrea Glover
Librarian to the Best & the Brightest
Information Services/Collection Development Librarian
Library Science 0500 Instructor for the Native Transition Program
Subject Librarian for Economics, Kinesiology & Physical Education, Native
American Studies, Political Science and Psychology
University of Lethbridge Library
4401-University Drive
Lethbridge, AB T1K 3M4
1-403-329-2390 andrea.glover@uleth.ca
"Humor is a reminder that no matter how high the throne one sits on, one
sits on one's bottom."
~Taki
________________________________
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca on behalf of McKenna, Ian
Sent: Thu 11/20/2008 2:47 PM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Subject: RE: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
Tom and others>
I contacted a past President of U of L (Smith I recall) who replied from
BC that he knew nothing about the regulation. I also consulted the
archive of old Meliorists and there is nary a line written about this.
Interestingly, prior to Rebeca's "accident" there was no mention of the
WCB etc. in the University Calendar. Even now, the reference is vague.
It was originally passed to encourage employers (real ones) to provide
students with workplace experience. To make this more appealing to
employers, the Government paid WCB premiums of such students. For
whatever reason and absolutely no one in government, universities or the
WCB knows why, the WCB deemed all P.S. students to be workers merely by
being registered and in attendance at a university or college. The
result is that there is no paper trail regarding the purpose of the
Regulation. One assumes the purpose is simply to ease the financial
burden of universities twofold. The Government pays the WCB premiums and
the universities are rendered immune from legal action for negligence.
I don't think the U of L was involved in the passing of the Regulation
but it has certainly taken advantage of a highly questionable "law". I
can e-mail to those interested the arguments made on behalf of Rebeca to
the two Appeals Commission panels.
Cheers
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On Behalf
Of Tom Robinson
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 2:16 PM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Subject: Re: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
_______________________________________________
cafr-l mailing list
cafr-l@uleth.ca
http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081120/0e103d81/attachment-0001.html
From forgie at uleth.ca Thu Nov 20 17:19:22 2008
From: forgie at uleth.ca (Margaret Forgie)
Date: Thu Nov 20 17:24:31 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] Fwd: An Invitation from the ULSU
References:
Message-ID:
OK... Here I go into the flaming pit of fire for my students.... God
protect my really great shoes! Or Ms. Forgie doesn't exist so I can
be my alternate self.
_______________________
Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
Academic Assistant/Lecturer
Department of Psychology
Uhall - D850
The University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
T1K 3M4
phone: 403-329-2437
department: 403-329-2235
fax: 403-329-2555
email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Margaret Forgie
> Date: November 20, 2008 5:16:35 PM MST (CA)
> To: "Adam Vossepoel"
> Subject: Re: An Invitation from the ULSU
>
> Dear Adam. I expressed concern to my students over the fact that
> ULSU has not informed the students of this institution that they
> are deemed workers (or employees) of the Government of Alberta with
> respect to WCB compensation in the event of an injury sustained on
> campus as a result of negligence by the University. This is a
> matter of truth in law, and few students are aware of the issue.
> It is also the case that this "legislation" or "regulation" applies
> to a child attending a community program. I am a parent with a
> child that attends such a program at the U so I am also concerned
> for him.
>
> I in no way impugned your reputation, but rather informed my
> students as is my right and obligation as a faculty member of this
> University. I cannot control what a student said to you, I merely
> encouraged them all to find their voice and contact the SU as per
> their rights as students, and to receive clarification of the
> issue. The WCB designation and regulations should be available to
> all students but it is not.
>
> I would be happy to meet you in a professional capacity at some
> point next week. Depending on the nature of the interview, I will
> ask another member of ULFA to accompany me.
>
> Yours, Dr. Margaret Forgie
> _______________________
>
> Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
> Academic Assistant/Lecturer
> Department of Psychology
> Uhall - D850
> The University of Lethbridge
> 4401 University Drive
> Lethbridge, AB, Canada
> T1K 3M4
>
> phone: 403-329-2437
> department: 403-329-2235
> fax: 403-329-2555
> email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 20-Nov-08, at 4:34 PM, Adam Vossepoel wrote:
>
>> Good Afternoon Ms. Forgie,
>>
>>
>> My name is Adam Vossepoel, the President of the University of
>> Lethbridge Students' Union.
>>
>> Recently, a student in one of your classes approached us, indicating
>> that you had expressed concerns about the ULSU, and its effects on
>> the
>> student population here at the University.
>>
>> I would like to take this opportunity to extend an invitation to meet
>> with me, and discuss those concerns.
>>
>> The ULSU is committed to enhancing the quality of education of
>> students at the U of L through our advocacy work, services, and
>> numerous events that we initiate and support. We are an open and
>> accountable organization that constantly attempts to improve through
>> directly addressing the needs of our students. To this end, we
>> welcome
>> criticism and suggestions on how we can more effectively fulfill our
>> mandate. This input is welcomed from all stakeholders in the
>> University community; staff, faculty and students alike.
>>
>> Please let me know how we can arrange a meeting. As I indicated, I
>> would very much welcome the opportunity to speak with you about our
>> organization, and address any issue that you may have with it.
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Adam Vossepoel
>>
>> President
>>
>> University of Lethbridge Students' Union
>> 4401 University Drive West
>> Lethbridge, Alberta
>> T1K 3M4
>>
>> (403)-329-2221
>>
>> www.ulsu.ca
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081120/5d945d37/attachment.html
From mckenna at uleth.ca Thu Nov 20 18:06:24 2008
From: mckenna at uleth.ca (McKenna, Ian)
Date: Thu Nov 20 18:06:47 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
John and others
Yes the deeming is discretionary for first the government and then the
WCB. Arguably that discretion was abused
because the intention of the legislation (i.e. the Workers' Compensation
Act) is to compensate workers injured in the course of employment, not
students. Of course the REAL intention of the Act is to protect
employers from legal action. I am sure a lawyer could win this argument
in the Court of Appeal and the SCC but where to find one?
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On Behalf
Of John Vokey
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 2:31 PM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Subject: Re: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
> It appears that the WCB Regulations do not require, but only permit,
> the WCB to designate students as workers (7.1.c.i).
>
> http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/documents/Regs/2002_325.cfm?
> frm_isbn=0779743539
>
> Order declaring Act to apply
> 7(1) The Board may make orders declaring that the Act applies to
> the following classes of persons
> (c) students registered in and attending
> (i) a university as defined in the Universities Act
>
> One question is when and why that designation was made. Was it made
> prior to the UofL incident and applied to all students in all
> universities or was it a designation made at the request of the
> University of Lethbridge for this particular case? Does anyone know?
>
> One would think that if it was the intention to so designate all
> students in some general way that this would have been done in the
> Act, where such designations have been made. But the matter quoted
> above is in the Regulations, which permits such designation but does
> not so designate. Where, then, was that designation made and for
> what reason? Let's hope it doesn't fall at the UofL doorstep.
>
> Tom
This really needs to be made more widely known. Tom, are you going to
add it to onebannashort?
--
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See
-Dr. John R. Vokey
_______________________________________________
cafr-l mailing list
cafr-l@uleth.ca
http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
From deborah.saucier at uleth.ca Thu Nov 20 20:26:05 2008
From: deborah.saucier at uleth.ca (Deborah Saucier)
Date: Thu Nov 20 20:26:08 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
no offense to our current librarian,
but i wish you were our librarian (we want to be part of the best and
brightest)
-d
Deborah Saucier
Canada Research Chair
Director, Canadian Centre for Behavioural Neuroscience
Dept. Neuroscience
4401 University Dr.
University of Lethbridge
Lethbridge, AB
T1K 3M4
deborah.saucier@uleth.ca
ph: 403.332.5270
fax: 403.329.2775
On 20-Nov-08, at 4:14 PM, Glover, Andrea wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Tracking the legislative changes and encouraging those who have not
> to read CANLii's recap:
>
>
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=WCB+university+students+&l
anguage=en&searchTitle=Alberta&path=/en/ab/abqb/doc/2007/2007abqb551/2007
abqb551.html
>
>
> Andrea Glover
>
> Librarian to the Best & the Brightest
> Information Services/Collection Development Librarian
> Library Science 0500 Instructor for the Native Transition Program
> Subject Librarian for Economics, Kinesiology & Physical Education,
> Native American Studies, Political Science and Psychology
>
> University of Lethbridge Library
> 4401-University Drive
> Lethbridge, AB T1K 3M4
> 1-403-329-2390 andrea.glover@uleth.ca
>
> "Humor is a reminder that no matter how high the throne one sits on,
> one sits on one's bottom."
>
>
~
> Taki
>
>
>
> From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca on behalf of McKenna, Ian
> Sent: Thu 11/20/2008 2:47 PM
> To: cafr-l, MailList
> Subject: RE: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Tom and others>
>
> I contacted a past President of U of L (Smith I recall) who replied
> from
> BC that he knew nothing about the regulation. I also consulted the
> archive of old Meliorists and there is nary a line written about this.
> Interestingly, prior to Rebeca's "accident" there was no mention of
> the
> WCB etc. in the University Calendar. Even now, the reference is vague.
> It was originally passed to encourage employers (real ones) to provide
> students with workplace experience. To make this more appealing to
> employers, the Government paid WCB premiums of such students. For
> whatever reason and absolutely no one in government, universities or
> the
> WCB knows why, the WCB deemed all P.S. students to be workers merely
> by
> being registered and in attendance at a university or college. The
> result is that there is no paper trail regarding the purpose of the
> Regulation. One assumes the purpose is simply to ease the financial
> burden of universities twofold. The Government pays the WCB premiums
> and
> the universities are rendered immune from legal action for negligence.
> I don't think the U of L was involved in the passing of the Regulation
> but it has certainly taken advantage of a highly questionable "law". I
> can e-mail to those interested the arguments made on behalf of
> Rebeca to
> the two Appeals Commission panels.
> Cheers
> Ian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On
> Behalf
> Of Tom Robinson
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 2:16 PM
> To: cafr-l, MailList
> Subject: Re: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
> messages.
>
> --------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081120/e6888d05/attachment-0001.html
From mckenna at uleth.ca Thu Nov 20 21:53:11 2008
From: mckenna at uleth.ca (Ian McKenna)
Date: Thu Nov 20 21:53:13 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Margaret:
The University of Lethbridge itself cannot apply the Regulation to just
any class of persons not already covered by the Regulation. It could
decide that some person(s) is a student for purposes of the Regulation
and
perhaps decide what counts as registered and in attendance at the
University. Sports programs are exempt from the Regulation but a minor
enrolled in a dance program could find herself/himself barred from suing
for compensation for injuries incurred at the dance class due to
negligence on the part of the university. I'd wager attendees at such
classes are not informed of this unless of course they are injured and
seek compensation.
You are right to express surprise that the ULSU has been completely
supine
over the last 9 years. They should be occupying administrative offices
and
rallying in the streets against this monstrosity of a law. Alas, the c.v.
of a students' union executive officer appears to be of substantially
greater importance than addressing concerns of the student body.
Thanks
Ian
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list
> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Not sure why this didn't go through. Apologies for doubles. M.
>
> Indeed. It would seem to be then that the U could designate on a
> case by case basis, or a "whim", depending on the severity of the
> situation for the face and finances of the U? Correct me if I am
> wrong. M
> _______________________
>
> Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
> Academic Assistant/Lecturer
> Department of Psychology
> Uhall - D850
> The University of Lethbridge
> 4401 University Drive
> Lethbridge, AB, Canada
> T1K 3M4
>
> phone: 403-329-2437
> department: 403-329-2235
> fax: 403-329-2555
> email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 20-Nov-08, at 2:30 PM, John Vokey wrote:
>
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
>> of their messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>>> It appears that the WCB Regulations do not require, but only
>>> permit, the WCB to designate students as workers (7.1.c.i).
>>>
>>> http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/documents/Regs/2002_325.cfm?
>>> frm_isbn=0779743539
>>>
>>> Order declaring Act to apply
>>> 7(1) The Board may make orders declaring that the Act applies to
>>> the following classes of persons
>>> (c) students registered in and attending
>>> (i) a university as defined in the Universities Act
>>>
>>> One question is when and why that designation was made. Was it
>>> made prior to the UofL incident and applied to all students in all
>>> universities or was it a designation made at the request of the
>>> University of Lethbridge for this particular case? Does anyone know?
>>>
>>> One would think that if it was the intention to so designate all
>>> students in some general way that this would have been done in the
>>> Act, where such designations have been made. But the matter quoted
>>> above is in the Regulations, which permits such designation but
>>> does not so designate. Where, then, was that designation made and
>>> for what reason? Let's hope it doesn't fall at the UofL doorstep.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>
>> This really needs to be made more widely known. Tom, are you going
>> to add it to onebannashort?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
>> See
>>
>> -Dr. John R. Vokey
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cafr-l mailing list
>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
From mckenna at uleth.ca Thu Nov 20 21:57:04 2008
From: mckenna at uleth.ca (Ian McKenna)
Date: Thu Nov 20 21:57:05 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
I believe so but that is easily enough checked. Our "risk management
director" can reveal that. Let's face it, the risks of injury of a
student
are low enough to make the premiums peanuts for the government.
Ian
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list
> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> IS the Alberta gov't currently paying the WCB premiums for all
> students at the U of L? Really?
>
> On 20-Nov-08, at 2:47 PM, McKenna, Ian wrote:
>
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
>> of their messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> Tom and others>
>>
>> I contacted a past President of U of L (Smith I recall) who replied
>> from
>> BC that he knew nothing about the regulation. I also consulted the
>> archive of old Meliorists and there is nary a line written about this.
>> Interestingly, prior to Rebeca's "accident" there was no mention of
>> the
>> WCB etc. in the University Calendar. Even now, the reference is vague.
>> It was originally passed to encourage employers (real ones) to provide
>> students with workplace experience. To make this more appealing to
>> employers, the Government paid WCB premiums of such students. For
>> whatever reason and absolutely no one in government, universities or
>> the
>> WCB knows why, the WCB deemed all P.S. students to be workers merely
>> by
>> being registered and in attendance at a university or college. The
>> result is that there is no paper trail regarding the purpose of the
>> Regulation. One assumes the purpose is simply to ease the financial
>> burden of universities twofold. The Government pays the WCB premiums
>> and
>> the universities are rendered immune from legal action for negligence.
>> I don't think the U of L was involved in the passing of the Regulation
>> but it has certainly taken advantage of a highly questionable "law". I
>> can e-mail to those interested the arguments made on behalf of
>> Rebeca to
>> the two Appeals Commission panels.
>> Cheers
>> Ian
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On
>> Behalf
>> Of Tom Robinson
>> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 2:16 PM
>> To: cafr-l, MailList
>> Subject: Re: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>>
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>> messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cafr-l mailing list
>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
From vokey at uleth.ca Thu Nov 20 22:11:23 2008
From: vokey at uleth.ca (John Vokey)
Date: Thu Nov 20 22:11:24 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
But, if true (that the gov't is paying WCB premiums on behalf of every
university student), shouldn't the public be made aware of what their
tax dollars are paying for? Viz.: the gov't is paying premiums to
ensure that students can't sue. Baffling.
On 20-Nov-08, at 9:57 PM, Ian McKenna wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> I believe so but that is easily enough checked. Our "risk management
> director" can reveal that. Let's face it, the risks of injury of a
> student
> are low enough to make the premiums peanuts for the government.
> Ian
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list
>> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> IS the Alberta gov't currently paying the WCB premiums for all
>> students at the U of L? Really?
>>
>> On 20-Nov-08, at 2:47 PM, McKenna, Ian wrote:
>>
>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
>>> of their messages.
>>>
>>> --------------------
>>> Tom and others>
>>>
>>> I contacted a past President of U of L (Smith I recall) who replied
>>> from
>>> BC that he knew nothing about the regulation. I also consulted the
>>> archive of old Meliorists and there is nary a line written about
>>> this.
>>> Interestingly, prior to Rebeca's "accident" there was no mention of
>>> the
>>> WCB etc. in the University Calendar. Even now, the reference is
>>> vague.
>>> It was originally passed to encourage employers (real ones) to
>>> provide
>>> students with workplace experience. To make this more appealing to
>>> employers, the Government paid WCB premiums of such students. For
>>> whatever reason and absolutely no one in government, universities or
>>> the
>>> WCB knows why, the WCB deemed all P.S. students to be workers merely
>>> by
>>> being registered and in attendance at a university or college. The
>>> result is that there is no paper trail regarding the purpose of the
>>> Regulation. One assumes the purpose is simply to ease the financial
>>> burden of universities twofold. The Government pays the WCB premiums
>>> and
>>> the universities are rendered immune from legal action for
>>> negligence.
>>> I don't think the U of L was involved in the passing of the
>>> Regulation
>>> but it has certainly taken advantage of a highly questionable
>>> "law". I
>>> can e-mail to those interested the arguments made on behalf of
>>> Rebeca to
>>> the two Appeals Commission panels.
>>> Cheers
>>> Ian
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On
>>> Behalf
>>> Of Tom Robinson
>>> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 2:16 PM
>>> To: cafr-l, MailList
>>> Subject: Re: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>>>
>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>> unmoderated
>>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>>> messages.
>>>
>>> --------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cafr-l mailing list
>>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cafr-l mailing list
>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
From siminovitch at uleth.ca Thu Nov 20 22:15:45 2008
From: siminovitch at uleth.ca (David Siminovitch)
Date: Thu Nov 20 22:15:47 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list
> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> I believe so but that is easily enough checked. Our "risk management
> director" can reveal that. Let's face it, the risks of injury of a
student
> are low enough to make the premiums peanuts for the government.
> Ian
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
> list
>> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> IS the Alberta gov't currently paying the WCB premiums for all
>> students at the U of L? Really?
>>
>> On 20-Nov-08, at 2:47 PM, McKenna, Ian wrote:
>>
>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
>>> of their messages.
>>>
>>> --------------------
>>> Tom and others>
>>>
>>> I contacted a past President of U of L (Smith I recall) who replied
>>> from
>>> BC that he knew nothing about the regulation. I also consulted the
>>> archive of old Meliorists and there is nary a line written about
this.
>>> Interestingly, prior to Rebeca's "accident" there was no mention of
>>> the
>>> WCB etc. in the University Calendar. Even now, the reference is
vague.
>>> It was originally passed to encourage employers (real ones) to
provide
>>> students with workplace experience. To make this more appealing to
>>> employers, the Government paid WCB premiums of such students. For
>>> whatever reason and absolutely no one in government, universities or
>>> the
>>> WCB knows why, the WCB deemed all P.S. students to be workers merely
>>> by
>>> being registered and in attendance at a university or college. The
>>> result is that there is no paper trail regarding the purpose of the
>>> Regulation. One assumes the purpose is simply to ease the financial
>>> burden of universities twofold. The Government pays the WCB premiums
>>> and
>>> the universities are rendered immune from legal action for
negligence.
>>> I don't think the U of L was involved in the passing of the
Regulation
>>> but it has certainly taken advantage of a highly questionable "law".
I
>>> can e-mail to those interested the arguments made on behalf of
>>> Rebeca to
>>> the two Appeals Commission panels.
>>> Cheers
>>> Ian
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On
>>> Behalf
>>> Of Tom Robinson
>>> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 2:16 PM
>>> To: cafr-l, MailList
>>> Subject: Re: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>>>
>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
>>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>>> messages.
>>>
>>> --------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cafr-l mailing list
>>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cafr-l mailing list
>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
I'm not so sure that "the risks of injury of a
student
are low enough to make the premiums peanuts for the government." In the
monthly accident statistics reviewed by the university health and safety
committee, students are typically well represented. They are, after all,
the largest group on campus. But the premium issue could be settled by
simply asking Risk and Safety Services. I'll let you know what reply I
get.
David
From vokey at uleth.ca Thu Nov 20 22:20:55 2008
From: vokey at uleth.ca (John Vokey)
Date: Thu Nov 20 22:20:56 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
But, if true, the gov't is paying premiums not to insure the students
(after all, any percentage of zero wages is zero), but to ensure they
collect nothing! And if the gov't is NOT paying premiums, then the
whole thing really is a charade and a fraud. But it amounts to
students being screwed in either case.
On 20-Nov-08, at 10:15 PM, David Siminovitch wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>> unmoderated list
>> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> I believe so but that is easily enough checked. Our "risk management
>> director" can reveal that. Let's face it, the risks of injury of a
>> student
>> are low enough to make the premiums peanuts for the government.
>> Ian
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
>> list
>>> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>>> messages.
>>>
>>> --------------------
>>> IS the Alberta gov't currently paying the WCB premiums for all
>>> students at the U of L? Really?
>>>
>>> On 20-Nov-08, at 2:47 PM, McKenna, Ian wrote:
>>>
>>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
>>>> of their messages.
>>>>
>>>> --------------------
>>>> Tom and others>
>>>>
>>>> I contacted a past President of U of L (Smith I recall) who replied
>>>> from
>>>> BC that he knew nothing about the regulation. I also consulted the
>>>> archive of old Meliorists and there is nary a line written about
>>>> this.
>>>> Interestingly, prior to Rebeca's "accident" there was no mention of
>>>> the
>>>> WCB etc. in the University Calendar. Even now, the reference is
>>>> vague.
>>>> It was originally passed to encourage employers (real ones) to
>>>> provide
>>>> students with workplace experience. To make this more appealing to
>>>> employers, the Government paid WCB premiums of such students. For
>>>> whatever reason and absolutely no one in government, universities
>>>> or
>>>> the
>>>> WCB knows why, the WCB deemed all P.S. students to be workers
>>>> merely
>>>> by
>>>> being registered and in attendance at a university or college. The
>>>> result is that there is no paper trail regarding the purpose of the
>>>> Regulation. One assumes the purpose is simply to ease the financial
>>>> burden of universities twofold. The Government pays the WCB
>>>> premiums
>>>> and
>>>> the universities are rendered immune from legal action for
>>>> negligence.
>>>> I don't think the U of L was involved in the passing of the
>>>> Regulation
>>>> but it has certainly taken advantage of a highly questionable
>>>> "law". I
>>>> can e-mail to those interested the arguments made on behalf of
>>>> Rebeca to
>>>> the two Appeals Commission panels.
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On
>>>> Behalf
>>>> Of Tom Robinson
>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 2:16 PM
>>>> To: cafr-l, MailList
>>>> Subject: Re: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
>>>>
>>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>>> unmoderated
>>>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>>>> messages.
>>>>
>>>> --------------------
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cafr-l mailing list
>>>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>>>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cafr-l mailing list
>>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cafr-l mailing list
>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>
> I'm not so sure that "the risks of injury of a
> student
> are low enough to make the premiums peanuts for the government." In
> the
> monthly accident statistics reviewed by the university health and
> safety
> committee, students are typically well represented. They are, after
> all,
> the largest group on campus. But the premium issue could be settled by
> simply asking Risk and Safety Services. I'll let you know what reply I
> get.
> David
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
From andrea.glover at uleth.ca Fri Nov 21 10:24:23 2008
From: andrea.glover at uleth.ca (Glover, Andrea)
Date: Fri Nov 21 10:24:25 2008
Subject: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
References:
Message-ID:
Uh... fortunately for you, she (your Librarian) is one the best and
brightest in the LibraryLand postal code and I just trail gamely along in
her wake.
However, if you wannabe part of the identified B&B then shuttle over to
one of my subject areas.
Andrea
Andrea Glover
Librarian to the Best & the Brightest
Information Services/Collection Development Librarian
Library Science 0500 Instructor for the Native Transition Program
Subject Librarian for Economics, Kinesiology & Physical Education, Native
American Studies, Political Science and Psychology
University of Lethbridge Library
4401-University Drive
Lethbridge, AB T1K 3M4
1-403-329-2390 andrea.glover@uleth.ca
"Humor is a reminder that no matter how high the throne one sits on, one
sits on one's bottom."
~Taki
________________________________
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca on behalf of Deborah Saucier
Sent: Thu 11/20/2008 8:26 PM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Subject: Re: [ldskeptics-l] RE: [CAFR-L] U of L's falling lights.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081121/42c53c97/attachment.html
From forgie at uleth.ca Sat Nov 22 14:02:41 2008
From: forgie at uleth.ca (Margaret Forgie)
Date: Sat Nov 22 14:02:48 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] My informing of students
Message-ID:
Dear Colleagues. It would appear that my informing of students in my
classes in person has produced a negative response from the current
ULSU executive. I believe that I circulated my response to Adam V.
the SU president to you. He has yet to respond to me.
Unbeknown to me, the executive of the ULSU "visited" the Chair of my
Department, to protest my "inappropriate" use of class time. My
chair communicated this information to me this morning after I
informed him of the details of the issue. My Chair IS NOT INVOLVED -
except for the fact that he is our chair.
I of course cannot know what a student said to SU and they then said
to them and so on and so on... the telephone game that children play
at school (my son less than a week ago on a workshop at his high
school on bullying and gossip, for instance).
I stand by my message and my use of class time and I am just sadly
disappointed that this is where our idealism went in less than 2 days.
M.
_______________________
Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
Academic Assistant/Lecturer
Department of Psychology
Uhall - D850
The University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
T1K 3M4
phone: 403-329-2437
department: 403-329-2235
fax: 403-329-2555
email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081122/8a2f973d/attachment.html
From mckenna at uleth.ca Sat Nov 22 15:30:44 2008
From: mckenna at uleth.ca (Ian McKenna)
Date: Sat Nov 22 15:30:46 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] My informing of students
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Margaret and others:
I feel embarrassed and guilty that I shall be free of this decaying and
decadent empire in the very near future.
I know what you meant that you "cannot know what the student said to the
ULSU". Of course it is necessary that you must hear what was said by him
or her to ensure that it was not defamatory to you. Last time I looked,
you are entitled to academic freedom in the classroom and I fail to see
any breach of duty on your part. I have mentioned in class to a number of
Management Law classes over the past nine years that students are
considered (ooops "deemed" no less) to be employees of the Government of
Alberta. This was invariably met with chilling apathy, by the way.
I assume this will blow over because of its pettiness but the reaction of
ULSU is disappointingly to be expected.
Perhaps you should have provided the class with a racier form of
"deeming"
such as the Criminal Code of Canada's deeming "scantily clad" as
"nudity".
Perhaps your next class should include a short lesson on academic
freedom?
Cheers
Ian
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list
> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
>
> --------------------Dear Colleagues. It would appear that my informing
of
> students in my
> classes in person has produced a negative response from the current
> ULSU executive. I believe that I circulated my response to Adam V.
> the SU president to you. He has yet to respond to me.
>
> Unbeknown to me, the executive of the ULSU "visited" the Chair of my
> Department, to protest my "inappropriate" use of class time. My
> chair communicated this information to me this morning after I
> informed him of the details of the issue. My Chair IS NOT INVOLVED -
> except for the fact that he is our chair.
>
> I of course cannot know what a student said to SU and they then said
> to them and so on and so on... the telephone game that children play
> at school (my son less than a week ago on a workshop at his high
> school on bullying and gossip, for instance).
>
> I stand by my message and my use of class time and I am just sadly
> disappointed that this is where our idealism went in less than 2 days.
>
> M.
>
> _______________________
>
> Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
> Academic Assistant/Lecturer
> Department of Psychology
> Uhall - D850
> The University of Lethbridge
> 4401 University Drive
> Lethbridge, AB, Canada
> T1K 3M4
>
> phone: 403-329-2437
> department: 403-329-2235
> fax: 403-329-2555
> email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
From robinson at uleth.ca Sat Nov 22 15:50:49 2008
From: robinson at uleth.ca (Tom Robinson)
Date: Sat Nov 22 15:50:55 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] My informing of students
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Margaret,
I am behind you. That might not help, but at least you won't die on
that hill alone.
Tom
On 22-Nov-08, at 2:02 PM, Margaret Forgie wrote:
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="----=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E"
>
>
> ------=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> format=flowed;
> delsp=yes
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Dear Colleagues. It would appear that my informing of students in my
> classes in person has produced a negative response from the current
> ULSU executive. I believe that I circulated my response to Adam V.
> the SU president to you. He has yet to respond to me.
>
> Unbeknown to me, the executive of the ULSU "visited" the Chair of my
> Department, to protest my "inappropriate" use of class time. My
> chair communicated this information to me this morning after I
> informed him of the details of the issue. My Chair IS NOT INVOLVED -
> except for the fact that he is our chair.
>
> I of course cannot know what a student said to SU and they then said
> to them and so on and so on... the telephone game that children play
> at school (my son less than a week ago on a workshop at his high
> school on bullying and gossip, for instance).
>
> I stand by my message and my use of class time and I am just sadly
> disappointed that this is where our idealism went in less than 2 days.
>
> M.
>
> _______________________
>
> Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
> Academic Assistant/Lecturer
> Department of Psychology
> Uhall - D850
> The University of Lethbridge
> 4401 University Drive
> Lethbridge, AB, Canada
> T1K 3M4
>
> phone: 403-329-2437
> department: 403-329-2235
> fax: 403-329-2555
> email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E
> Content-Disposition: attachment
> Content-Type: text/html;
> charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> space; =
> -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
> Dear Colleagues. =A0It would appear that my informing of students in
> my =
> classes in person has produced a negative response from the current
> ULSU =
> executive. =A0I believe that I circulated my response to Adam V. the
> SU =
> president to you. =A0He has yet to respond to =
> me.=A0Unbeknown to me, the executive of the ULSU =
> "visited" the Chair of my Department, to protest my "inappropriate"
> use =
> of class time. =A0My chair communicated this information to me this =
> morning after I informed him of the details of the issue. =A0My
> Chair IS =
> NOT INVOLVED -except for the fact that he is our =
> chair.I of course cannot know what a =
> student said to SU and they then said to them and so on and so on... =
> =A0the telephone game that children play at school (my son less than
> a =
> week ago on a workshop at his high school on bullying and gossip,
> for =
> instance).I stand by my message and my use
> of =
> class time and I am just sadly disappointed that this is where our =
> idealism went in less than 2 =
> days.M. class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate;
> color: =
> rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Gill Sans'; font-size: 18px; font-style: =
> normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: =
> normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-
> indent: =
> 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-
> spacing: =
> 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; =
> -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
> -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
> auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "> span" =
> style=3D"border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-
> family: =
> 'Gill Sans'; font-size: 18px; font-style: normal; font-variant:
> normal; =
> font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; =
> orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
> normal; =
> widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing:
> 0px; =
> -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
> -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
> auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "> top: =
> 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; =
> ">_______________________ margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder"> 0px; =
> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Margaret
> L. =
> Forgie, Ph.D. margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Academic =
> Assistant/Lecturer 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Department of =
> Psychology margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Uhall - D850 style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
> margin-left: 0px; ">The University of Lethbridge style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
> margin-left: 0px; ">4401 University Drive=A0 style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
> margin-left: 0px; ">Lethbridge, AB, Canada top: =
> 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">T1K =
> 3M4 margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder"> 0px; =
> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">phone: =
> 403-329-2437=A0 0px; =
> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">department: =
> 403-329-2235 margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">fax: =A0403-329-2555 div> style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
> margin-left: 0px; ">email:=A0 href=3D"mailto:forgie@uleth.ca">forgie@uleth.ca (preferred =
> contact) margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder"> 0px; =
> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder"> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder"> class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"> class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"> =
> =
>
> ------=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E--
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E
> Content-Disposition: attachment
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E--
From forgie at uleth.ca Sat Nov 22 16:38:32 2008
From: forgie at uleth.ca (Margaret Forgie)
Date: Sat Nov 22 16:38:39 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] My informing of students
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Excellent... You bring the lawn chairs and the coolers of beer, I'll
bring the soup, the blankets, and the umbrellas. wan :-) M.
_______________________
Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
Academic Assistant/Lecturer
Department of Psychology
Uhall - D850
The University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
T1K 3M4
phone: 403-329-2437
department: 403-329-2235
fax: 403-329-2555
email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
On 22-Nov-08, at 3:50 PM, Tom Robinson wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Margaret,
>
> I am behind you. That might not help, but at least you won't die on
> that hill alone.
>
> Tom
>
> On 22-Nov-08, at 2:02 PM, Margaret Forgie wrote:
>
>>
>> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>> Content-Disposition: inline
>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>> charset=US-ASCII
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the
>> content of their messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>> boundary="----=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E"
>>
>>
>> ------=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>> format=flowed;
>> delsp=yes
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>
>> Dear Colleagues. It would appear that my informing of students in my
>> classes in person has produced a negative response from the current
>> ULSU executive. I believe that I circulated my response to Adam V.
>> the SU president to you. He has yet to respond to me.
>>
>> Unbeknown to me, the executive of the ULSU "visited" the Chair of my
>> Department, to protest my "inappropriate" use of class time. My
>> chair communicated this information to me this morning after I
>> informed him of the details of the issue. My Chair IS NOT INVOLVED -
>> except for the fact that he is our chair.
>>
>> I of course cannot know what a student said to SU and they then said
>> to them and so on and so on... the telephone game that children play
>> at school (my son less than a week ago on a workshop at his high
>> school on bullying and gossip, for instance).
>>
>> I stand by my message and my use of class time and I am just sadly
>> disappointed that this is where our idealism went in less than 2
>> days.
>>
>> M.
>>
>> _______________________
>>
>> Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
>> Academic Assistant/Lecturer
>> Department of Psychology
>> Uhall - D850
>> The University of Lethbridge
>> 4401 University Drive
>> Lethbridge, AB, Canada
>> T1K 3M4
>>
>> phone: 403-329-2437
>> department: 403-329-2235
>> fax: 403-329-2555
>> email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>> Content-Disposition: attachment
>> Content-Type: text/html;
>> charset=iso-8859-1
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>
>> > space; =
>> -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
>> Dear Colleagues. =A0It would appear that my informing of students
>> in my =
>> classes in person has produced a negative response from the
>> current ULSU =
>> executive. =A0I believe that I circulated my response to Adam V.
>> the SU =
>> president to you. =A0He has yet to respond to =
>> me.=A0Unbeknown to me, the executive of the ULSU =
>> "visited" the Chair of my Department, to protest my
>> "inappropriate" use =
>> of class time. =A0My chair communicated this information to me this =
>> morning after I informed him of the details of the issue. =A0My
>> Chair IS =
>> NOT INVOLVED -except for the fact that he is our =
>> chair.I of course cannot know what a =
>> student said to SU and they then said to them and so on and so
>> on... =
>> =A0the telephone game that children play at school (my son less
>> than a =
>> week ago on a workshop at his high school on bullying and gossip,
>> for =
>> instance).I stand by my message and my
>> use of =
>> class time and I am just sadly disappointed that this is where our =
>> idealism went in less than 2 =
>> days.M. > class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate;
>> color: =
>> rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Gill Sans'; font-size: 18px; font-
>> style: =
>> normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: =
>> normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-
>> indent: =
>> 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-
>> spacing: =
>> 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; =
>> -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
>> -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
>> auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; ">> span" =
>> style=3D"border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-
>> family: =
>> 'Gill Sans'; font-size: 18px; font-style: normal; font-variant:
>> normal; =
>> font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; =
>> orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
>> normal; =
>> widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing:
>> 0px; =
>> -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
>> -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
>> auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">> top: =
>> 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; =
>> ">_______________________> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">> 0px; =
>> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;
>> ">Margaret L. =
>> Forgie, Ph.D.> 0px; =
>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Academic =
>> Assistant/Lecturer> right: =
>> 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Department of =
>> Psychology> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Uhall - D850> style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
>> margin-left: 0px; ">The University of Lethbridge> style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
>> margin-left: 0px; ">4401 University Drive=A0> style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
>> margin-left: 0px; ">Lethbridge, AB, Canada> style=3D"margin-top: =
>> 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">T1K =
>> 3M4> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">> 0px; =
>> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">phone: =
>> 403-329-2437=A0> 0px; =
>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">department: =
>> 403-329-2235> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">fax: =A0403-329-2555> div>> style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
>> margin-left: 0px; ">email:=A0> href=3D"mailto:forgie@uleth.ca">forgie@uleth.ca (preferred =
>> contact)> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">> 0px; =
>> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">> class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline">> class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"> =
>> =
>>
>> ------=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E--
>>
>> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>> Content-Disposition: attachment
>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>> charset=US-ASCII
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cafr-l mailing list
>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>
>> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E--
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
From daniel.odonnell at uleth.ca Sat Nov 22 16:51:25 2008
From: daniel.odonnell at uleth.ca (Daniel O'Donnell)
Date: Sat Nov 22 16:51:34 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] Academic Freedom... An administrative moment
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Since we know that the admin read this list when they don't like it,
perhaps it's worthwhile pointing out that Margaret's problems and the
article on Tom in the Meliorist represent yet another chance for
administrators who are serious about the traditional responsibilities
that belong to their positions, rather than simply buying nice cars on
the grossly inflated salaries they earn for putting their bums in their
seats each day, to get out in front of deeply serious issue facing this
university.
What a good opportunity to assert the value of academic freedom, to
build on the changes in the GPM language recently negotiated between
ULFA and the administration, and generally stop sitting around while a
crisis slowly gets worse on one's watch.
> *************************************
--
Daniel Paul O'Donnell
Associate Professor of English
Chair, Text Encoding Initiative Consortium
Director, Digital Medievalist Project
Department of English
University of Lethbridge
Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
Home Page: http://people.uleth.ca/~daniel.odonnell/
Appointment Calendar:
http://kakelbont.homelinux.net/webcalendar/week.php?user=dan
Vox: +1 403 329-2377
Fax: +1 403 382-7191
From forgie at uleth.ca Sat Nov 22 17:16:22 2008
From: forgie at uleth.ca (Margaret Forgie)
Date: Sat Nov 22 17:16:29 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] Academic Freedom... An administrative moment
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
OK Dan, if Tom has the lawn chairs and beer, and I have the blankets,
soup, and umbrellas.... You obviously have to "speech write" the
flyers that we will hand out at the top of the hill (3 of us for this
sit in so far) - but not on the lurid fluorescent paper as were
recently deposited in the hundreds on the desks in our large
classrooms by ? still wan, but cracking a smile :-) M.
_______________________
Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
Academic Assistant/Lecturer
Department of Psychology
Uhall - D850
The University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
T1K 3M4
phone: 403-329-2437
department: 403-329-2235
fax: 403-329-2555
email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
On 22-Nov-08, at 4:51 PM, Daniel O'Donnell wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Since we know that the admin read this list when they don't like it,
> perhaps it's worthwhile pointing out that Margaret's problems and the
> article on Tom in the Meliorist represent yet another chance for
> administrators who are serious about the traditional responsibilities
> that belong to their positions, rather than simply buying nice cars on
> the grossly inflated salaries they earn for putting their bums in
> their
> seats each day, to get out in front of deeply serious issue facing
> this
> university.
>
> What a good opportunity to assert the value of academic freedom, to
> build on the changes in the GPM language recently negotiated between
> ULFA and the administration, and generally stop sitting around while a
> crisis slowly gets worse on one's watch.
>> *************************************
> --
> Daniel Paul O'Donnell
> Associate Professor of English
> Chair, Text Encoding Initiative Consortium
> Director, Digital Medievalist Project
>
> Department of English
> University of Lethbridge
> Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
>
> Home Page: http://people.uleth.ca/~daniel.odonnell/
> Appointment Calendar:
> http://kakelbont.homelinux.net/webcalendar/week.php?user=dan
> Vox: +1 403 329-2377
> Fax: +1 403 382-7191
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
From mckenna at uleth.ca Sun Nov 23 11:34:17 2008
From: mckenna at uleth.ca (Ian McKenna)
Date: Sun Nov 23 11:34:19 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] My informing of students
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Margaret and others.
Perhaps we are all disappointed that our idealism lasted only two days.
Is
there anything we can do about this? Can we discover whether the SU
executive has already been advised by the administration to avoid the
issue of students as employees of the provincial government? While the
law
has spoken on this, the media, some faculty members, those who take
seriously the doctrine of "in loco parentis", some members of the public,
possibly opposition parties, and even some students may still have much
to
say on the bizarre interpretation of the intention of the Legislature
(another useful legal fiction).
Are people in CAFR willing to sign letters to the Meliorist, the
Lethbridge Herald, the Calgary Herald, and the Edmonton Journal? (as we
know we have campuses in the north). I have already been interviewed by a
journalist, Norm Lebus who is pitching a story to CTV Calgary on the
issue
of students as employees of the Government. This of course is for the
Calgary audience. Would anyone be willing to say a few words on air if
his
pitch is accepted? I assume the words would reflect the revulsion of some
faculty members at this regulation and the lack of respect it shows for
our students. The local Herald might do a story on CAFR members' (I
assume
not all) opposition to the U of L's administration on this matter - i.e.
beyond Rebeca's case.
Can we spread the word to academic colleagues across Canada to make it
known what is going on in Alberta? Can we have a petition signed by
colleagues here to express concern or whatever about the University
administration's ethics?
Just some thoughts for action. I am sure there are other things to be
done.
Ian
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list
> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Excellent... You bring the lawn chairs and the coolers of beer, I'll
> bring the soup, the blankets, and the umbrellas. wan :-) M.
> _______________________
>
> Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
> Academic Assistant/Lecturer
> Department of Psychology
> Uhall - D850
> The University of Lethbridge
> 4401 University Drive
> Lethbridge, AB, Canada
> T1K 3M4
>
> phone: 403-329-2437
> department: 403-329-2235
> fax: 403-329-2555
> email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 22-Nov-08, at 3:50 PM, Tom Robinson wrote:
>
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
>> of their messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> Margaret,
>>
>> I am behind you. That might not help, but at least you won't die on
>> that hill alone.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> On 22-Nov-08, at 2:02 PM, Margaret Forgie wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>>> Content-Disposition: inline
>>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>>> charset=US-ASCII
>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>>
>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the
>>> content of their messages.
>>>
>>> --------------------
>>> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>>> boundary="----=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E"
>>>
>>>
>>> ------=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>>> format=flowed;
>>> delsp=yes
>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>>
>>> Dear Colleagues. It would appear that my informing of students in my
>>> classes in person has produced a negative response from the current
>>> ULSU executive. I believe that I circulated my response to Adam V.
>>> the SU president to you. He has yet to respond to me.
>>>
>>> Unbeknown to me, the executive of the ULSU "visited" the Chair of my
>>> Department, to protest my "inappropriate" use of class time. My
>>> chair communicated this information to me this morning after I
>>> informed him of the details of the issue. My Chair IS NOT INVOLVED -
>>> except for the fact that he is our chair.
>>>
>>> I of course cannot know what a student said to SU and they then said
>>> to them and so on and so on... the telephone game that children play
>>> at school (my son less than a week ago on a workshop at his high
>>> school on bullying and gossip, for instance).
>>>
>>> I stand by my message and my use of class time and I am just sadly
>>> disappointed that this is where our idealism went in less than 2
>>> days.
>>>
>>> M.
>>>
>>> _______________________
>>>
>>> Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
>>> Academic Assistant/Lecturer
>>> Department of Psychology
>>> Uhall - D850
>>> The University of Lethbridge
>>> 4401 University Drive
>>> Lethbridge, AB, Canada
>>> T1K 3M4
>>>
>>> phone: 403-329-2437
>>> department: 403-329-2235
>>> fax: 403-329-2555
>>> email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>>> Content-Disposition: attachment
>>> Content-Type: text/html;
>>> charset=iso-8859-1
>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>>
>>> >> space; =
>>> -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
>>> Dear Colleagues. =A0It would appear that my informing of students
>>> in my =
>>> classes in person has produced a negative response from the
>>> current ULSU =
>>> executive. =A0I believe that I circulated my response to Adam V.
>>> the SU =
>>> president to you. =A0He has yet to respond to =
>>> me.=A0Unbeknown to me, the executive of the ULSU =
>>> "visited" the Chair of my Department, to protest my
>>> "inappropriate" use =
>>> of class time. =A0My chair communicated this information to me this =
>>> morning after I informed him of the details of the issue. =A0My
>>> Chair IS =
>>> NOT INVOLVED -except for the fact that he is our =
>>> chair.I of course cannot know what a =
>>> student said to SU and they then said to them and so on and so
>>> on... =
>>> =A0the telephone game that children play at school (my son less
>>> than a =
>>> week ago on a workshop at his high school on bullying and gossip,
>>> for =
>>> instance).I stand by my message and my
>>> use of =
>>> class time and I am just sadly disappointed that this is where our =
>>> idealism went in less than 2 =
>>> days.M. >> class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate;
>>> color: =
>>> rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Gill Sans'; font-size: 18px; font-
>>> style: =
>>> normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: =
>>> normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-
>>> indent: =
>>> 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-
>>> spacing: =
>>> 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; =
>>> -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
>>> -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
>>> auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; ">>> span" =
>>> style=3D"border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-
>>> family: =
>>> 'Gill Sans'; font-size: 18px; font-style: normal; font-variant:
>>> normal; =
>>> font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; =
>>> orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
>>> normal; =
>>> widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing:
>>> 0px; =
>>> -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
>>> -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
>>> auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">>> top: =
>>> 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; =
>>> ">_______________________>> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">>> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">>> 0px; =
>>> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;
>>> ">Margaret L. =
>>> Forgie, Ph.D.>> 0px; =
>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Academic =
>>> Assistant/Lecturer>> right: =
>>> 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Department of =
>>> Psychology>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Uhall - D850>> style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
>>> margin-left: 0px; ">The University of Lethbridge>> style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
>>> margin-left: 0px; ">4401 University Drive=A0>> style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
>>> margin-left: 0px; ">Lethbridge, AB, Canada>> style=3D"margin-top: =
>>> 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">T1K =
>>> 3M4>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">>> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">>> 0px; =
>>> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">phone: =
>>> 403-329-2437=A0>> 0px; =
>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">department: =
>>> 403-329-2235>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">fax: =A0403-329-2555>> div>>> style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
>>> margin-left: 0px; ">email:=A0>> href=3D"mailto:forgie@uleth.ca">forgie@uleth.ca (preferred =
>>> contact)>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">>> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">>> 0px; =
>>> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">>> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">>> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">>> class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline">>> class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"> =
>>> =
>>>
>>> ------=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E--
>>>
>>> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>>> Content-Disposition: attachment
>>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>>> charset=US-ASCII
>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cafr-l mailing list
>>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>>
>>> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E--
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cafr-l mailing list
>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
From robinson at uleth.ca Sun Nov 23 11:47:13 2008
From: robinson at uleth.ca (Tom Robinson)
Date: Sun Nov 23 11:47:20 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] My informing of students
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Ian and all,
I am on side. I haven't yet seen any convincing argument to consider
students as employees or "workers," as WCB puts it.
Even a convincing explanation leaves unsettled:
(1) Why students are not made aware of this status?
(2) How the WCB came to rule in this way, particularly when they are
not ordered to so designate students but are only permitted to do so.
Though an argument might be convincing here (I don't know), I would
want to ask whether another solution would have been as reasonable or
even more reasonable, particularly when only Alberta has decided to go
this route, and even the Alberta Occupational Health and Safety (am I
right here, Ian?) and the WCB Appeals Commission do not think that
students should be designated in this way.
Tom
On 23-Nov-08, at 11:34 AM, Ian McKenna wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Margaret and others.
>
> Perhaps we are all disappointed that our idealism lasted only two
> days. Is
> there anything we can do about this? Can we discover whether the SU
> executive has already been advised by the administration to avoid the
> issue of students as employees of the provincial government? While
> the law
> has spoken on this, the media, some faculty members, those who take
> seriously the doctrine of "in loco parentis", some members of the
> public,
> possibly opposition parties, and even some students may still have
> much to
> say on the bizarre interpretation of the intention of the Legislature
> (another useful legal fiction).
>
> Are people in CAFR willing to sign letters to the Meliorist, the
> Lethbridge Herald, the Calgary Herald, and the Edmonton Journal? (as
> we
> know we have campuses in the north). I have already been interviewed
> by a
> journalist, Norm Lebus who is pitching a story to CTV Calgary on the
> issue
> of students as employees of the Government. This of course is for the
> Calgary audience. Would anyone be willing to say a few words on air
> if his
> pitch is accepted? I assume the words would reflect the revulsion of
> some
> faculty members at this regulation and the lack of respect it shows
> for
> our students. The local Herald might do a story on CAFR members' (I
> assume
> not all) opposition to the U of L's administration on this matter -
> i.e.
> beyond Rebeca's case.
>
> Can we spread the word to academic colleagues across Canada to make it
> known what is going on in Alberta? Can we have a petition signed by
> colleagues here to express concern or whatever about the University
> administration's ethics?
>
> Just some thoughts for action. I am sure there are other things to
> be done.
>
> Ian
>
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list
>> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> Excellent... You bring the lawn chairs and the coolers of beer, I'll
>> bring the soup, the blankets, and the umbrellas. wan :-) M.
>> _______________________
>>
>> Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
>> Academic Assistant/Lecturer
>> Department of Psychology
>> Uhall - D850
>> The University of Lethbridge
>> 4401 University Drive
>> Lethbridge, AB, Canada
>> T1K 3M4
>>
>> phone: 403-329-2437
>> department: 403-329-2235
>> fax: 403-329-2555
>> email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 22-Nov-08, at 3:50 PM, Tom Robinson wrote:
>>
>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
>>> of their messages.
>>>
>>> --------------------
>>> Margaret,
>>>
>>> I am behind you. That might not help, but at least you won't die on
>>> that hill alone.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> On 22-Nov-08, at 2:02 PM, Margaret Forgie wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>>>> Content-Disposition: inline
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>>>> charset=US-ASCII
>>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>>>
>>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the
>>>> content of their messages.
>>>>
>>>> --------------------
>>>> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>>>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>>>> boundary="----=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>>>> format=flowed;
>>>> delsp=yes
>>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>>>
>>>> Dear Colleagues. It would appear that my informing of students
>>>> in my
>>>> classes in person has produced a negative response from the current
>>>> ULSU executive. I believe that I circulated my response to Adam V.
>>>> the SU president to you. He has yet to respond to me.
>>>>
>>>> Unbeknown to me, the executive of the ULSU "visited" the Chair of
>>>> my
>>>> Department, to protest my "inappropriate" use of class time. My
>>>> chair communicated this information to me this morning after I
>>>> informed him of the details of the issue. My Chair IS NOT
>>>> INVOLVED -
>>>> except for the fact that he is our chair.
>>>>
>>>> I of course cannot know what a student said to SU and they then
>>>> said
>>>> to them and so on and so on... the telephone game that children
>>>> play
>>>> at school (my son less than a week ago on a workshop at his high
>>>> school on bullying and gossip, for instance).
>>>>
>>>> I stand by my message and my use of class time and I am just sadly
>>>> disappointed that this is where our idealism went in less than 2
>>>> days.
>>>>
>>>> M.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________
>>>>
>>>> Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
>>>> Academic Assistant/Lecturer
>>>> Department of Psychology
>>>> Uhall - D850
>>>> The University of Lethbridge
>>>> 4401 University Drive
>>>> Lethbridge, AB, Canada
>>>> T1K 3M4
>>>>
>>>> phone: 403-329-2437
>>>> department: 403-329-2235
>>>> fax: 403-329-2555
>>>> email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>>>> Content-Disposition: attachment
>>>> Content-Type: text/html;
>>>> charset=iso-8859-1
>>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>>>
>>>> >>> space; =
>>>> -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
>>>> Dear Colleagues. =A0It would appear that my informing of students
>>>> in my =
>>>> classes in person has produced a negative response from the
>>>> current ULSU =
>>>> executive. =A0I believe that I circulated my response to Adam V.
>>>> the SU =
>>>> president to you. =A0He has yet to respond to =
>>>> me.=A0Unbeknown to me, the executive of the ULSU =
>>>> "visited" the Chair of my Department, to protest my
>>>> "inappropriate" use =
>>>> of class time. =A0My chair communicated this information to me
>>>> this =
>>>> morning after I informed him of the details of the issue. =A0My
>>>> Chair IS =
>>>> NOT INVOLVED -except for the fact that he is our =
>>>> chair.I of course cannot know what
>>>> a =
>>>> student said to SU and they then said to them and so on and so
>>>> on... =
>>>> =A0the telephone game that children play at school (my son less
>>>> than a =
>>>> week ago on a workshop at his high school on bullying and gossip,
>>>> for =
>>>> instance).I stand by my message and my
>>>> use of =
>>>> class time and I am just sadly disappointed that this is where
>>>> our =
>>>> idealism went in less than 2 =
>>>> days.M. >>> class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate;
>>>> color: =
>>>> rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Gill Sans'; font-size: 18px; font-
>>>> style: =
>>>> normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-
>>>> spacing: =
>>>> normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-
>>>> indent: =
>>>> 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-
>>>> spacing: =
>>>> 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; =
>>>> -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
>>>> -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-
>>>> adjust: =
>>>> auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; ">>>> span" =
>>>> style=3D"border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-
>>>> family: =
>>>> 'Gill Sans'; font-size: 18px; font-style: normal; font-variant:
>>>> normal; =
>>>> font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; =
>>>> orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
>>>> normal; =
>>>> widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing:
>>>> 0px; =
>>>> -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
>>>> -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-
>>>> adjust: =
>>>> auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">>>> top: =
>>>> 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; =
>>>> ">_______________________>>> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">>>> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">>>> 0px; =
>>>> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;
>>>> ">Margaret L. =
>>>> Forgie, Ph.D.>>> 0px; =
>>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Academic =
>>>> Assistant/Lecturer>>> right: =
>>>> 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Department of =
>>>> Psychology>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Uhall - D850>>> style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
>>>> margin-left: 0px; ">The University of Lethbridge>>> style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
>>>> margin-left: 0px; ">4401 University Drive=A0>>> style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
>>>> margin-left: 0px; ">Lethbridge, AB, Canada>>> style=3D"margin-top: =
>>>> 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;
>>>> ">T1K =
>>>> 3M4>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">>>> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">>>> 0px; =
>>>> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">phone: =
>>>> 403-329-2437=A0>>> 0px; =
>>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">department: =
>>>> 403-329-2235>>> 0px; =
>>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">fax: =A0403-329-2555>>> div>>>> style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
>>>> margin-left: 0px; ">email:=A0>>> href=3D"mailto:forgie@uleth.ca">forgie@uleth.ca (preferred =
>>>> contact)>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">>>> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">>>> 0px; =
>>>> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">>>> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">>>> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">>>> class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline">>>> class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"> =
>>>> =
>>>>
>>>> ------=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E--
>>>>
>>>> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>>>> Content-Disposition: attachment
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>>>> charset=US-ASCII
>>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cafr-l mailing list
>>>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>>>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>>>
>>>> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E--
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cafr-l mailing list
>>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cafr-l mailing list
>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
From forgie at uleth.ca Sun Nov 23 12:00:04 2008
From: forgie at uleth.ca (Margaret Forgie)
Date: Sun Nov 23 12:00:11 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] Fwd: Informing Students
References:
Message-ID:
This is the email I sent on Nov. 15 to my Chair and Associate Chair.
At that time I did not have posting rights to the list (Thank you Dan
for adding me quickly). It perhaps fills in some of the blanks for
some folks. How prophetic were my words! M.
_______________________
Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
Academic Assistant/Lecturer
Department of Psychology
Uhall - D850
The University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
T1K 3M4
phone: 403-329-2437
department: 403-329-2235
fax: 403-329-2555
email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Margaret Forgie
> Date: November 15, 2008 9:35:18 PM MST (CA)
> To: Drew Rendall , Scott Allen
> Cc: Discussion list for a new skeptics group on campus l@uleth.ca>
> Subject: Informing Students
>
> I am writing to inform you both as the Chair and Associate Chair of
> my Department that I will be informing all of my students, a
> significant population at the U of L, of their status as employees
> of the University in the event they are injured at the University
> during the course of their duties as students. I will announce
> this as a short intro to each class meeting that I have in the next
> regular week.
>
> Given that I teach a fair number of students, this should also get
> the message out quick about the dangers for our children as well.
>
>
> For those of you in the CC that are not aware of the courses I
> teach and the numbers of students involved, I summarize here, briefly:
>
> Psyc 1000A approx. 275
> Psyc 1000B approx. 160
> Psyc 1000N approx. 155
> Psyc 2110A approx. 115
> Psyc 3525A approx. 45
>
> Even with dyscalculia I know that is about 750 students. Not an
> insignificant number. On the other hand, I suppose the admin could
> suspend me without pay too for doing so.
>
> _______________________
>
> Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
> Academic Assistant/Lecturer
> Department of Psychology
> Uhall - D850
> The University of Lethbridge
> 4401 University Drive
> Lethbridge, AB, Canada
> T1K 3M4
>
> phone: 403-329-2437
> department: 403-329-2235
> fax: 403-329-2555
> email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081123/ba2d3f1f/attachment-0001.html
From brown at uleth.ca Sun Nov 23 12:18:53 2008
From: brown at uleth.ca (Bryson Brown)
Date: Sun Nov 23 12:15:24 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] My informing of students
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
I'm onside as well. The case we've been discussing is very disturbing,
and the designation of students as employees seems absurd (and of a
piece with the heads-I-win, tails-you-lose mentality of the Alberta
Gov't). My only concern (and this is more a request for background than
anything else) is that when it comes to getting quick access to medical
care and rehab, WC is a real advantage--though it comes at the cost, of
course, of losing the right to sue. So if the policy is changed, some
students will benefit by being able to pursue a claim of negligence
while others (hurt less seriously and not interested in pursuing a
lawsuit or hurt through no negligence on the University's part) may lose
the special benefits of being treated within the WC system.
This certainly doesn't excuse the University's refusal to reach an
out-of-court settlement in the case (quite possibly at a lower cost than
the legal fees incurred), let alone the thuggish threat of suing the
victim to recover those legal costs. And it doesn't affect the
importance of making sure that students are aware of their status and
its disadvantages. But it does complicate the issue, at least as I
understand it now.
Bryson
Tom Robinson wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
> messages.
>
> --------------------
> Ian and all,
>
> I am on side. I haven't yet seen any convincing argument to consider
> students as employees or "workers," as WCB puts it.
>
> Even a convincing explanation leaves unsettled:
>
> (1) Why students are not made aware of this status?
>
> (2) How the WCB came to rule in this way, particularly when they are
> not ordered to so designate students but are only permitted to do so.
> Though an argument might be convincing here (I don't know), I would
> want to ask whether another solution would have been as reasonable or
> even more reasonable, particularly when only Alberta has decided to
> go this route, and even the Alberta Occupational Health and Safety
> (am I right here, Ian?) and the WCB Appeals Commission do not think
> that students should be designated in this way.
>
> Tom
>
>
> On 23-Nov-08, at 11:34 AM, Ian McKenna wrote:
>
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
>> of their messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> Margaret and others.
>>
>> Perhaps we are all disappointed that our idealism lasted only two
>> days. Is
>> there anything we can do about this? Can we discover whether the SU
>> executive has already been advised by the administration to avoid the
>> issue of students as employees of the provincial government? While
>> the law
>> has spoken on this, the media, some faculty members, those who take
>> seriously the doctrine of "in loco parentis", some members of the
>> public,
>> possibly opposition parties, and even some students may still have
>> much to
>> say on the bizarre interpretation of the intention of the Legislature
>> (another useful legal fiction).
>>
>> Are people in CAFR willing to sign letters to the Meliorist, the
>> Lethbridge Herald, the Calgary Herald, and the Edmonton Journal? (as
we
>> know we have campuses in the north). I have already been interviewed
>> by a
>> journalist, Norm Lebus who is pitching a story to CTV Calgary on the
>> issue
>> of students as employees of the Government. This of course is for the
>> Calgary audience. Would anyone be willing to say a few words on air
>> if his
>> pitch is accepted? I assume the words would reflect the revulsion of
>> some
>> faculty members at this regulation and the lack of respect it shows
for
>> our students. The local Herald might do a story on CAFR members' (I
>> assume
>> not all) opposition to the U of L's administration on this matter -
>> i.e.
>> beyond Rebeca's case.
>>
>> Can we spread the word to academic colleagues across Canada to make it
>> known what is going on in Alberta? Can we have a petition signed by
>> colleagues here to express concern or whatever about the University
>> administration's ethics?
>>
>> Just some thoughts for action. I am sure there are other things to
>> be done.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>> unmoderated list
>>
>>> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
>>>
>>> --------------------
>>> Excellent... You bring the lawn chairs and the coolers of beer, I'll
>>> bring the soup, the blankets, and the umbrellas. wan :-) M.
>>> _______________________
>>>
>>> Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
>>> Academic Assistant/Lecturer
>>> Department of Psychology
>>> Uhall - D850
>>> The University of Lethbridge
>>> 4401 University Drive
>>> Lethbridge, AB, Canada
>>> T1K 3M4
>>>
>>> phone: 403-329-2437
>>> department: 403-329-2235
>>> fax: 403-329-2555
>>> email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22-Nov-08, at 3:50 PM, Tom Robinson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
>>>> of their messages.
>>>>
>>>> --------------------
>>>> Margaret,
>>>>
>>>> I am behind you. That might not help, but at least you won't die on
>>>> that hill alone.
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>> On 22-Nov-08, at 2:02 PM, Margaret Forgie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>>>>> Content-Disposition: inline
>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>>>>> charset=US-ASCII
>>>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>>>>
>>>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>>>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the
>>>>> content of their messages.
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------
>>>>> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>>>>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>>>>> boundary="----=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>>>>> format=flowed;
>>>>> delsp=yes
>>>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Colleagues. It would appear that my informing of students
>>>>> in my
>>>>> classes in person has produced a negative response from the current
>>>>> ULSU executive. I believe that I circulated my response to Adam V.
>>>>> the SU president to you. He has yet to respond to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unbeknown to me, the executive of the ULSU "visited" the Chair of
my
>>>>> Department, to protest my "inappropriate" use of class time. My
>>>>> chair communicated this information to me this morning after I
>>>>> informed him of the details of the issue. My Chair IS NOT
>>>>> INVOLVED -
>>>>> except for the fact that he is our chair.
>>>>>
>>>>> I of course cannot know what a student said to SU and they then
said
>>>>> to them and so on and so on... the telephone game that children
>>>>> play
>>>>> at school (my son less than a week ago on a workshop at his high
>>>>> school on bullying and gossip, for instance).
>>>>>
>>>>> I stand by my message and my use of class time and I am just sadly
>>>>> disappointed that this is where our idealism went in less than 2
>>>>> days.
>>>>>
>>>>> M.
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________
>>>>>
>>>>> Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
>>>>> Academic Assistant/Lecturer
>>>>> Department of Psychology
>>>>> Uhall - D850
>>>>> The University of Lethbridge
>>>>> 4401 University Drive
>>>>> Lethbridge, AB, Canada
>>>>> T1K 3M4
>>>>>
>>>>> phone: 403-329-2437
>>>>> department: 403-329-2235
>>>>> fax: 403-329-2555
>>>>> email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>>>>> Content-Disposition: attachment
>>>>> Content-Type: text/html;
>>>>> charset=iso-8859-1
>>>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>>>>
>>>>> >>>> space; =
>>>>> -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
>>>>> Dear Colleagues. =A0It would appear that my informing of students
>>>>> in my =
>>>>> classes in person has produced a negative response from the
>>>>> current ULSU =
>>>>> executive. =A0I believe that I circulated my response to Adam V.
>>>>> the SU =
>>>>> president to you. =A0He has yet to respond to =
>>>>> me.=A0Unbeknown to me, the executive of the ULSU =
>>>>> "visited" the Chair of my Department, to protest my
>>>>> "inappropriate" use =
>>>>> of class time. =A0My chair communicated this information to me
>>>>> this =
>>>>> morning after I informed him of the details of the issue. =A0My
>>>>> Chair IS =
>>>>> NOT INVOLVED -except for the fact that he is our =
>>>>> chair.I of course cannot know what
>>>>> a =
>>>>> student said to SU and they then said to them and so on and so
>>>>> on... =
>>>>> =A0the telephone game that children play at school (my son less
>>>>> than a =
>>>>> week ago on a workshop at his high school on bullying and gossip,
>>>>> for =
>>>>> instance).I stand by my message and my
>>>>> use of =
>>>>> class time and I am just sadly disappointed that this is where our
=
>>>>> idealism went in less than 2 =
>>>>> days.M. >>>> class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate;
>>>>> color: =
>>>>> rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Gill Sans'; font-size: 18px; font-
>>>>> style: =
>>>>> normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter- spacing:
=
>>>>> normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-
>>>>> indent: =
>>>>> 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-
>>>>> spacing: =
>>>>> 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; =
>>>>> -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
>>>>> -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-
>>>>> adjust: =
>>>>> auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; ">>>>> span" =
>>>>> style=3D"border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-
>>>>> family: =
>>>>> 'Gill Sans'; font-size: 18px; font-style: normal; font-variant:
>>>>> normal; =
>>>>> font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; =
>>>>> orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
>>>>> normal; =
>>>>> widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing:
>>>>> 0px; =
>>>>> -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
>>>>> -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-
>>>>> adjust: =
>>>>> auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">>>>> top: =
>>>>> 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; =
>>>>> ">_______________________>>>> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">>>>> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">>>>> 0px; =
>>>>> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;
>>>>> ">Margaret L. =
>>>>> Forgie, Ph.D.>>>> 0px; =
>>>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Academic =
>>>>> Assistant/Lecturer>>>> right: =
>>>>> 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Department of =
>>>>> Psychology>>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Uhall - D850>>>> style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
>>>>> margin-left: 0px; ">The University of Lethbridge>>>> style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
>>>>> margin-left: 0px; ">4401 University Drive=A0>>>> style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
>>>>> margin-left: 0px; ">Lethbridge, AB, Canada>>>> style=3D"margin-top: =
>>>>> 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;
>>>>> ">T1K =
>>>>> 3M4>>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">>>>> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">>>>> 0px; =
>>>>> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">phone: =
>>>>> 403-329-2437=A0>>>> 0px; =
>>>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">department: =
>>>>> 403-329-2235>>>> 0px; =
>>>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">fax: =A0403-329-2555>>>> div>>>>> style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
>>>>> margin-left: 0px; ">email:=A0>>>> href=3D"mailto:forgie@uleth.ca">forgie@uleth.ca (preferred =
>>>>> contact)>>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">>>>> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">>>>> 0px; =
>>>>> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">>>>> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">>>>> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">>>>> class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline">>>>> class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"> =
>>>>> =
>>>>>
>>>>> ------=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E--
>>>>>
>>>>> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>>>>> Content-Disposition: attachment
>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>>>>> charset=US-ASCII
>>>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cafr-l mailing list
>>>>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>>>>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>>>>
>>>>> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E--
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cafr-l mailing list
>>>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>>>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cafr-l mailing list
>>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cafr-l mailing list
>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
From inge.genee at uleth.ca Sun Nov 23 12:28:06 2008
From: inge.genee at uleth.ca (Inge Genee)
Date: Sun Nov 23 12:28:14 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] To die or not to die, and if so on which hill?
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Dear Margaret and others,
I'd gone off CAFR for a while because I just could not take the
negativity any more that seems to invade my life whenever anything other
than strict teaching or research has to happen.
But after (1) reading about Tom's case in the Meliorist and (2) hearing
about Margaret's case and (3) being forced to publicly initiate the
defeat of a motion on the number of minors students would be allowed to
declare in the last Arts and Science Council - a motion which never
should have been brought forward without bringing it back for discussion
to the department it was being made to look like it originated from, and
which in my opinion they were trying to sneak through along with all the
million other motions on curriculum that were basically being rubber
stamped in that meeting -, and (4) after having been forced, in amy
capacity of associate chair of my department, to cut, in the last couple
of weeks, a large number of courses from our timetable for 09/10, due to
never entirely specified "budget contraints", causing serious risk to
the integrity to some of our programs, after all that, I feel, again,
that I have no choice but to make sure I am at least aware of what is
going on. And so, reluctantly, I now get the daily digest, which is only
marginally less invasive but at least I don't have to be upset so many
times per day, it kind of gets concentrated into one or sometimes two
times a day. Which is probably better for my mental health.
So Margaret, I'll sit on that hill with you, but there better be soup. I
worry about your status: are you on a permanent contract or not? I seem
to remember you're an academic assistant or lecturer. All the more
reason for the rest of us to watch this with hawks' eyes.
With sadness but resignation,
Inge
cafr-l-request@uleth.ca wrote:
> --------------------
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: My informing of students (Margaret Forgie)
> 2. Academic Freedom... An administrative moment (Daniel O'Donnell)
> 3. Re: Academic Freedom... An administrative moment (Margaret
Forgie)
> 4. Re: My informing of students (Ian McKenna)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: inge_genee.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 308 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081123/a2339d69/inge_genee.vcf
From forgie at uleth.ca Sun Nov 23 12:28:32 2008
From: forgie at uleth.ca (Margaret Forgie)
Date: Sun Nov 23 12:28:43 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] My informing of students
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
I think you make a very good point. I can see that this would be one
of the first arguments, and highly supported by students. Obviously
we need to have a separate policy that covers students as students
and nothing else. Why can't we just have comprehensive coverage for
all members of our general university community that do not involve
WCB at all where it should not be? Why can't the U pay premiums to a
different kind of insurance/liability scenario? I think John V. hit
the nail on the head here in past communications that we must work to
define a student as a student, the public as the public, and so on.
At this point perhaps all of us that are interested in the issue
should schedule an in person "conference" such that we can all get on
the same page face-to-face and share our ideas and come to a united
effort over how to proceed.
What about a faculty-endorsed survey, and then a referendum on which
way the existing policy "could be" applied? OK strike that last one,
I am already in trouble.
M.
_______________________
Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
Academic Assistant/Lecturer
Department of Psychology
Uhall - D850
The University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
T1K 3M4
phone: 403-329-2437
department: 403-329-2235
fax: 403-329-2555
email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
On 23-Nov-08, at 12:18 PM, Bryson Brown wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> I'm onside as well. The case we've been discussing is very
> disturbing, and the designation of students as employees seems
> absurd (and of a piece with the heads-I-win, tails-you-lose
> mentality of the Alberta Gov't). My only concern (and this is more
> a request for background than anything else) is that when it comes
> to getting quick access to medical care and rehab, WC is a real
> advantage--though it comes at the cost, of course, of losing the
> right to sue. So if the policy is changed, some students will
> benefit by being able to pursue a claim of negligence while others
> (hurt less seriously and not interested in pursuing a lawsuit or
> hurt through no negligence on the University's part) may lose the
> special benefits of being treated within the WC system.
> This certainly doesn't excuse the University's refusal to reach an
> out-of-court settlement in the case (quite possibly at a lower cost
> than the legal fees incurred), let alone the thuggish threat of
> suing the victim to recover those legal costs. And it doesn't
> affect the importance of making sure that students are aware of
> their status and its disadvantages. But it does complicate the
> issue, at least as I understand it now.
>
> Bryson
>
> Tom Robinson wrote:
>
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the
>> content of their messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> Ian and all,
>>
>> I am on side. I haven't yet seen any convincing argument to
>> consider students as employees or "workers," as WCB puts it.
>>
>> Even a convincing explanation leaves unsettled:
>>
>> (1) Why students are not made aware of this status?
>>
>> (2) How the WCB came to rule in this way, particularly when they
>> are not ordered to so designate students but are only permitted
>> to do so. Though an argument might be convincing here (I don't
>> know), I would want to ask whether another solution would have
>> been as reasonable or even more reasonable, particularly when
>> only Alberta has decided to go this route, and even the Alberta
>> Occupational Health and Safety (am I right here, Ian?) and the
>> WCB Appeals Commission do not think that students should be
>> designated in this way.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>> On 23-Nov-08, at 11:34 AM, Ian McKenna wrote:
>>
>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the
>>> content of their messages.
>>>
>>> --------------------
>>> Margaret and others.
>>>
>>> Perhaps we are all disappointed that our idealism lasted only
>>> two days. Is
>>> there anything we can do about this? Can we discover whether the SU
>>> executive has already been advised by the administration to avoid
>>> the
>>> issue of students as employees of the provincial government?
>>> While the law
>>> has spoken on this, the media, some faculty members, those who take
>>> seriously the doctrine of "in loco parentis", some members of
>>> the public,
>>> possibly opposition parties, and even some students may still
>>> have much to
>>> say on the bizarre interpretation of the intention of the
>>> Legislature
>>> (another useful legal fiction).
>>>
>>> Are people in CAFR willing to sign letters to the Meliorist, the
>>> Lethbridge Herald, the Calgary Herald, and the Edmonton Journal?
>>> (as we
>>> know we have campuses in the north). I have already been
>>> interviewed by a
>>> journalist, Norm Lebus who is pitching a story to CTV Calgary on
>>> the issue
>>> of students as employees of the Government. This of course is for
>>> the
>>> Calgary audience. Would anyone be willing to say a few words on
>>> air if his
>>> pitch is accepted? I assume the words would reflect the revulsion
>>> of some
>>> faculty members at this regulation and the lack of respect it
>>> shows for
>>> our students. The local Herald might do a story on CAFR
>>> members' (I assume
>>> not all) opposition to the U of L's administration on this matter
>>> - i.e.
>>> beyond Rebeca's case.
>>>
>>> Can we spread the word to academic colleagues across Canada to
>>> make it
>>> known what is going on in Alberta? Can we have a petition signed by
>>> colleagues here to express concern or whatever about the University
>>> administration's ethics?
>>>
>>> Just some thoughts for action. I am sure there are other things
>>> to be done.
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>> unmoderated list
>>>
>>>> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>>>> messages.
>>>>
>>>> --------------------
>>>> Excellent... You bring the lawn chairs and the coolers of beer,
>>>> I'll
>>>> bring the soup, the blankets, and the umbrellas. wan :-) M.
>>>> _______________________
>>>>
>>>> Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
>>>> Academic Assistant/Lecturer
>>>> Department of Psychology
>>>> Uhall - D850
>>>> The University of Lethbridge
>>>> 4401 University Drive
>>>> Lethbridge, AB, Canada
>>>> T1K 3M4
>>>>
>>>> phone: 403-329-2437
>>>> department: 403-329-2235
>>>> fax: 403-329-2555
>>>> email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 22-Nov-08, at 3:50 PM, Tom Robinson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>>>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the
>>>>> content
>>>>> of their messages.
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------
>>>>> Margaret,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am behind you. That might not help, but at least you won't
>>>>> die on
>>>>> that hill alone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22-Nov-08, at 2:02 PM, Margaret Forgie wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>>>>>> Content-Disposition: inline
>>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>>>>>> charset=US-ASCII
>>>>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>>>>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the
>>>>>> content of their messages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --------------------
>>>>>> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>>>>>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>>>>>> boundary="----=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>>>>>> format=flowed;
>>>>>> delsp=yes
>>>>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Colleagues. It would appear that my informing of
>>>>>> students in my
>>>>>> classes in person has produced a negative response from the
>>>>>> current
>>>>>> ULSU executive. I believe that I circulated my response to
>>>>>> Adam V.
>>>>>> the SU president to you. He has yet to respond to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unbeknown to me, the executive of the ULSU "visited" the Chair
>>>>>> of my
>>>>>> Department, to protest my "inappropriate" use of class time. My
>>>>>> chair communicated this information to me this morning after I
>>>>>> informed him of the details of the issue. My Chair IS NOT
>>>>>> INVOLVED -
>>>>>> except for the fact that he is our chair.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I of course cannot know what a student said to SU and they
>>>>>> then said
>>>>>> to them and so on and so on... the telephone game that
>>>>>> children play
>>>>>> at school (my son less than a week ago on a workshop at his high
>>>>>> school on bullying and gossip, for instance).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I stand by my message and my use of class time and I am just
>>>>>> sadly
>>>>>> disappointed that this is where our idealism went in less than 2
>>>>>> days.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> M.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
>>>>>> Academic Assistant/Lecturer
>>>>>> Department of Psychology
>>>>>> Uhall - D850
>>>>>> The University of Lethbridge
>>>>>> 4401 University Drive
>>>>>> Lethbridge, AB, Canada
>>>>>> T1K 3M4
>>>>>>
>>>>>> phone: 403-329-2437
>>>>>> department: 403-329-2235
>>>>>> fax: 403-329-2555
>>>>>> email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>>>>>> Content-Disposition: attachment
>>>>>> Content-Type: text/html;
>>>>>> charset=iso-8859-1
>>>>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> space; =
>>>>>> -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
>>>>>> Dear Colleagues. =A0It would appear that my informing of students
>>>>>> in my =
>>>>>> classes in person has produced a negative response from the
>>>>>> current ULSU =
>>>>>> executive. =A0I believe that I circulated my response to Adam V.
>>>>>> the SU =
>>>>>> president to you. =A0He has yet to respond to =
>>>>>> me.=A0Unbeknown to me, the executive of the
>>>>>> ULSU =
>>>>>> "visited" the Chair of my Department, to protest my
>>>>>> "inappropriate" use =
>>>>>> of class time. =A0My chair communicated this information to
>>>>>> me this =
>>>>>> morning after I informed him of the details of the issue. =A0My
>>>>>> Chair IS =
>>>>>> NOT INVOLVED -except for the fact that he is our =
>>>>>> chair.I of course cannot know
>>>>>> what a =
>>>>>> student said to SU and they then said to them and so on and so
>>>>>> on... =
>>>>>> =A0the telephone game that children play at school (my son less
>>>>>> than a =
>>>>>> week ago on a workshop at his high school on bullying and gossip,
>>>>>> for =
>>>>>> instance).I stand by my message and my
>>>>>> use of =
>>>>>> class time and I am just sadly disappointed that this is
>>>>>> where our =
>>>>>> idealism went in less than 2 =
>>>>>> days.M. >>>>> class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate;
>>>>>> color: =
>>>>>> rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Gill Sans'; font-size: 18px; font-
>>>>>> style: =
>>>>>> normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-
>>>>>> spacing: =
>>>>>> normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-
>>>>>> indent: =
>>>>>> 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-
>>>>>> spacing: =
>>>>>> 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; =
>>>>>> -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
>>>>>> -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-
>>>>>> adjust: =
>>>>>> auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; ">>>>>> span" =
>>>>>> style=3D"border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-
>>>>>> family: =
>>>>>> 'Gill Sans'; font-size: 18px; font-style: normal; font-variant:
>>>>>> normal; =
>>>>>> font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height:
>>>>>> normal; =
>>>>>> orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
>>>>>> normal; =
>>>>>> widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing:
>>>>>> 0px; =
>>>>>> -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
>>>>>> -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-
>>>>>> adjust: =
>>>>>> auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">>>>>> style=3D"margin-
>>>>>> top: =
>>>>>> 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; =
>>>>>> ">_______________________>>>>> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">>>>>> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">>>>>> top:
>>>>>> 0px; =
>>>>>> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;
>>>>>> ">Margaret L. =
>>>>>> Forgie, Ph.D.>>>>> 0px; =
>>>>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Academic =
>>>>>> Assistant/Lecturer>>>>> right: =
>>>>>> 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Department of =
>>>>>> Psychology>>>>> 0px; =
>>>>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Uhall - D850>>>>> style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom:
>>>>>> 0px; =
>>>>>> margin-left: 0px; ">The University of Lethbridge>>>>> style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom:
>>>>>> 0px; =
>>>>>> margin-left: 0px; ">4401 University Drive=A0>>>>> style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom:
>>>>>> 0px; =
>>>>>> margin-left: 0px; ">Lethbridge, AB, Canada>>>>> style=3D"margin-top: =
>>>>>> 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;
>>>>>> ">T1K =
>>>>>> 3M4>>>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">>>>>> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">>>>>> top:
>>>>>> 0px; =
>>>>>> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;
>>>>>> ">phone: =
>>>>>> 403-329-2437=A0>>>>> 0px; =
>>>>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">department: =
>>>>>> 403-329-2235>>>>> right: 0px; =
>>>>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">fax: =A0403-329-2555>>>>> div>>>>>> style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom:
>>>>>> 0px; =
>>>>>> margin-left: 0px; ">email:=A0>>>>> href=3D"mailto:forgie@uleth.ca">forgie@uleth.ca (preferred =
>>>>>> contact)>>>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">>>>>> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">>>>>> top:
>>>>>> 0px; =
>>>>>> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">>>>>> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">>>>>> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">>>>>> class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline">>>>>> class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"> =
>>>>>> =
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E--
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>>>>>> Content-Disposition: attachment
>>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>>>>>> charset=US-ASCII
>>>>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> cafr-l mailing list
>>>>>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>>>>>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E--
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cafr-l mailing list
>>>>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>>>>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cafr-l mailing list
>>>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>>>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cafr-l mailing list
>>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cafr-l mailing list
>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
From robinson at uleth.ca Sun Nov 23 12:39:05 2008
From: robinson at uleth.ca (Tom Robinson)
Date: Sun Nov 23 12:39:12 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] My informing of students
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Regarding Bryson's comments: would WCB assistance really be faster
than the general lineup for health services if the WCB had nothing to
pay out to the student (assuming that a student, in earning no money
from the university, would and could not be paid for wages lost)?
Isn't the goal of WCB to get the worker quickly back to work so that
WCB no longer is carrying the wage cost? Just wondering. Do we have
case studies showing response time to these different scenarios? I
doubt it.
Tom
On 23-Nov-08, at 12:28 PM, Margaret Forgie wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> I think you make a very good point. I can see that this would be
> one of the first arguments, and highly supported by students.
> Obviously we need to have a separate policy that covers students as
> students and nothing else. Why can't we just have comprehensive
> coverage for all members of our general university community that do
> not involve WCB at all where it should not be? Why can't the U pay
> premiums to a different kind of insurance/liability scenario? I
> think John V. hit the nail on the head here in past communications
> that we must work to define a student as a student, the public as
> the public, and so on.
>
> At this point perhaps all of us that are interested in the issue
> should schedule an in person "conference" such that we can all get
> on the same page face-to-face and share our ideas and come to a
> united effort over how to proceed.
>
>
> What about a faculty-endorsed survey, and then a referendum on which
> way the existing policy "could be" applied? OK strike that last
> one, I am already in trouble.
>
> M.
> _______________________
>
> Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
> Academic Assistant/Lecturer
> Department of Psychology
> Uhall - D850
> The University of Lethbridge
> 4401 University Drive
> Lethbridge, AB, Canada
> T1K 3M4
>
> phone: 403-329-2437
> department: 403-329-2235
> fax: 403-329-2555
> email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 23-Nov-08, at 12:18 PM, Bryson Brown wrote:
>
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
>> of their messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> I'm onside as well. The case we've been discussing is very
>> disturbing, and the designation of students as employees seems
>> absurd (and of a piece with the heads-I-win, tails-you-lose
>> mentality of the Alberta Gov't). My only concern (and this is more
>> a request for background than anything else) is that when it comes
>> to getting quick access to medical care and rehab, WC is a real
>> advantage--though it comes at the cost, of course, of losing the
>> right to sue. So if the policy is changed, some students will
>> benefit by being able to pursue a claim of negligence while others
>> (hurt less seriously and not interested in pursuing a lawsuit or
>> hurt through no negligence on the University's part) may lose the
>> special benefits of being treated within the WC system.
>> This certainly doesn't excuse the University's refusal to reach an
>> out-of-court settlement in the case (quite possibly at a lower cost
>> than the legal fees incurred), let alone the thuggish threat of
>> suing the victim to recover those legal costs. And it doesn't
>> affect the importance of making sure that students are aware of
>> their status and its disadvantages. But it does complicate the
>> issue, at least as I understand it now.
>>
>> Bryson
>>
>> Tom Robinson wrote:
>>
>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the
>>> content of their messages.
>>>
>>> --------------------
>>> Ian and all,
>>>
>>> I am on side. I haven't yet seen any convincing argument to
>>> consider students as employees or "workers," as WCB puts it.
>>>
>>> Even a convincing explanation leaves unsettled:
>>>
>>> (1) Why students are not made aware of this status?
>>>
>>> (2) How the WCB came to rule in this way, particularly when they
>>> are not ordered to so designate students but are only permitted
>>> to do so. Though an argument might be convincing here (I don't
>>> know), I would want to ask whether another solution would have
>>> been as reasonable or even more reasonable, particularly when
>>> only Alberta has decided to go this route, and even the Alberta
>>> Occupational Health and Safety (am I right here, Ian?) and the
>>> WCB Appeals Commission do not think that students should be
>>> designated in this way.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>
>>> On 23-Nov-08, at 11:34 AM, Ian McKenna wrote:
>>>
>>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the
>>>> content of their messages.
>>>>
>>>> --------------------
>>>> Margaret and others.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps we are all disappointed that our idealism lasted only
>>>> two days. Is
>>>> there anything we can do about this? Can we discover whether the SU
>>>> executive has already been advised by the administration to avoid
>>>> the
>>>> issue of students as employees of the provincial government?
>>>> While the law
>>>> has spoken on this, the media, some faculty members, those who take
>>>> seriously the doctrine of "in loco parentis", some members of
>>>> the public,
>>>> possibly opposition parties, and even some students may still
>>>> have much to
>>>> say on the bizarre interpretation of the intention of the
>>>> Legislature
>>>> (another useful legal fiction).
>>>>
>>>> Are people in CAFR willing to sign letters to the Meliorist, the
>>>> Lethbridge Herald, the Calgary Herald, and the Edmonton Journal?
>>>> (as we
>>>> know we have campuses in the north). I have already been
>>>> interviewed by a
>>>> journalist, Norm Lebus who is pitching a story to CTV Calgary on
>>>> the issue
>>>> of students as employees of the Government. This of course is for
>>>> the
>>>> Calgary audience. Would anyone be willing to say a few words on
>>>> air if his
>>>> pitch is accepted? I assume the words would reflect the revulsion
>>>> of some
>>>> faculty members at this regulation and the lack of respect it
>>>> shows for
>>>> our students. The local Herald might do a story on CAFR
>>>> members' (I assume
>>>> not all) opposition to the U of L's administration on this matter
>>>> - i.e.
>>>> beyond Rebeca's case.
>>>>
>>>> Can we spread the word to academic colleagues across Canada to
>>>> make it
>>>> known what is going on in Alberta? Can we have a petition signed by
>>>> colleagues here to express concern or whatever about the University
>>>> administration's ethics?
>>>>
>>>> Just some thoughts for action. I am sure there are other things
>>>> to be done.
>>>>
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>>> unmoderated list
>>>>
>>>>> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>>>>> messages.
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------
>>>>> Excellent... You bring the lawn chairs and the coolers of beer,
>>>>> I'll
>>>>> bring the soup, the blankets, and the umbrellas. wan :-) M.
>>>>> _______________________
>>>>>
>>>>> Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
>>>>> Academic Assistant/Lecturer
>>>>> Department of Psychology
>>>>> Uhall - D850
>>>>> The University of Lethbridge
>>>>> 4401 University Drive
>>>>> Lethbridge, AB, Canada
>>>>> T1K 3M4
>>>>>
>>>>> phone: 403-329-2437
>>>>> department: 403-329-2235
>>>>> fax: 403-329-2555
>>>>> email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22-Nov-08, at 3:50 PM, Tom Robinson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>>>>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the
>>>>>> content
>>>>>> of their messages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --------------------
>>>>>> Margaret,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am behind you. That might not help, but at least you won't
>>>>>> die on
>>>>>> that hill alone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22-Nov-08, at 2:02 PM, Margaret Forgie wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>>>>>>> Content-Disposition: inline
>>>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>>>>>>> charset=US-ASCII
>>>>>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>>>>>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the
>>>>>>> content of their messages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --------------------
>>>>>>> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>>>>>>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>>>>>>> boundary="----=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>>>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>>>>>>> format=flowed;
>>>>>>> delsp=yes
>>>>>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Colleagues. It would appear that my informing of
>>>>>>> students in my
>>>>>>> classes in person has produced a negative response from the
>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>> ULSU executive. I believe that I circulated my response to
>>>>>>> Adam V.
>>>>>>> the SU president to you. He has yet to respond to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unbeknown to me, the executive of the ULSU "visited" the Chair
>>>>>>> of my
>>>>>>> Department, to protest my "inappropriate" use of class time. My
>>>>>>> chair communicated this information to me this morning after I
>>>>>>> informed him of the details of the issue. My Chair IS NOT
>>>>>>> INVOLVED -
>>>>>>> except for the fact that he is our chair.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I of course cannot know what a student said to SU and they
>>>>>>> then said
>>>>>>> to them and so on and so on... the telephone game that
>>>>>>> children play
>>>>>>> at school (my son less than a week ago on a workshop at his high
>>>>>>> school on bullying and gossip, for instance).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I stand by my message and my use of class time and I am just
>>>>>>> sadly
>>>>>>> disappointed that this is where our idealism went in less than 2
>>>>>>> days.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> M.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
>>>>>>> Academic Assistant/Lecturer
>>>>>>> Department of Psychology
>>>>>>> Uhall - D850
>>>>>>> The University of Lethbridge
>>>>>>> 4401 University Drive
>>>>>>> Lethbridge, AB, Canada
>>>>>>> T1K 3M4
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> phone: 403-329-2437
>>>>>>> department: 403-329-2235
>>>>>>> fax: 403-329-2555
>>>>>>> email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>>>>>>> Content-Disposition: attachment
>>>>>>> Content-Type: text/html;
>>>>>>> charset=iso-8859-1
>>>>>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> space; =
>>>>>>> -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
>>>>>>> Dear Colleagues. =A0It would appear that my informing of
>>>>>>> students
>>>>>>> in my =
>>>>>>> classes in person has produced a negative response from the
>>>>>>> current ULSU =
>>>>>>> executive. =A0I believe that I circulated my response to Adam V.
>>>>>>> the SU =
>>>>>>> president to you. =A0He has yet to respond to =
>>>>>>> me.=A0Unbeknown to me, the executive of the
>>>>>>> ULSU =
>>>>>>> "visited" the Chair of my Department, to protest my
>>>>>>> "inappropriate" use =
>>>>>>> of class time. =A0My chair communicated this information to
>>>>>>> me this =
>>>>>>> morning after I informed him of the details of the issue. =A0My
>>>>>>> Chair IS =
>>>>>>> NOT INVOLVED -except for the fact that he is our =
>>>>>>> chair.I of course cannot know
>>>>>>> what a =
>>>>>>> student said to SU and they then said to them and so on and so
>>>>>>> on... =
>>>>>>> =A0the telephone game that children play at school (my son less
>>>>>>> than a =
>>>>>>> week ago on a workshop at his high school on bullying and
>>>>>>> gossip,
>>>>>>> for =
>>>>>>> instance).I stand by my message and my
>>>>>>> use of =
>>>>>>> class time and I am just sadly disappointed that this is
>>>>>>> where our =
>>>>>>> idealism went in less than 2 =
>>>>>>> days.M. >>>>>> class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate;
>>>>>>> color: =
>>>>>>> rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Gill Sans'; font-size: 18px; font-
>>>>>>> style: =
>>>>>>> normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-
>>>>>>> spacing: =
>>>>>>> normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-
>>>>>>> indent: =
>>>>>>> 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-
>>>>>>> spacing: =
>>>>>>> 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; =
>>>>>>> -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
>>>>>>> -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-
>>>>>>> adjust: =
>>>>>>> auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; ">>>>>>> style-
>>>>>>> span" =
>>>>>>> style=3D"border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-
>>>>>>> family: =
>>>>>>> 'Gill Sans'; font-size: 18px; font-style: normal; font-variant:
>>>>>>> normal; =
>>>>>>> font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height:
>>>>>>> normal; =
>>>>>>> orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
>>>>>>> normal; =
>>>>>>> widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing:
>>>>>>> 0px; =
>>>>>>> -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
>>>>>>> -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-
>>>>>>> adjust: =
>>>>>>> auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">>>>>>> style=3D"margin-
>>>>>>> top: =
>>>>>>> 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; =
>>>>>>> ">_______________________>>>>>> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">>>>>>> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">>>>>>> top:
>>>>>>> 0px; =
>>>>>>> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;
>>>>>>> ">Margaret L. =
>>>>>>> Forgie, Ph.D.>>>>>> 0px; =
>>>>>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Academic =
>>>>>>> Assistant/Lecturer>>>>>> right: =
>>>>>>> 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Department of =
>>>>>>> Psychology>>>>>> 0px; =
>>>>>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Uhall - D850>>>>>> style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom:
>>>>>>> 0px; =
>>>>>>> margin-left: 0px; ">The University of Lethbridge>>>>>> style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom:
>>>>>>> 0px; =
>>>>>>> margin-left: 0px; ">4401 University Drive=A0>>>>>> style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom:
>>>>>>> 0px; =
>>>>>>> margin-left: 0px; ">Lethbridge, AB, Canada>>>>>> style=3D"margin-top: =
>>>>>>> 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;
>>>>>>> ">T1K =
>>>>>>> 3M4>>>>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">>>>>>> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">>>>>>> top:
>>>>>>> 0px; =
>>>>>>> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;
>>>>>>> ">phone: =
>>>>>>> 403-329-2437=A0>>>>>> right:
>>>>>>> 0px; =
>>>>>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">department: =
>>>>>>> 403-329-2235>>>>>> right: 0px; =
>>>>>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">fax: =A0403-329-2555>>>>>> div>>>>>>> style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom:
>>>>>>> 0px; =
>>>>>>> margin-left: 0px; ">email:=A0>>>>>> href=3D"mailto:forgie@uleth.ca">forgie@uleth.ca (preferred =
>>>>>>> contact)>>>>>> 0px; =
>>>>>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">>>>>>> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">>>>>>> top:
>>>>>>> 0px; =
>>>>>>> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">>>>>>> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">>>>>>> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">>>>>>> class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline">>>>>>> class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"> =
>>>>>>> =
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E--
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>>>>>>> Content-Disposition: attachment
>>>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>>>>>>> charset=US-ASCII
>>>>>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> cafr-l mailing list
>>>>>>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>>>>>>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E--
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> cafr-l mailing list
>>>>>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>>>>>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cafr-l mailing list
>>>>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>>>>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cafr-l mailing list
>>>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>>>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cafr-l mailing list
>>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cafr-l mailing list
>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
From forgie at uleth.ca Sun Nov 23 12:48:26 2008
From: forgie at uleth.ca (Margaret Forgie)
Date: Sun Nov 23 12:48:38 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] To die or not to die, and if so on which hill?
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Yes I am an Academic Assistant (I added the Lecturer a long time ago
to indicate my status as an Instructor - and a Ph.D. and someone who
has taught here in one capacity or another since 1993 Class B). Due
to life circumstances that are irrelevant to any discussion of my
career, I chose to stay here and to create my job. I am not a term
employee (though I was for many of the early years), rather I am
deemed as a Continuing Position (I do believe that Bryson was on the
committee that finally gave me that status? can't quite recall the
actual wording but it is our version of Tenure, sort of). In the
recent re-structuring of AA assignments (Schedule J of the Faculty
Handbook), I was accorded the Rank of 3. My Position Description is
currently in revision to reflect the continued development of the
revision of the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience into the
Department of Psychology and the Department of Neuroscience. My
course assignments are made with NO malice in our department - we've
been working out my load for years together to meet the expectations
of the Administration. For many years, though, I have explored the
concept of a terminal Assistant Professor of Teaching for myself and
other long-time AAs, but of course we cannot have two tiers of
Faculty at our institution. We are also salary capped, so it won't
be much longer until I can no longer accrue merit increments for my
teaching. In fact, it could be this year, so regardless of what the
department or the Dean thinks of my service, I won't get a raise.
There you have it in a nutshell. M.
_______________________
Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
Academic Assistant/Lecturer
Department of Psychology
Uhall - D850
The University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
T1K 3M4
phone: 403-329-2437
department: 403-329-2235
fax: 403-329-2555
email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
On 23-Nov-08, at 12:28 PM, Inge Genee wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------Dear Margaret and others,
>
> I'd gone off CAFR for a while because I just could not take the
> negativity any more that seems to invade my life whenever anything
> other than strict teaching or research has to happen.
>
> But after (1) reading about Tom's case in the Meliorist and (2)
> hearing about Margaret's case and (3) being forced to publicly
> initiate the defeat of a motion on the number of minors students
> would be allowed to declare in the last Arts and Science Council -
> a motion which never should have been brought forward without
> bringing it back for discussion to the department it was being made
> to look like it originated from, and which in my opinion they were
> trying to sneak through along with all the million other motions on
> curriculum that were basically being rubber stamped in that meeting
> -, and (4) after having been forced, in amy capacity of associate
> chair of my department, to cut, in the last couple of weeks, a
> large number of courses from our timetable for 09/10, due to never
> entirely specified "budget contraints", causing serious risk to the
> integrity to some of our programs, after all that, I feel, again,
> that I have no choice but to make sure I am at least aware of what
> is going on. And so, reluctantly, I now get the daily digest, which
> is only marginally less invasive but at least I don't have to be
> upset so many times per day, it kind of gets concentrated into one
> or sometimes two times a day. Which is probably better for my
> mental health.
>
> So Margaret, I'll sit on that hill with you, but there better be
> soup. I worry about your status: are you on a permanent contract or
> not? I seem to remember you're an academic assistant or lecturer.
> All the more reason for the rest of us to watch this with hawks' eyes.
>
> With sadness but resignation,
>
> Inge
>
>
>
>
> cafr-l-request@uleth.ca wrote:
>> --------------------
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. Re: My informing of students (Margaret Forgie)
>> 2. Academic Freedom... An administrative moment (Daniel O'Donnell)
>> 3. Re: Academic Freedom... An administrative moment (Margaret
>> Forgie)
>> 4. Re: My informing of students (Ian McKenna)
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081123/7666b88b/attachment-0001.html
From forgie at uleth.ca Sun Nov 23 12:52:50 2008
From: forgie at uleth.ca (Margaret Forgie)
Date: Sun Nov 23 12:53:04 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] To die or not to die, and if so on which hill?
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
I should add that I came here as a Post-Doctoral Fellow to work with
Bryan Kolb. I was very successful at that before life happened.
Thus the creation of my own job. M.
_______________________
Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
Academic Assistant/Lecturer
Department of Psychology
Uhall - D850
The University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
T1K 3M4
phone: 403-329-2437
department: 403-329-2235
fax: 403-329-2555
email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
On 23-Nov-08, at 12:28 PM, Inge Genee wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------Dear Margaret and others,
>
> I'd gone off CAFR for a while because I just could not take the
> negativity any more that seems to invade my life whenever anything
> other than strict teaching or research has to happen.
>
> But after (1) reading about Tom's case in the Meliorist and (2)
> hearing about Margaret's case and (3) being forced to publicly
> initiate the defeat of a motion on the number of minors students
> would be allowed to declare in the last Arts and Science Council -
> a motion which never should have been brought forward without
> bringing it back for discussion to the department it was being made
> to look like it originated from, and which in my opinion they were
> trying to sneak through along with all the million other motions on
> curriculum that were basically being rubber stamped in that meeting
> -, and (4) after having been forced, in amy capacity of associate
> chair of my department, to cut, in the last couple of weeks, a
> large number of courses from our timetable for 09/10, due to never
> entirely specified "budget contraints", causing serious risk to the
> integrity to some of our programs, after all that, I feel, again,
> that I have no choice but to make sure I am at least aware of what
> is going on. And so, reluctantly, I now get the daily digest, which
> is only marginally less invasive but at least I don't have to be
> upset so many times per day, it kind of gets concentrated into one
> or sometimes two times a day. Which is probably better for my
> mental health.
>
> So Margaret, I'll sit on that hill with you, but there better be
> soup. I worry about your status: are you on a permanent contract or
> not? I seem to remember you're an academic assistant or lecturer.
> All the more reason for the rest of us to watch this with hawks' eyes.
>
> With sadness but resignation,
>
> Inge
>
>
>
>
> cafr-l-request@uleth.ca wrote:
>> --------------------
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. Re: My informing of students (Margaret Forgie)
>> 2. Academic Freedom... An administrative moment (Daniel O'Donnell)
>> 3. Re: Academic Freedom... An administrative moment (Margaret
>> Forgie)
>> 4. Re: My informing of students (Ian McKenna)
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081123/e163fe19/attachment.html
From forgie at uleth.ca Sun Nov 23 14:28:46 2008
From: forgie at uleth.ca (Margaret Forgie)
Date: Sun Nov 23 14:28:53 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] Many students get the irony...
Message-ID:
From an anonymous student that knows me (although has clearly not
internalized the concept that since does not equal because- sigh):
Hi Dr. Forgie,
I saw this and was wondering... since we are technically employees of
the university, could we be able to do this free of charge?
Begin forwarded message:
Date: November 21, 2008 12:12:00 PM MST (CA)
Subject: NOTICES: First Aid Training
Source: U of L Notice Board
Risk & Safety Services is pleased to offer Standard First Aid/CPR
training, facilitated through St. John Ambulance to all permanent
part-time/full-time staff.
The course is two full days, on December 8th and 9th and will be
conducted on campus at AH100 (Andy?s Place) starting at 8:00 am and
ending at approximately 4:00 pm each day (30 minute lunch break). The
course is offered free of charge to University of Lethbridge
employees; however, it is imperative that those who register attend,
or the department in which they work will be charged $90.00 per person.
If you or your staff are interested in attending, please register by
contacting Dan Berte @ 329-2190 (email daniel.berte@uleth.ca) or
Carolin Cattoi-Demkiw @ 329-2350 (email: carolin.cattoidemkiw@uleth.ca).
Please provide the following contact information: name, department,
email address, and phone number.
Sincerely,
Dan Berte
Safety Officer, NCSO
University of Lethbridge
Risk and Safety Services
P: 403-329-2190
C: 403-330-4495
F: 403-329-2685
daniel.berte@uleth.ca
Read more?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081123/4e40a6ab/attachment.html
From siminovitch at uleth.ca Sun Nov 23 14:42:34 2008
From: siminovitch at uleth.ca (David Siminovitch)
Date: Sun Nov 23 14:40:01 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] WCB
Message-ID:
Without WCB, what exactly are the options for students? What are they
elsewhere in Canada? As I pointed out earlier, when I first brought this
case to the attention of Laura Lozanski (CAUT Safety Officer), without
hesitation, she saw WCB coverage for students as a positive. I don't by
any means wish to make the case this coverage is always just or fair.
But her reply suggests it is much worse elsewhere. I would like to know
what would have happened (and surely must have happened) elsewhere in
Canada in a similar case. Have such cases always been settled by
lawsuits?
David
From forgie at uleth.ca Sun Nov 23 14:48:13 2008
From: forgie at uleth.ca (Margaret Forgie)
Date: Sun Nov 23 14:48:33 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] WCB
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Once again, David makes a good point. We need numbers and cases and
realistic scenarios for current and future students, the public, and
our children. Perhaps all interested parties have to meet in
person. I know we all loathe a meeting, but in this case I think it
necessary to keep us all from floundering in the dark over unshared
information. Yours, Margaret.
_______________________
Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
Academic Assistant/Lecturer
Department of Psychology
Uhall - D850
The University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
T1K 3M4
phone: 403-329-2437
department: 403-329-2235
fax: 403-329-2555
email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
On 23-Nov-08, at 2:42 PM, David Siminovitch wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Without WCB, what exactly are the options for students? What are
> they elsewhere in Canada? As I pointed out earlier, when I first
> brought this case to the attention of Laura Lozanski (CAUT Safety
> Officer), without hesitation, she saw WCB coverage for students as
> a positive. I don't by any means wish to make the case this
> coverage is always just or fair. But her reply suggests it is much
> worse elsewhere. I would like to know what would have happened (and
> surely must have happened) elsewhere in Canada in a similar case.
> Have such cases always been settled by lawsuits?
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
From robinson at uleth.ca Sun Nov 23 16:54:00 2008
From: robinson at uleth.ca (Tom Robinson)
Date: Sun Nov 23 16:54:11 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] WCB
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
There seems to be varying opinions.
Tom
The UofL raised the matter in a 2001 board meeting:
http://www.uleth.ca/bog/Documents/Meeting_Minutes/2001/jan2001.pdf
WCB has a Facts Sheets on Students and WCB at:
http://www.wcb.ab.ca/pdfs/WFS_Student_coverage.pdf (see below).
There seem to be curious qualifications. Also, I wonder what WCB
covers that is not covered by Blue Cross (or whatever insurance
students have).
Here is how Olds College reads the matter:
>
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:b58TXy2HPl0J:www.oldscollege.ca/polic
ies/listpages/c-
humanresources/AccidentProcedureWorkExp.pdf+%22students+and+WCB%22&hl=en&
ct=clnk&cd=4&client=safari
-------------- next part --------------
Skipped content of type multipart/related
From robinson at uleth.ca Sun Nov 23 17:10:36 2008
From: robinson at uleth.ca (Tom Robinson)
Date: Sun Nov 23 17:10:44 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] WCB
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
> SORRY FOR THE MESS OF MY PREVIOUS POST. I had copied graphics from
> the pdf documents, but they did not come through. Here are the links
> without the graphics.
> There seems to be varying opinions.
> Tom
>
> The UofL raised the matter in a 2001 board meeting:
> http://www.uleth.ca/bog/Documents/Meeting_Minutes/2001/jan2001.pdf
>
>
> WCB has a Facts Sheets on Students and WCB at:
> http://www.wcb.ab.ca/pdfs/WFS_Student_coverage.pdf (see below).
> There seem to be curious qualifications. Also, I wonder what WCB
> covers that is not covered by Blue Cross (or whatever insurance
> students have).
>
> Here is how Olds College reads the matter:
>
>
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:b58TXy2HPl0J:www.oldscollege.ca/polic
ies/listpages/c-
humanresources/AccidentProcedureWorkExp.pdf+%22students+and+WCB%22&hl=en&
ct=clnk&cd=4&client=safari
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081123/93f26ffb/attachment.html
From richard.mueller at uleth.ca Sun Nov 23 20:56:57 2008
From: richard.mueller at uleth.ca (Mueller, Richard)
Date: Sun Nov 23 20:57:00 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] WCB
References:
Message-ID:
All,
I agree with Margaret, we do need a meeting if there's still some room on
the hill (I want one because I'm lonely, but that's a different issue).
While watching the Grey Cup this afternoon, I did a little surfing on the
web and couldn't find another jurisdiction (outside of Alberta) that
deemed university students to be employees. Some things I did find were
that some universities did have insurance policies to protect students
from injuries (on campus or off if on university-related activities).
Also, I couldn't find any cases of universities being sued for damages
caused by injuries. That said, if other universities operate under the
same veil of secrecy regarding such matters as our beloved institution,
it isn't suprising that I found very nothing. I did find info about
lawsuits against universities that were either (1) deemed frivilous, or
(2) won by the university. I believe Andrea had some info on a legal
website, so I suspect a search of this or a related site might find some
info on students who have sued their institutions for damages related to
personal injuries sustained on campus. If so, I would assume that the
individuals in these cases wouldn't have been covered by provincial WCB
legislation.
My 2 cents.
Rick
________________________________
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca on behalf of Margaret Forgie
Sent: Sun 23/11/2008 2:48 PM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] WCB
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
Once again, David makes a good point. We need numbers and cases and
realistic scenarios for current and future students, the public, and
our children. Perhaps all interested parties have to meet in
person. I know we all loathe a meeting, but in this case I think it
necessary to keep us all from floundering in the dark over unshared
information. Yours, Margaret.
_______________________
Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
Academic Assistant/Lecturer
Department of Psychology
Uhall - D850
The University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
T1K 3M4
phone: 403-329-2437
department: 403-329-2235
fax: 403-329-2555
email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
On 23-Nov-08, at 2:42 PM, David Siminovitch wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Without WCB, what exactly are the options for students? What are
> they elsewhere in Canada? As I pointed out earlier, when I first
> brought this case to the attention of Laura Lozanski (CAUT Safety
> Officer), without hesitation, she saw WCB coverage for students as
> a positive. I don't by any means wish to make the case this
> coverage is always just or fair. But her reply suggests it is much
> worse elsewhere. I would like to know what would have happened (and
> surely must have happened) elsewhere in Canada in a similar case.
> Have such cases always been settled by lawsuits?
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
_______________________________________________
cafr-l mailing list
cafr-l@uleth.ca
http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081123/36faaff5/attachment.html
From mckenna at uleth.ca Sun Nov 23 22:27:16 2008
From: mckenna at uleth.ca (Ian McKenna)
Date: Sun Nov 23 22:27:17 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] My informing of students
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Tom
You are right about the WCB. Their own Appeals Commission overruled them
3-0 back in 2005. The second Appeals Commission hearing was simply a show
trial - i.e. making sure that the Appeals Commission was onside with the
Queen's Bench.
Thanks
Ian
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list
> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Ian and all,
>
> I am on side. I haven't yet seen any convincing argument to consider
> students as employees or "workers," as WCB puts it.
>
> Even a convincing explanation leaves unsettled:
>
> (1) Why students are not made aware of this status?
>
> (2) How the WCB came to rule in this way, particularly when they are
> not ordered to so designate students but are only permitted to do so.
> Though an argument might be convincing here (I don't know), I would
> want to ask whether another solution would have been as reasonable or
> even more reasonable, particularly when only Alberta has decided to go
> this route, and even the Alberta Occupational Health and Safety (am I
> right here, Ian?) and the WCB Appeals Commission do not think that
> students should be designated in this way.
>
> Tom
>
>
> On 23-Nov-08, at 11:34 AM, Ian McKenna wrote:
>
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
>> of their messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> Margaret and others.
>>
>> Perhaps we are all disappointed that our idealism lasted only two
>> days. Is
>> there anything we can do about this? Can we discover whether the SU
>> executive has already been advised by the administration to avoid the
>> issue of students as employees of the provincial government? While
>> the law
>> has spoken on this, the media, some faculty members, those who take
>> seriously the doctrine of "in loco parentis", some members of the
>> public,
>> possibly opposition parties, and even some students may still have
>> much to
>> say on the bizarre interpretation of the intention of the Legislature
>> (another useful legal fiction).
>>
>> Are people in CAFR willing to sign letters to the Meliorist, the
>> Lethbridge Herald, the Calgary Herald, and the Edmonton Journal? (as
>> we
>> know we have campuses in the north). I have already been interviewed
>> by a
>> journalist, Norm Lebus who is pitching a story to CTV Calgary on the
>> issue
>> of students as employees of the Government. This of course is for the
>> Calgary audience. Would anyone be willing to say a few words on air
>> if his
>> pitch is accepted? I assume the words would reflect the revulsion of
>> some
>> faculty members at this regulation and the lack of respect it shows
>> for
>> our students. The local Herald might do a story on CAFR members' (I
>> assume
>> not all) opposition to the U of L's administration on this matter -
>> i.e.
>> beyond Rebeca's case.
>>
>> Can we spread the word to academic colleagues across Canada to make it
>> known what is going on in Alberta? Can we have a petition signed by
>> colleagues here to express concern or whatever about the University
>> administration's ethics?
>>
>> Just some thoughts for action. I am sure there are other things to
>> be done.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>> unmoderated list
>>> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
>>>
>>> --------------------
>>> Excellent... You bring the lawn chairs and the coolers of beer, I'll
>>> bring the soup, the blankets, and the umbrellas. wan :-) M.
>>> _______________________
>>>
>>> Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
>>> Academic Assistant/Lecturer
>>> Department of Psychology
>>> Uhall - D850
>>> The University of Lethbridge
>>> 4401 University Drive
>>> Lethbridge, AB, Canada
>>> T1K 3M4
>>>
>>> phone: 403-329-2437
>>> department: 403-329-2235
>>> fax: 403-329-2555
>>> email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22-Nov-08, at 3:50 PM, Tom Robinson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
>>>> of their messages.
>>>>
>>>> --------------------
>>>> Margaret,
>>>>
>>>> I am behind you. That might not help, but at least you won't die on
>>>> that hill alone.
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>> On 22-Nov-08, at 2:02 PM, Margaret Forgie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>>>>> Content-Disposition: inline
>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>>>>> charset=US-ASCII
>>>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>>>>
>>>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>>>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the
>>>>> content of their messages.
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------
>>>>> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>>>>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>>>>> boundary="----=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>>>>> format=flowed;
>>>>> delsp=yes
>>>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Colleagues. It would appear that my informing of students
>>>>> in my
>>>>> classes in person has produced a negative response from the current
>>>>> ULSU executive. I believe that I circulated my response to Adam V.
>>>>> the SU president to you. He has yet to respond to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unbeknown to me, the executive of the ULSU "visited" the Chair of
>>>>> my
>>>>> Department, to protest my "inappropriate" use of class time. My
>>>>> chair communicated this information to me this morning after I
>>>>> informed him of the details of the issue. My Chair IS NOT
>>>>> INVOLVED -
>>>>> except for the fact that he is our chair.
>>>>>
>>>>> I of course cannot know what a student said to SU and they then
>>>>> said
>>>>> to them and so on and so on... the telephone game that children
>>>>> play
>>>>> at school (my son less than a week ago on a workshop at his high
>>>>> school on bullying and gossip, for instance).
>>>>>
>>>>> I stand by my message and my use of class time and I am just sadly
>>>>> disappointed that this is where our idealism went in less than 2
>>>>> days.
>>>>>
>>>>> M.
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________
>>>>>
>>>>> Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
>>>>> Academic Assistant/Lecturer
>>>>> Department of Psychology
>>>>> Uhall - D850
>>>>> The University of Lethbridge
>>>>> 4401 University Drive
>>>>> Lethbridge, AB, Canada
>>>>> T1K 3M4
>>>>>
>>>>> phone: 403-329-2437
>>>>> department: 403-329-2235
>>>>> fax: 403-329-2555
>>>>> email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>>>>> Content-Disposition: attachment
>>>>> Content-Type: text/html;
>>>>> charset=iso-8859-1
>>>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>>>>
>>>>> >>>> space; =
>>>>> -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
>>>>> Dear Colleagues. =A0It would appear that my informing of students
>>>>> in my =
>>>>> classes in person has produced a negative response from the
>>>>> current ULSU =
>>>>> executive. =A0I believe that I circulated my response to Adam V.
>>>>> the SU =
>>>>> president to you. =A0He has yet to respond to =
>>>>> me.=A0Unbeknown to me, the executive of the ULSU =
>>>>> "visited" the Chair of my Department, to protest my
>>>>> "inappropriate" use =
>>>>> of class time. =A0My chair communicated this information to me
>>>>> this =
>>>>> morning after I informed him of the details of the issue. =A0My
>>>>> Chair IS =
>>>>> NOT INVOLVED -except for the fact that he is our =
>>>>> chair.I of course cannot know what
>>>>> a =
>>>>> student said to SU and they then said to them and so on and so
>>>>> on... =
>>>>> =A0the telephone game that children play at school (my son less
>>>>> than a =
>>>>> week ago on a workshop at his high school on bullying and gossip,
>>>>> for =
>>>>> instance).I stand by my message and my
>>>>> use of =
>>>>> class time and I am just sadly disappointed that this is where
>>>>> our =
>>>>> idealism went in less than 2 =
>>>>> days.M. >>>> class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate;
>>>>> color: =
>>>>> rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Gill Sans'; font-size: 18px; font-
>>>>> style: =
>>>>> normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-
>>>>> spacing: =
>>>>> normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-
>>>>> indent: =
>>>>> 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-
>>>>> spacing: =
>>>>> 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; =
>>>>> -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
>>>>> -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-
>>>>> adjust: =
>>>>> auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; ">>>>> span" =
>>>>> style=3D"border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-
>>>>> family: =
>>>>> 'Gill Sans'; font-size: 18px; font-style: normal; font-variant:
>>>>> normal; =
>>>>> font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; =
>>>>> orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
>>>>> normal; =
>>>>> widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing:
>>>>> 0px; =
>>>>> -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
>>>>> -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-
>>>>> adjust: =
>>>>> auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">>>>> top: =
>>>>> 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; =
>>>>> ">_______________________>>>> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">>>>> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">>>>> 0px; =
>>>>> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;
>>>>> ">Margaret L. =
>>>>> Forgie, Ph.D.>>>> 0px; =
>>>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Academic =
>>>>> Assistant/Lecturer>>>> right: =
>>>>> 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Department of =
>>>>> Psychology>>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Uhall - D850>>>> style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
>>>>> margin-left: 0px; ">The University of Lethbridge>>>> style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
>>>>> margin-left: 0px; ">4401 University Drive=A0>>>> style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
>>>>> margin-left: 0px; ">Lethbridge, AB, Canada>>>> style=3D"margin-top: =
>>>>> 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;
>>>>> ">T1K =
>>>>> 3M4>>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">>>>> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">>>>> 0px; =
>>>>> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">phone: =
>>>>> 403-329-2437=A0>>>> 0px; =
>>>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">department: =
>>>>> 403-329-2235>>>> 0px; =
>>>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">fax: =A0403-329-2555>>>> div>>>>> style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
>>>>> margin-left: 0px; ">email:=A0>>>> href=3D"mailto:forgie@uleth.ca">forgie@uleth.ca (preferred =
>>>>> contact)>>>> margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">>>>> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">>>>> 0px; =
>>>>> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">>>>> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">>>>> class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder">>>>> class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline">>>>> class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"> =
>>>>> =
>>>>>
>>>>> ------=_NextPart_001_4A73BC9_01C94CE7.BC95141E--
>>>>>
>>>>> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E
>>>>> Content-Disposition: attachment
>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>>>>> charset=US-ASCII
>>>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cafr-l mailing list
>>>>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>>>>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>>>>
>>>>> ------=_NextPart_000_4A73BC6_01C94CE7.BC95141E--
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cafr-l mailing list
>>>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>>>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cafr-l mailing list
>>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cafr-l mailing list
>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
From mckenna at uleth.ca Sun Nov 23 23:12:00 2008
From: mckenna at uleth.ca (Ian McKenna)
Date: Sun Nov 23 23:12:01 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] WCB
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
David and others
The other Canadian university in question would have made a settlement
with the student payable out of the university's insurance policy. As
this
would likely affect its insurance premiums, the university would have
also
improved its safety policies, not just to save cash but to avoid being
seen as an unsafe place for students. WCB is suitably covert but law
suits
(while still problematic) are overt.
I would like to believe that this program is designed for the benefit of
students. My problem is that, if it were, students wouldn't need to hear
about the program from Margaret Forgie or a Lethbridge Herald article.
Sadly, the purpose of the program is to bar students from legal action.
The pittance of compensation payments for those students eligible can
scarcely adequately compensate a student seriously injured and deprived
of
the expected earnings - probably the main purpose of her entering
post-secondary education.
I have said this before - the UK criminalizes any attempt to rely on an
exemption of liability clause to prevent someone from suing for physical
injuries. Along with nine provinces and the territories I see no saving
grace in this bizarre system.
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list
> and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Without WCB, what exactly are the options for students? What are they
> elsewhere in Canada? As I pointed out earlier, when I first brought
this
> case to the attention of Laura Lozanski (CAUT Safety Officer), without
> hesitation, she saw WCB coverage for students as a positive. I don't by
> any means wish to make the case this coverage is always just or fair.
> But her reply suggests it is much worse elsewhere. I would like to know
> what would have happened (and surely must have happened) elsewhere in
> Canada in a similar case. Have such cases always been settled by
lawsuits?
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
From forgie at uleth.ca Mon Nov 24 16:01:28 2008
From: forgie at uleth.ca (Margaret Forgie)
Date: Mon Nov 24 16:02:33 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] WCB
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
There is always room on the hill. And I figure if your light
fixtures haven't been checked and replaced you shouldn't hang out by
yourself down there. You can bring the firewood. ;-)
_______________________
Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
Academic Assistant/Lecturer
Department of Psychology
Uhall - D850
The University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
T1K 3M4
phone: 403-329-2437
department: 403-329-2235
fax: 403-329-2555
email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
On 23-Nov-08, at 8:56 PM, Mueller, Richard wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> All,
>
> I agree with Margaret, we do need a meeting if there's still some
> room on the hill (I want one because I'm lonely, but that's a
> different issue).
>
> While watching the Grey Cup this afternoon, I did a little surfing
> on the web and couldn't find another jurisdiction (outside of
> Alberta) that deemed university students to be employees. Some
> things I did find were that some universities did have insurance
> policies to protect students from injuries (on campus or off if on
> university-related activities). Also, I couldn't find any cases of
> universities being sued for damages caused by injuries. That said,
> if other universities operate under the same veil of secrecy
> regarding such matters as our beloved institution, it isn't
> suprising that I found very nothing. I did find info about lawsuits
> against universities that were either (1) deemed frivilous, or (2)
> won by the university. I believe Andrea had some info on a legal
> website, so I suspect a search of this or a related site might find
> some info on students who have sued their institutions for damages
> related to personal injuries sustained on campus. If so, I would
> assume that the individuals in these cases wouldn't have been
> covered by provincial WCB legislation.
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> Rick
>
> From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca on behalf of Margaret Forgie
> Sent: Sun 23/11/2008 2:48 PM
> To: cafr-l, MailList
> Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] WCB
>
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Once again, David makes a good point. We need numbers and cases and
> realistic scenarios for current and future students, the public, and
> our children. Perhaps all interested parties have to meet in
> person. I know we all loathe a meeting, but in this case I think it
> necessary to keep us all from floundering in the dark over unshared
> information. Yours, Margaret.
> _______________________
>
> Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
> Academic Assistant/Lecturer
> Department of Psychology
> Uhall - D850
> The University of Lethbridge
> 4401 University Drive
> Lethbridge, AB, Canada
> T1K 3M4
>
> phone: 403-329-2437
> department: 403-329-2235
> fax: 403-329-2555
> email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 23-Nov-08, at 2:42 PM, David Siminovitch wrote:
>
> > Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> > unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> > of their messages.
> >
> > --------------------
> > Without WCB, what exactly are the options for students? What are
> > they elsewhere in Canada? As I pointed out earlier, when I first
> > brought this case to the attention of Laura Lozanski (CAUT Safety
> > Officer), without hesitation, she saw WCB coverage for students as
> > a positive. I don't by any means wish to make the case this
> > coverage is always just or fair. But her reply suggests it is much
> > worse elsewhere. I would like to know what would have happened (and
> > surely must have happened) elsewhere in Canada in a similar case.
> > Have such cases always been settled by lawsuits?
> > David
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cafr-l mailing list
> > cafr-l@uleth.ca
> > http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081124/175ff949/attachment.html
From forgie at uleth.ca Mon Nov 24 17:47:35 2008
From: forgie at uleth.ca (Margaret Forgie)
Date: Mon Nov 24 17:47:47 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] Fwd: [faculty-l] Chamber & LPS Alert
References:
Message-ID:
Well calling from my cell phone produces one of two responses... You
are not calling from your cell phone??? or you cannot reach the
number from your area code. I guess I'll try the internet? Unless
of course I've suddenly mistaken my cell phone for a piece of toast? M.
_______________________
Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
Academic Assistant/Lecturer
Department of Psychology
Uhall - D850
The University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
T1K 3M4
phone: 403-329-2437
department: 403-329-2235
fax: 403-329-2555
email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
Begin forwarded message:
?
-------------- next part --------------
Skipped content of type multipart/mixed
From vokey at uleth.ca Mon Nov 24 18:03:27 2008
From: vokey at uleth.ca (John Vokey)
Date: Mon Nov 24 18:03:29 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] Fwd: [faculty-l] Chamber & LPS Alert
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Internet worked for me; took less than 20 seconds.
On 24-Nov-08, at 5:47 PM, Margaret Forgie wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Well calling from my cell phone produces one of two responses... You
> are not calling from your cell phone??? or you cannot reach the
> number from your area code. I guess I'll try the internet? Unless
> of course I've suddenly mistaken my cell phone for a piece of
> toast? M.
> _______________________
>
> Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
> Academic Assistant/Lecturer
> Department of Psychology
> Uhall - D850
> The University of Lethbridge
> 4401 University Drive
> Lethbridge, AB, Canada
> T1K 3M4
>
> phone: 403-329-2437
> department: 403-329-2235
> fax: 403-329-2555
> email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
--
Yep, the dyslexic atheist claims there is no dog, but that is not half
as risky as the dyslexic devil worshiper who sold his soul to Santa ;-)
Dr. John R. Vokey
vokey@uleth.ca
From forgie at uleth.ca Mon Nov 24 18:42:37 2008
From: forgie at uleth.ca (Margaret Forgie)
Date: Mon Nov 24 18:42:46 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] Fwd: [Fwd: Re: is the SU addressing this?]
References:
Message-ID:
Dear Colleagues. This email is from a student that is currently
enrolled in both my Psyc 2110 and Psyc 3525 classes, and thus was
present for two of my in class "presentations" on Monday November
17. She has given me full permission to circulate her correspondence
with you. In fact, I requested that she just give me the facts
rather than to circulate her personal knowledge to me - to you. She
has been very supportive and like me, has nothing to hide. Yes she
is on board, and is an excellent example of what we all wish for
students at a University. Her involvement spans research work in the
CCBN to Athletics; she is a Varsity Pronghorn Athlete on our Track
and Field Team (distance events). Some of you will know who she is by
name, but even if you do not, she represents the vast majority of the
students that responded to my message, just more vocal and involved
than some others. She has opinions on the nature of the ULSU
response, and I direct your specific inquiries to her.
I thank her for coming forward. Read as you will into this. I am
voting for the "hill" party, soon. I think that I can forget my
great shoes; my excellently clad butt is in danger of catching on
fire now. M.
_______________________
Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
Academic Assistant/Lecturer
Department of Psychology
Uhall - D850
The University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
T1K 3M4
phone: 403-329-2437
department: 403-329-2235
fax: 403-329-2555
email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Alix Shriner
> Date: November 24, 2008 6:19:46 PM MST (CA)
> To: forgie@uleth.ca
> Subject: [Fwd: Re: is the SU addressing this?]
>
> ---------------------------- Original Message
> ----------------------------
> Subject: Re: is the SU addressing this?
> From: "Adam Vossepoel"
> Date: Mon, November 24, 2008 6:00 pm
> To: "Alix Shriner"
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
> Good Evening Alix,
>
> As a member of the Board of Governors, as well as the official
> spokesperson for the ULSU, I am obliged to refrain from commenting on
> the legality of the legislation or the University's role in the case.
> The most I can do is bring attention to the situation through the
> conveyance of facts.
>
> Suffice to say, we will be working on this issue, informing people,
> and we are taking it quite seriously.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Adam
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Alix Shriner
> wrote:
>> Hi Adam,
>>
>> Thank you for your attention to this matter. I appreciate you
>> sending me
>> more information on the ruling. However, it still seems like an
>> all too
>> convenient loop hole for University administrators to deny taking
>> responsibility for their students. Who knows, maybe the next
>> student to be
>> hit by a falling light will be you or me? See what I mean? If so,
>> from the
>> WCB ruling, I would not be eligible to make a claim and 50% of my
>> earnings
>> this month would =$0. Scary. And from what I understand, the student
>> denied the WCB claim because it was 50% of her part time job at
>> Walmart.
>> Thus, it is not surprising that she wanted to pursue a tort case.
>>
>> I think this is an issue that is worth addressing provincially and
>> I'm
>> glad to hear that you will be addressing this ruling both locally
>> and with
>> CAUS.
>> Please let me know what actions CAUS will be taking. As well, I
>> think it
>> would be prudent to assure students that you are taking action
>> (maybe via
>> the meliorist?).
>>
>> Thanks again Adam. Good luck with this daunting task.
>>
>> Alix
>>
>>
>>> Good Afternoon Alix,
>>>
>>> I apologize about the delay. I was away from my computer for the
>>> better part of the weekend.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation being spread around
>>> regarding this issue, and in my opinion, making it seem more
>>> dangerous
>>> than it actually is. However, that is not to suggest that we are not
>>> taking it seriously. The opposite is true. The provincial
>>> legislation
>>> surrounding this is confusing at best, unconstitutional at worst.
>>>
>>> We at the ULSU are trying to get our bearings about the case, and
>>> will
>>> not take action until we can be certain that that action is in the
>>> best interests of the students at the U of L.
>>>
>>>
>>> To address some of the claims made in the email you received. I will
>>> preface it with 2 stipulations.
>>>
>>> 1. I am not a lawyer, nor have I received any formal legal training.
>>> The information that I am relaying is based solely on the judgments
>>> made in regards to the above case, the Workers Compensation Act of
>>> Alberta, and the Workers Compensation Board website.
>>>
>>> 2. The following information is based on the assumption that
>>> students
>>> are, in fact, legally and rightfully described under the
>>> provisions of
>>> the Workers Compensation Act. This is up for debate, and is at the
>>> crux of this entire%
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Adam Vossepoel
>
> President
>
> University of Lethbridge Students' Union
> 4401 University Drive West
> Lethbridge, Alberta
> T1K 3M4
>
> (403)-329-2221
>
> www.ulsu.ca
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081124/509d26db/attachment-0001.html
From vokey at uleth.ca Mon Nov 24 18:56:10 2008
From: vokey at uleth.ca (John Vokey)
Date: Mon Nov 24 18:56:13 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] Fwd: [Fwd: Re: is the SU addressing this?]
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
I think the ULSU's response cuts to the core of our concern here. IS
there a general benefit to students to be considered employees of the
U of L and, hence, under WCB legislation? If so, what is it? And
then we need it explained why it failed the poor student at the centre
of this concern.
On 24-Nov-08, at 6:42 PM, Margaret Forgie wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Dear Colleagues. This email is from a student that is currently
> enrolled in both my Psyc 2110 and Psyc 3525 classes, and thus was
> present for two of my in class "presentations" on Monday November
> 17. She has given me full permission to circulate her
> correspondence with you. In fact, I requested that she just give me
> the facts rather than to circulate her personal knowledge to me - to
> you. She has been very supportive and like me, has nothing to
> hide. Yes she is on board, and is an excellent example of what we
> all wish for students at a University. Her involvement spans
> research work in the CCBN to Athletics; she is a Varsity Pronghorn
> Athlete on our Track and Field Team (distance events). Some of you
> will know who she is by name, but even if you do not, she represents
> the vast majority of the students that responded to my message, just
> more vocal and involved than some others. She has opinions on the
> nature of the ULSU response, and I direct your specific inquiries to
> her.
>
> I thank her for coming forward. Read as you will into this. I am
> voting for the "hill" party, soon. I think that I can forget my
> great shoes; my excellently clad butt is in danger of catching on
> fire now. M.
> _______________________
>
> Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
> Academic Assistant/Lecturer
> Department of Psychology
> Uhall - D850
> The University of Lethbridge
> 4401 University Drive
> Lethbridge, AB, Canada
> T1K 3M4
>
> phone: 403-329-2437
> department: 403-329-2235
> fax: 403-329-2555
> email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Alix Shriner
>> Date: November 24, 2008 6:19:46 PM MST (CA)
>> To: forgie@uleth.ca
>> Subject: [Fwd: Re: is the SU addressing this?]
>>
>> ---------------------------- Original Message
>> ----------------------------
>> Subject: Re: is the SU addressing this?
>> From: "Adam Vossepoel"
>> Date: Mon, November 24, 2008 6:00 pm
>> To: "Alix Shriner"
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>>
>> Good Evening Alix,
>>
>> As a member of the Board of Governors, as well as the official
>> spokesperson for the ULSU, I am obliged to refrain from commenting
>> on
>> the legality of the legislation or the University's role in the case.
>> The most I can do is bring attention to the situation through the
>> conveyance of facts.
>>
>> Suffice to say, we will be working on this issue, informing people,
>> and we are taking it quite seriously.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Alix Shriner
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Adam,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your attention to this matter. I appreciate you
>>> sending me
>>> more information on the ruling. However, it still seems like an
>>> all too
>>> convenient loop hole for University administrators to deny taking
>>> responsibility for their students. Who knows, maybe the next
>>> student to be
>>> hit by a falling light will be you or me? See what I mean? If so,
>>> from the
>>> WCB ruling, I would not be eligible to make a claim and 50% of my
>>> earnings
>>> this month would =$0. Scary. And from what I understand, the student
>>> denied the WCB claim because it was 50% of her part time job at
>>> Walmart.
>>> Thus, it is not surprising that she wanted to pursue a tort case.
>>>
>>> I think this is an issue that is worth addressing provincially and
>>> I'm
>>> glad to hear that you will be addressing this ruling both locally
>>> and with
>>> CAUS.
>>> Please let me know what actions CAUS will be taking. As well, I
>>> think it
>>> would be prudent to assure students that you are taking action
>>> (maybe via
>>> the meliorist?).
>>>
>>> Thanks again Adam. Good luck with this daunting task.
>>>
>>> Alix
>>>
>>>
>>>> Good Afternoon Alix,
>>>>
>>>> I apologize about the delay. I was away from my computer for the
>>>> better part of the weekend.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation being spread around
>>>> regarding this issue, and in my opinion, making it seem more
>>>> dangerous
>>>> than it actually is. However, that is not to suggest that we are
>>>> not
>>>> taking it seriously. The opposite is true. The provincial
>>>> legislation
>>>> surrounding this is confusing at best, unconstitutional at worst.
>>>>
>>>> We at the ULSU are trying to get our bearings about the case, and
>>>> will
>>>> not take action until we can be certain that that action is in the
>>>> best interests of the students at the U of L.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To address some of the claims made in the email you received. I
>>>> will
>>>> preface it with 2 stipulations.
>>>>
>>>> 1. I am not a lawyer, nor have I received any formal legal
>>>> training.
>>>> The information that I am relaying is based solely on the judgments
>>>> made in regards to the above case, the Workers Compensation Act of
>>>> Alberta, and the Workers Compensation Board website.
>>>>
>>>> 2. The following information is based on the assumption that
>>>> students
>>>> are, in fact, legally and rightfully described under the
>>>> provisions of
>>>> the Workers Compensation Act. This is up for debate, and is at the
>>>> crux of this entire%
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Adam Vossepoel
>>
>> President
>>
>> University of Lethbridge Students' Union
>> 4401 University Drive West
>> Lethbridge, Alberta
>> T1K 3M4
>>
>> (403)-329-2221
>>
>> www.ulsu.ca
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
--
Yep, the dyslexic atheist claims there is no dog, but that is not half
as risky as the dyslexic devil worshiper who sold his soul to Santa ;-)
Dr. John R. Vokey
vokey@uleth.ca
From richard.mueller at uleth.ca Mon Nov 24 19:09:13 2008
From: richard.mueller at uleth.ca (Mueller, Richard)
Date: Mon Nov 24 19:10:54 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] Fwd: [faculty-l] Chamber & LPS Alert
References:
Message-ID:
Margaret and others,
My impression of this message was that it was very poorly worded. The
info at the bottom with the website and the telephone numbers were the
ones that SHOULD NOT BE CONTACTED, lest the problems in the preamble be
experienced. This is how I read it.
Best,
Rick
________________________________
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca on behalf of Margaret Forgie
Sent: Mon 24/11/2008 5:47 PM
To: cafr-l, MailList; ldskeptics-l, MailList
Subject: [CAFR-L] Fwd: [faculty-l] Chamber & LPS Alert
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081124/851c85b4/attachment.html
From forgie at uleth.ca Mon Nov 24 19:14:03 2008
From: forgie at uleth.ca (Margaret Forgie)
Date: Mon Nov 24 19:14:11 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] Fwd: [faculty-l] Chamber & LPS Alert
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Yes our guru of the computer (John V) finally found the link that
works on the internet. Indeed after trying for awhile... It worked
when John did it? Is that Prophetic? M.
_______________________
Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
Academic Assistant/Lecturer
Department of Psychology
Uhall - D850
The University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
T1K 3M4
phone: 403-329-2437
department: 403-329-2235
fax: 403-329-2555
email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
On 24-Nov-08, at 7:09 PM, Mueller, Richard wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Margaret and others,
>
> My impression of this message was that it was very poorly worded.
> The info at the bottom with the website and the telephone numbers
> were the ones that SHOULD NOT BE CONTACTED, lest the problems in
> the preamble be experienced. This is how I read it.
>
> Best,
>
> Rick
>
> From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca on behalf of Margaret Forgie
> Sent: Mon 24/11/2008 5:47 PM
> To: cafr-l, MailList; ldskeptics-l, MailList
> Subject: [CAFR-L] Fwd: [faculty-l] Chamber & LPS Alert
>
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081124/72f0de01/attachment.html
From forgie at uleth.ca Mon Nov 24 19:20:30 2008
From: forgie at uleth.ca (Margaret Forgie)
Date: Mon Nov 24 19:20:38 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] a note on previous from alix
Message-ID:
FYI
"I noticed that a bit of Adam's response was clipped off. . . I think
the U
webmail does that when the thread gets too long."
_______________________
Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
Academic Assistant/Lecturer
Department of Psychology
Uhall - D850
The University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
T1K 3M4
phone: 403-329-2437
department: 403-329-2235
fax: 403-329-2555
email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081124/a1c4afe2/attachment.html
From dan.johnson at uleth.ca Mon Nov 24 20:41:04 2008
From: dan.johnson at uleth.ca (Dan Johnson)
Date: Mon Nov 24 20:41:06 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] Fwd: [Fwd: Re: is the SU addressing this?]
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Actually, I think the police are saying that the scam is that part below
that is asking you to call that number. This police announcement is a
good demonstration of how useful a writing and communication course
would be for the police.
John Vokey wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
> messages.
>
> --------------------
> I think the ULSU's response cuts to the core of our concern here. IS
> there a general benefit to students to be considered employees of the
> U of L and, hence, under WCB legislation? If so, what is it? And
> then we need it explained why it failed the poor student at the centre
> of this concern.
>
>
> On 24-Nov-08, at 6:42 PM, Margaret Forgie wrote:
>
>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
>> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
>> messages.
>>
>> --------------------
>> Dear Colleagues. This email is from a student that is currently
>> enrolled in both my Psyc 2110 and Psyc 3525 classes, and thus was
>> present for two of my in class "presentations" on Monday November
>> 17. She has given me full permission to circulate her correspondence
>> with you. In fact, I requested that she just give me the facts
>> rather than to circulate her personal knowledge to me - to you. She
>> has been very supportive and like me, has nothing to hide. Yes she
>> is on board, and is an excellent example of what we all wish for
>> students at a University. Her involvement spans research work in the
>> CCBN to Athletics; she is a Varsity Pronghorn Athlete on our Track
>> and Field Team (distance events). Some of you will know who she is by
>> name, but even if you do not, she represents the vast majority of the
>> students that responded to my message, just more vocal and involved
>> than some others. She has opinions on the nature of the ULSU
>> response, and I direct your specific inquiries to her.
>>
>> I thank her for coming forward. Read as you will into this. I am
>> voting for the "hill" party, soon. I think that I can forget my
>> great shoes; my excellently clad butt is in danger of catching on
>> fire now. M.
>> _______________________
>>
>> Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
>> Academic Assistant/Lecturer
>> Department of Psychology
>> Uhall - D850
>> The University of Lethbridge
>> 4401 University Drive
>> Lethbridge, AB, Canada
>> T1K 3M4
>>
>> phone: 403-329-2437
>> department: 403-329-2235
>> fax: 403-329-2555
>> email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: Alix Shriner
>>> Date: November 24, 2008 6:19:46 PM MST (CA)
>>> To: forgie@uleth.ca
>>> Subject: [Fwd: Re: is the SU addressing this?]
>>>
>>> ---------------------------- Original Message
>>> ----------------------------
>>> Subject: Re: is the SU addressing this?
>>> From: "Adam Vossepoel"
>>> Date: Mon, November 24, 2008 6:00 pm
>>> To: "Alix Shriner"
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>>>
>>>
>>> Good Evening Alix,
>>>
>>> As a member of the Board of Governors, as well as the official
>>> spokesperson for the ULSU, I am obliged to refrain from commenting
on
>>> the legality of the legislation or the University's role in the case.
>>> The most I can do is bring attention to the situation through the
>>> conveyance of facts.
>>>
>>> Suffice to say, we will be working on this issue, informing people,
>>> and we are taking it quite seriously.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Alix Shriner
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi Adam,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your attention to this matter. I appreciate you
>>>> sending me
>>>> more information on the ruling. However, it still seems like an all
>>>> too
>>>> convenient loop hole for University administrators to deny taking
>>>> responsibility for their students. Who knows, maybe the next
>>>> student to be
>>>> hit by a falling light will be you or me? See what I mean? If so,
>>>> from the
>>>> WCB ruling, I would not be eligible to make a claim and 50% of my
>>>> earnings
>>>> this month would =$0. Scary. And from what I understand, the student
>>>> denied the WCB claim because it was 50% of her part time job at
>>>> Walmart.
>>>> Thus, it is not surprising that she wanted to pursue a tort case.
>>>>
>>>> I think this is an issue that is worth addressing provincially and
I'm
>>>> glad to hear that you will be addressing this ruling both locally
>>>> and with
>>>> CAUS.
>>>> Please let me know what actions CAUS will be taking. As well, I
>>>> think it
>>>> would be prudent to assure students that you are taking action
>>>> (maybe via
>>>> the meliorist?).
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again Adam. Good luck with this daunting task.
>>>>
>>>> Alix
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Good Afternoon Alix,
>>>>>
>>>>> I apologize about the delay. I was away from my computer for the
>>>>> better part of the weekend.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation being spread around
>>>>> regarding this issue, and in my opinion, making it seem more
>>>>> dangerous
>>>>> than it actually is. However, that is not to suggest that we are
not
>>>>> taking it seriously. The opposite is true. The provincial
legislation
>>>>> surrounding this is confusing at best, unconstitutional at worst.
>>>>>
>>>>> We at the ULSU are trying to get our bearings about the case, and
>>>>> will
>>>>> not take action until we can be certain that that action is in the
>>>>> best interests of the students at the U of L.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To address some of the claims made in the email you received. I
will
>>>>> preface it with 2 stipulations.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. I am not a lawyer, nor have I received any formal legal
training.
>>>>> The information that I am relaying is based solely on the judgments
>>>>> made in regards to the above case, the Workers Compensation Act of
>>>>> Alberta, and the Workers Compensation Board website.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. The following information is based on the assumption that
students
>>>>> are, in fact, legally and rightfully described under the
>>>>> provisions of
>>>>> the Workers Compensation Act. This is up for debate, and is at the
>>>>> crux of this entire%
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Adam Vossepoel
>>>
>>> President
>>>
>>> University of Lethbridge Students' Union
>>> 4401 University Drive West
>>> Lethbridge, Alberta
>>> T1K 3M4
>>>
>>> (403)-329-2221
>>>
>>> www.ulsu.ca
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cafr-l mailing list
>> cafr-l@uleth.ca
>> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
> --
> Yep, the dyslexic atheist claims there is no dog, but that is not half
> as risky as the dyslexic devil worshiper who sold his soul to Santa ;-)
>
> Dr. John R. Vokey
> vokey@uleth.ca
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dan_johnson.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 150 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081124/b9305548/dan_johnson-0001.vcf
From richard.mueller at uleth.ca Mon Nov 24 20:50:24 2008
From: richard.mueller at uleth.ca (Mueller, Richard)
Date: Mon Nov 24 20:51:04 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] Fwd: [Fwd: Re: is the SU addressing this?]
References:
Message-ID:
I agree. Very poorly worded. I had to read it two or three times to get
the jist of the message.
Rick
________________________________
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca on behalf of Dan Johnson
Sent: Mon 24/11/2008 8:41 PM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] Fwd: [Fwd: Re: is the SU addressing this?]
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081124/c1d54b41/attachment.html
From dan.johnson at uleth.ca Mon Nov 24 21:13:17 2008
From: dan.johnson at uleth.ca (Dan Johnson)
Date: Mon Nov 24 21:13:21 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] Fwd: [Fwd: Re: is the SU addressing this?]
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Sorry - I just noticed that you said the same thing.
It's very funny, actually.
Mueller, Richard wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
>
> --------------------
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
> I agree. Very poorly worded. I had to read it two or three times to
> get the jist of the message.
>
> Rick
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> *From:* cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca on behalf of Dan Johnson
> *Sent:* Mon 24/11/2008 8:41 PM
> *To:* cafr-l, MailList
> *Subject:* Re: [CAFR-L] Fwd: [Fwd: Re: is the SU addressing this?]
>
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
>
> --------------------
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dan_johnson.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 150 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081124/a02054af/dan_johnson.vcf
From forgie at uleth.ca Mon Nov 24 21:34:06 2008
From: forgie at uleth.ca (Margaret Forgie)
Date: Mon Nov 24 21:35:08 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] Fwd: is the SU addressing this?
References:
Message-ID:
YOU go girlfriend! :-)
_______________________
Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
Academic Assistant/Lecturer
Department of Psychology
Uhall - D850
The University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
T1K 3M4
phone: 403-329-2437
department: 403-329-2235
fax: 403-329-2555
email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Alix Shriner
> Date: November 24, 2008 9:27:53 PM MST (CA)
> To: "Adam Vossepoel"
> Subject: Re: is the SU addressing this?
>
> Hi again Adam,
>
> I am sure that your role on the Board of Governors is to represent the
> best interests of the student body. I trust that you will do so --
> that's
> why I voted for you! It sounds as though this situation is not one
> that
> favours the students. Am I missing something?
>
> This is a real opportunity for the ULSU to advocate for the
> students and
> I'm relieved to hear that the ULSU is taking it quite seriously --
> and so
> they should. Maybe the ULSU can take a lead role in the CAUS
> discussion.
>
> I did forward your reply to my professor and tomorrow will do so to
> the
> class as well.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Alix
>
>
>> Good Evening Alix,
>>
>> As a member of the Board of Governors, as well as the official
>> spokesperson for the ULSU, I am obliged to refrain from
>> commenting on
>> the legality of the legislation or the University's role in the case.
>> The most I can do is bring attention to the situation through the
>> conveyance of facts.
>>
>> Suffice to say, we will be working on this issue, informing people,
>> and we are taking it quite seriously.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Alix Shriner
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Adam,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your attention to this matter. I appreciate you
>>> sending me
>>> more information on the ruling. However, it still seems like an
>>> all too
>>> convenient loop hole for University administrators to deny taking
>>> responsibility for their students. Who knows, maybe the next
>>> student to
>>> be
>>> hit by a falling light will be you or me? See what I mean? If so,
>>> from
>>> the
>>> WCB ruling, I would not be eligible to make a claim and 50% of my
>>> earnings
>>> this month would =$0. Scary. And from what I understand, the student
>>> denied the WCB claim because it was 50% of her part time job at
>>> Walmart.
>>> Thus, it is not surprising that she wanted to pursue a tort case.
>>>
>>> I think this is an issue that is worth addressing provincially
>>> and I'm
>>> glad to hear that you will be addressing this ruling both locally
>>> and
>>> with
>>> CAUS.
>>> Please let me know what actions CAUS will be taking. As well, I
>>> think it
>>> would be prudent to assure students that you are taking action
>>> (maybe
>>> via
>>> the meliorist?).
>>>
>>> Thanks again Adam. Good luck with this daunting task.
>>>
>>> Alix
>>>
>>>
>>>> Good Afternoon Alix,
>>>>
>>>> I apologize about the delay. I was away from my computer for the
>>>> better part of the weekend.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation being spread around
>>>> regarding this issue, and in my opinion, making it seem more
>>>> dangerous
>>>> than it actually is. However, that is not to suggest that we are
>>>> not
>>>> taking it seriously. The opposite is true. The provincial
>>>> legislation
>>>> surrounding this is confusing at best, unconstitutional at worst.
>>>>
>>>> We at the ULSU are trying to get our bearings about the case,
>>>> and will
>>>> not take action until we can be certain that that action is in the
>>>> best interests of the students at the U of L.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To address some of the claims made in the email you received. I
>>>> will
>>>> preface it with 2 stipulations.
>>>>
>>>> 1. I am not a lawyer, nor have I received any formal legal
>>>> training.
>>>> The information that I am relaying is based solely on the judgments
>>>> made in regards to the above case, the Workers Compensation Act of
>>>> Alberta, and the Workers Compensation Board website.
>>>>
>>>> 2. The following information is based on the assumption that
>>>> students
>>>> are, in fact, legally and rightfully described under the
>>>> provisions of
>>>> the Workers Compensation Act. This is up for debate, and is at the
>>>> crux of this entire%
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Adam Vossepoel
>>
>> President
>>
>> University of Lethbridge Students' Union
>> 4401 University Drive West
>> Lethbridge, Alberta
>> T1K 3M4
>>
>> (403)-329-2221
>>
>> www.ulsu.ca
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081124/00cec66b/attachment-0001.html
From daniel.odonnell at uleth.ca Tue Nov 25 16:53:31 2008
From: daniel.odonnell at uleth.ca (Daniel O'Donnell)
Date: Tue Nov 25 16:53:42 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] TAN? Have our entrance grades dropped?
Message-ID:
Hi all,
My father once pointed out to me that students have been getting worse
since writing ruined Socrates, so I normally don't take much stock in
even my own complaints about student quality. But I am dealing with some
first years this year whose skills are so poor that I wonder if they are
coming from a different student pool than usual.
I've not taught first year in almost three years, so it could also just
be me or some kind of societal change (Facebook, for example, is only 5
years old and the Wikipedia a little older). But I do know that the
entrance GPA to Education for our majors crashed last year from
somewhere in the high 3s to somewhere, I understand now, in the mid 2s.
Seven or eight years ago we also had a couple of bad sets of first year
students. At that time the University had indeed lowered its entrance
grade temporarily. Then either the students got better again or I got
used to it. This led me to the conclusion that the line that separated
those who were and were not ready for university must lie more or less
exactly at our "standard" acceptance grade.
So does anybody know if this was lowered this past recruiting season? Or
is the problem just some combination of me getting old and cranky,
society going to hell in a hand basket, the Internet, Pop Music, and new
fangled styles of dancing?
In other words, before I go all King Alfred and start rewriting
curricula to deal with the new reality (look up the reference in the
Wikipedia ;)), I'd like to know if this is the result of a temporary
circumstance!
--
Daniel Paul O'Donnell, PhD
Associate Professor of English
Director, Digital Medievalist Project http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/
Chair, Text Encoding Initiative http://www.tei-c.org/
Department of English
University of Lethbridge
Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
Vox +1 403 329-2377
Fax +1 403 382-7191
Email: daniel.odonnell@uleth.ca
WWW: http://people.uleth.ca/~daniel.odonnell/
From forgie at uleth.ca Tue Nov 25 17:05:55 2008
From: forgie at uleth.ca (Margaret Forgie)
Date: Tue Nov 25 17:06:00 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] TAN? Have our entrance grades dropped?
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
From my perspective this is a very bad semester for first to third
years. We have had bumps in the past, but first years in my world
can barely understand the English language and fault us for "using
that Professor language on exams". M.
_______________________
Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
Academic Assistant/Lecturer
Department of Psychology
Uhall - D850
The University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
T1K 3M4
phone: 403-329-2437
department: 403-329-2235
fax: 403-329-2555
email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
On 25-Nov-08, at 4:53 PM, Daniel O'Donnell wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> Hi all,
>
> My father once pointed out to me that students have been getting worse
> since writing ruined Socrates, so I normally don't take much stock in
> even my own complaints about student quality. But I am dealing with
> some
> first years this year whose skills are so poor that I wonder if
> they are
> coming from a different student pool than usual.
>
> I've not taught first year in almost three years, so it could also
> just
> be me or some kind of societal change (Facebook, for example, is
> only 5
> years old and the Wikipedia a little older). But I do know that the
> entrance GPA to Education for our majors crashed last year from
> somewhere in the high 3s to somewhere, I understand now, in the mid
> 2s.
>
> Seven or eight years ago we also had a couple of bad sets of first
> year
> students. At that time the University had indeed lowered its entrance
> grade temporarily. Then either the students got better again or I got
> used to it. This led me to the conclusion that the line that separated
> those who were and were not ready for university must lie more or less
> exactly at our "standard" acceptance grade.
>
> So does anybody know if this was lowered this past recruiting
> season? Or
> is the problem just some combination of me getting old and cranky,
> society going to hell in a hand basket, the Internet, Pop Music,
> and new
> fangled styles of dancing?
>
> In other words, before I go all King Alfred and start rewriting
> curricula to deal with the new reality (look up the reference in the
> Wikipedia ;)), I'd like to know if this is the result of a temporary
> circumstance!
> --
> Daniel Paul O'Donnell, PhD
> Associate Professor of English
> Director, Digital Medievalist Project http://
> www.digitalmedievalist.org/
> Chair, Text Encoding Initiative http://www.tei-c.org/
>
> Department of English
> University of Lethbridge
> Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
> Vox +1 403 329-2377
> Fax +1 403 382-7191
> Email: daniel.odonnell@uleth.ca
> WWW: http://people.uleth.ca/~daniel.odonnell/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
From hawkms at uleth.ca Tue Nov 25 17:04:26 2008
From: hawkms at uleth.ca (Hawkins, Maureen)
Date: Tue Nov 25 17:07:11 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] TAN? Have our entrance grades dropped?
References:
Message-ID:
Hi,
Last year I taught our first-year class for the first time in 2 or 3
years, & I had the worst first-year class, in terms of both ability and
attitude, I've had since I've been here. I don't teach the course again
until next term, so I can't speak to this year.
Maureen
Maureen S. G. Hawkins
Department of English
University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, Alberta
T1K 3M4
Canada
(403) 328-7961
-----Original Message-----
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca on behalf of Daniel O'Donnell
Sent: Tue 11/25/2008 4:53 PM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Subject: [CAFR-L] TAN? Have our entrance grades dropped?
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
Hi all,
My father once pointed out to me that students have been getting worse
since writing ruined Socrates, so I normally don't take much stock in
even my own complaints about student quality. But I am dealing with some
first years this year whose skills are so poor that I wonder if they are
coming from a different student pool than usual.
I've not taught first year in almost three years, so it could also just
be me or some kind of societal change (Facebook, for example, is only 5
years old and the Wikipedia a little older). But I do know that the
entrance GPA to Education for our majors crashed last year from
somewhere in the high 3s to somewhere, I understand now, in the mid 2s.
Seven or eight years ago we also had a couple of bad sets of first year
students. At that time the University had indeed lowered its entrance
grade temporarily. Then either the students got better again or I got
used to it. This led me to the conclusion that the line that separated
those who were and were not ready for university must lie more or less
exactly at our "standard" acceptance grade.
So does anybody know if this was lowered this past recruiting season? Or
is the problem just some combination of me getting old and cranky,
society going to hell in a hand basket, the Internet, Pop Music, and new
fangled styles of dancing?
In other words, before I go all King Alfred and start rewriting
curricula to deal with the new reality (look up the reference in the
Wikipedia ;)), I'd like to know if this is the result of a temporary
circumstance!
--
Daniel Paul O'Donnell, PhD
Associate Professor of English
Director, Digital Medievalist Project http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/
Chair, Text Encoding Initiative http://www.tei-c.org/
Department of English
University of Lethbridge
Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
Vox +1 403 329-2377
Fax +1 403 382-7191
Email: daniel.odonnell@uleth.ca
WWW: http://people.uleth.ca/~daniel.odonnell/
_______________________________________________
cafr-l mailing list
cafr-l@uleth.ca
http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081125/b5e1acf2/attachment.html
From andrea.glover at uleth.ca Tue Nov 25 17:10:51 2008
From: andrea.glover at uleth.ca (Glover, Andrea)
Date: Tue Nov 25 17:10:53 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] TAN? Have our entrance grades dropped?
References:
Message-ID:
If I want to understand the speak of today I just go to this fine
reference source and poof! all is explained. If you're easily offended by
invectives don't you dare click on the hyperlink below:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/
Hey - it's all about "thumb strength"
I'm tired of presponses, requestions, social plagiarism but I think it's
due to my destinesia and occasional word vomit.
Andrea
Andrea Glover
Librarian to the Best & the Brightest
Information Services/Collection Development Librarian
Library Science 0500 Instructor for the Native Transition Program
Subject Librarian for Economics, Kinesiology & Physical Education, Native
American Studies, Political Science and Psychology
University of Lethbridge Library
4401-University Drive
Lethbridge, AB T1K 3M4
1-403-329-2390 andrea.glover@uleth.ca
"Humor is a reminder that no matter how high the throne one sits on, one
sits on one's bottom."
~Taki
________________________________
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca on behalf of Daniel O'Donnell
Sent: Tue 11/25/2008 4:53 PM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Subject: [CAFR-L] TAN? Have our entrance grades dropped?
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
Hi all,
My father once pointed out to me that students have been getting worse
since writing ruined Socrates, so I normally don't take much stock in
even my own complaints about student quality. But I am dealing with some
first years this year whose skills are so poor that I wonder if they are
coming from a different student pool than usual.
I've not taught first year in almost three years, so it could also just
be me or some kind of societal change (Facebook, for example, is only 5
years old and the Wikipedia a little older). But I do know that the
entrance GPA to Education for our majors crashed last year from
somewhere in the high 3s to somewhere, I understand now, in the mid 2s.
Seven or eight years ago we also had a couple of bad sets of first year
students. At that time the University had indeed lowered its entrance
grade temporarily. Then either the students got better again or I got
used to it. This led me to the conclusion that the line that separated
those who were and were not ready for university must lie more or less
exactly at our "standard" acceptance grade.
So does anybody know if this was lowered this past recruiting season? Or
is the problem just some combination of me getting old and cranky,
society going to hell in a hand basket, the Internet, Pop Music, and new
fangled styles of dancing?
In other words, before I go all King Alfred and start rewriting
curricula to deal with the new reality (look up the reference in the
Wikipedia ;)), I'd like to know if this is the result of a temporary
circumstance!
--
Daniel Paul O'Donnell, PhD
Associate Professor of English
Director, Digital Medievalist Project http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/
Chair, Text Encoding Initiative http://www.tei-c.org/
Department of English
University of Lethbridge
Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
Vox +1 403 329-2377
Fax +1 403 382-7191
Email: daniel.odonnell@uleth.ca
WWW: http://people.uleth.ca/~daniel.odonnell/
_______________________________________________
cafr-l mailing list
cafr-l@uleth.ca
http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081125/e155bd39/attachment-0001.html
From inge.genee at uleth.ca Tue Nov 25 18:38:19 2008
From: inge.genee at uleth.ca (Inge Genee)
Date: Tue Nov 25 18:38:27 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] Re: cafr-l Digest, Vol 9, Issue 32
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
I have some figures to back this up: the average grade on the midterm in
my ling2300 class is always between 75 and 76, on the exact same set of
questions now for the past 5 years. This year it was just short of 72,
and I have never had so many questions where I had not choice but to
give 0 marks, no matter how hard I tried to find some kind of partial
mark in what they wrote. So I agree that there is this trend, or at
least a marked difference from previous years.
Inge
>
> Hi all,
>
> My father once pointed out to me that students have been getting worse
> since writing ruined Socrates, so I normally don't take much stock in
> even my own complaints about student quality. But I am dealing with
some
> first years this year whose skills are so poor that I wonder if they
are
> coming from a different student pool than usual.
>
> I've not taught first year in almost three years, so it could also just
> be me or some kind of societal change (Facebook, for example, is only 5
> years old and the Wikipedia a little older). But I do know that the
> entrance GPA to Education for our majors crashed last year from
> somewhere in the high 3s to somewhere, I understand now, in the mid 2s.
>
> Seven or eight years ago we also had a couple of bad sets of first year
> students. At that time the University had indeed lowered its entrance
> grade temporarily. Then either the students got better again or I got
> used to it. This led me to the conclusion that the line that separated
> those who were and were not ready for university must lie more or less
> exactly at our "standard" acceptance grade.
>
> So does anybody know if this was lowered this past recruiting season?
Or
> is the problem just some combination of me getting old and cranky,
> society going to hell in a hand basket, the Internet, Pop Music, and
new
> fangled styles of dancing?
>
> In other words, before I go all King Alfred and start rewriting
> curricula to deal with the new reality (look up the reference in the
> Wikipedia ;)), I'd like to know if this is the result of a temporary
> circumstance!
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: inge_genee.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 279 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081125/a6931f46/inge_genee.vcf
From richard.mueller at uleth.ca Tue Nov 25 19:28:10 2008
From: richard.mueller at uleth.ca (Mueller, Richard)
Date: Tue Nov 25 19:28:13 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] Re: cafr-l Digest, Vol 9, Issue 32
References:
Message-ID:
The university publishes an annual factbook (or, as it is officially
titled, a facts book). Included are stats on the average entering marks
of high school students. While the most recent data only included up to
fall 2007, there really hasn't been much change in the average entering
grade over the previous 5 years. These averages, of course, say nothing
about the distribution of these marks. I am finding a greater dispersion
in student quality this year compared to the past.
You can check out the "Facts Book" yourself at
http://www.uleth.ca/analysis/book/FactBooks/07-
08/attrib/115_attrib_fall_avg_entry_grades.pdf
Rick
________________________________
From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca on behalf of Inge Genee
Sent: Tue 25/11/2008 6:38 PM
To: cafr-l, MailList
Subject: [CAFR-L] Re: cafr-l Digest, Vol 9, Issue 32
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
--------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081125/70004cb0/attachment.html
From forgie at uleth.ca Wed Nov 26 00:00:08 2008
From: forgie at uleth.ca (Margaret Forgie)
Date: Wed Nov 26 00:00:18 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] Re: cafr-l Digest, Vol 9, Issue 32
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Richard and others. Many of my "first year students" are not just
out of high school so those stats don't really apply. What about
students that are returning to the U, or the first year students that
take my classes for a GLER, or a requirement, and are in their fourth
or fifth year of another program (most notably, Management and other
Business related degrees). Entering marks of high school students
does not capture the "first year" population at the U. :-) M
_______________________
Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
Academic Assistant/Lecturer
Department of Psychology
Uhall - D850
The University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
T1K 3M4
phone: 403-329-2437
department: 403-329-2235
fax: 403-329-2555
email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
On 25-Nov-08, at 7:28 PM, Mueller, Richard wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> The university publishes an annual factbook (or, as it is
> officially titled, a facts book). Included are stats on the average
> entering marks of high school students. While the most recent data
> only included up to fall 2007, there really hasn't been much change
> in the average entering grade over the previous 5 years. These
> averages, of course, say nothing about the distribution of these
> marks. I am finding a greater dispersion in student quality this
> year compared to the past.
>
> You can check out the "Facts Book" yourself at
> http://www.uleth.ca/analysis/book/FactBooks/07-08/attrib/
> 115_attrib_fall_avg_entry_grades.pdf
>
> Rick
>
>
>
> From: cafr-l-bounces@uleth.ca on behalf of Inge Genee
> Sent: Tue 25/11/2008 6:38 PM
> To: cafr-l, MailList
> Subject: [CAFR-L] Re: cafr-l Digest, Vol 9, Issue 32
>
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081126/4db8b282/attachment.html
From dan.johnson at uleth.ca Thu Nov 27 10:12:07 2008
From: dan.johnson at uleth.ca (Dan Johnson)
Date: Thu Nov 27 10:12:08 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] TAN? Have our entrance grades dropped?
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
"...look up the reference in the Wikipedia..."
I think I see the problem.
Daniel O'Donnell wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
>
> --------------------
> Hi all,
>
> My father once pointed out to me that students have been getting worse
> since writing ruined Socrates, so I normally don't take much stock in
> even my own complaints about student quality. But I am dealing with
some
> first years this year whose skills are so poor that I wonder if they
are
> coming from a different student pool than usual.
>
> I've not taught first year in almost three years, so it could also just
> be me or some kind of societal change (Facebook, for example, is only 5
> years old and the Wikipedia a little older). But I do know that the
> entrance GPA to Education for our majors crashed last year from
> somewhere in the high 3s to somewhere, I understand now, in the mid 2s.
>
> Seven or eight years ago we also had a couple of bad sets of first year
> students. At that time the University had indeed lowered its entrance
> grade temporarily. Then either the students got better again or I got
> used to it. This led me to the conclusion that the line that separated
> those who were and were not ready for university must lie more or less
> exactly at our "standard" acceptance grade.
>
> So does anybody know if this was lowered this past recruiting season?
Or
> is the problem just some combination of me getting old and cranky,
> society going to hell in a hand basket, the Internet, Pop Music, and
new
> fangled styles of dancing?
>
> In other words, before I go all King Alfred and start rewriting
> curricula to deal with the new reality (look up the reference in the
> Wikipedia ;)), I'd like to know if this is the result of a temporary
> circumstance!
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dan_johnson.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 150 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081127/815e93ea/dan_johnson.vcf
From daniel.odonnell at uleth.ca Thu Nov 27 15:22:15 2008
From: daniel.odonnell at uleth.ca (O'Donnell, Dan)
Date: Thu Nov 27 15:23:29 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] TAN? Have our entrance grades dropped?
References:
Message-ID:
As the primary author of a featured article in the Wikipedia, I can't
complain about it ;)
-dan
Daniel Paul O'Donnell, PhD
Associate Professor,
Department of English,
University of Lethbridge
Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
Canada
Chair, Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org/)
Director, Digital Medievalist Project
(http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/)
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Johnson [mailto:dan.johnson@uleth.ca]
Sent: Thu 2008-11-27 10:12
To: O'Donnell, Dan; cafr-l, MailList
Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] TAN? Have our entrance grades dropped?
"...look up the reference in the Wikipedia..."
I think I see the problem.
Daniel O'Donnell wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
>
> --------------------
> Hi all,
>
> My father once pointed out to me that students have been getting worse
> since writing ruined Socrates, so I normally don't take much stock in
> even my own complaints about student quality. But I am dealing with
some
> first years this year whose skills are so poor that I wonder if they
are
> coming from a different student pool than usual.
>
> I've not taught first year in almost three years, so it could also just
> be me or some kind of societal change (Facebook, for example, is only 5
> years old and the Wikipedia a little older). But I do know that the
> entrance GPA to Education for our majors crashed last year from
> somewhere in the high 3s to somewhere, I understand now, in the mid 2s.
>
> Seven or eight years ago we also had a couple of bad sets of first year
> students. At that time the University had indeed lowered its entrance
> grade temporarily. Then either the students got better again or I got
> used to it. This led me to the conclusion that the line that separated
> those who were and were not ready for university must lie more or less
> exactly at our "standard" acceptance grade.
>
> So does anybody know if this was lowered this past recruiting season?
Or
> is the problem just some combination of me getting old and cranky,
> society going to hell in a hand basket, the Internet, Pop Music, and
new
> fangled styles of dancing?
>
> In other words, before I go all King Alfred and start rewriting
> curricula to deal with the new reality (look up the reference in the
> Wikipedia ;)), I'd like to know if this is the result of a temporary
> circumstance!
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081127/c48b4dd7/attachment-0001.html
From dan.johnson at uleth.ca Thu Nov 27 15:38:31 2008
From: dan.johnson at uleth.ca (Dan Johnson)
Date: Thu Nov 27 15:38:32 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] TAN? Have our entrance grades dropped?
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Plus several are even about Dan O'Donnell.
*Daniel* or *Danny O'Donnell* may refer to
* Daniel O'Donnell (politician)
,
American legislator from the state of New York.
* Daniel O'Donnell (singer)
,
Irish musician.
* Danny O'Donnell ,
English footballer.
At least it's not "Johnson". Half of Minnesota would be there.
I have my questionable place in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball
O'Donnell, Dan wrote:
>
> As the primary author of a featured article in the Wikipedia, I can't
> complain about it ;)
>
> -dan
>
> Daniel Paul O'Donnell, PhD
> Associate Professor,
> Department of English,
> University of Lethbridge
> Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
> Canada
>
> Chair, Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org/)
> Director, Digital Medievalist Project
> (http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Johnson [mailto:dan.johnson@uleth.ca]
> Sent: Thu 2008-11-27 10:12
> To: O'Donnell, Dan; cafr-l, MailList
> Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] TAN? Have our entrance grades dropped?
>
>
> "...look up the reference in the Wikipedia..."
>
>
>
> I think I see the problem.
>
>
>
>
>
> Daniel O'Donnell wrote:
> > Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content of
> their messages.
>
> >
> > --------------------
> > Hi all,
> >
> > My father once pointed out to me that students have been getting
worse
> > since writing ruined Socrates, so I normally don't take much stock in
> > even my own complaints about student quality. But I am dealing with
> some
> > first years this year whose skills are so poor that I wonder if they
> are
> > coming from a different student pool than usual.
> >
> > I've not taught first year in almost three years, so it could also
just
> > be me or some kind of societal change (Facebook, for example, is only
5
> > years old and the Wikipedia a little older). But I do know that the
> > entrance GPA to Education for our majors crashed last year from
> > somewhere in the high 3s to somewhere, I understand now, in the mid
2s.
> >
> > Seven or eight years ago we also had a couple of bad sets of first
year
> > students. At that time the University had indeed lowered its entrance
> > grade temporarily. Then either the students got better again or I got
> > used to it. This led me to the conclusion that the line that
separated
> > those who were and were not ready for university must lie more or
less
> > exactly at our "standard" acceptance grade.
> >
> > So does anybody know if this was lowered this past recruiting
> season? Or
> > is the problem just some combination of me getting old and cranky,
> > society going to hell in a hand basket, the Internet, Pop Music, and
> new
> > fangled styles of dancing?
> >
> > In other words, before I go all King Alfred and start rewriting
> > curricula to deal with the new reality (look up the reference in the
> > Wikipedia ;)), I'd like to know if this is the result of a temporary
> > circumstance!
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dan_johnson.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 150 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081127/50e17b30/dan_johnson.vcf
From daniel.odonnell at uleth.ca Fri Nov 28 20:55:52 2008
From: daniel.odonnell at uleth.ca (Daniel O'Donnell)
Date: Fri Nov 28 20:56:07 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] TAN? Have our entrance grades dropped?
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
You've discovered my immunity conch, or whatever it is called on
Survivor. Doesn't matter what I do--except Old English or Humanities
Computing--you can google me and I'll come up as your mamas favorite C&W
singer.
Actually it isn't that bad: in my fields I tend to outrank Irish Singer
O'Donnell (not to mention chicago politician and the rest). I do get
tons of emails for him asking me to send free copies of my latest CDs to
dying grannies in PEI (there's a real problem with dying grannies in
PEI, BTW); but then no doubt he gets the same thing with people asking
for offprints for dying PhD supervisors. We should set something up on
EBay.
-dan
On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 15:38 -0700, Dan Johnson wrote:
> Plus several are even about Dan O'Donnell.
>
> *Daniel* or *Danny O'Donnell* may refer to
>
> * Daniel O'Donnell (politician)
>
,
> American legislator from the state of New York.
> * Daniel O'Donnell (singer)
> ,
> Irish musician.
> * Danny O'Donnell ,
> English footballer.
>
>
>
> At least it's not "Johnson". Half of Minnesota would be there.
>
> I have my questionable place in Wikipedia:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball
>
>
>
>
> O'Donnell, Dan wrote:
> >
> > As the primary author of a featured article in the Wikipedia, I can't
> > complain about it ;)
> >
> > -dan
> >
> > Daniel Paul O'Donnell, PhD
> > Associate Professor,
> > Department of English,
> > University of Lethbridge
> > Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
> > Canada
> >
> > Chair, Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org/)
> > Director, Digital Medievalist Project
> > (http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/)
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dan Johnson [mailto:dan.johnson@uleth.ca]
> > Sent: Thu 2008-11-27 10:12
> > To: O'Donnell, Dan; cafr-l, MailList
> > Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] TAN? Have our entrance grades dropped?
> >
> >
> > "...look up the reference in the Wikipedia..."
> >
> >
> >
> > I think I see the problem.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Daniel O'Donnell wrote:
> > > Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> > unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
of
> > their messages.
> >
> > >
> > > --------------------
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > My father once pointed out to me that students have been getting
worse
> > > since writing ruined Socrates, so I normally don't take much stock
in
> > > even my own complaints about student quality. But I am dealing with
> > some
> > > first years this year whose skills are so poor that I wonder if
they
> > are
> > > coming from a different student pool than usual.
> > >
> > > I've not taught first year in almost three years, so it could also
just
> > > be me or some kind of societal change (Facebook, for example, is
only 5
> > > years old and the Wikipedia a little older). But I do know that the
> > > entrance GPA to Education for our majors crashed last year from
> > > somewhere in the high 3s to somewhere, I understand now, in the mid
2s.
> > >
> > > Seven or eight years ago we also had a couple of bad sets of first
year
> > > students. At that time the University had indeed lowered its
entrance
> > > grade temporarily. Then either the students got better again or I
got
> > > used to it. This led me to the conclusion that the line that
separated
> > > those who were and were not ready for university must lie more or
less
> > > exactly at our "standard" acceptance grade.
> > >
> > > So does anybody know if this was lowered this past recruiting
> > season? Or
> > > is the problem just some combination of me getting old and cranky,
> > > society going to hell in a hand basket, the Internet, Pop Music,
and
> > new
> > > fangled styles of dancing?
> > >
> > > In other words, before I go all King Alfred and start rewriting
> > > curricula to deal with the new reality (look up the reference in
the
> > > Wikipedia ;)), I'd like to know if this is the result of a
temporary
> > > circumstance!
> > >
> >
--
Daniel Paul O'Donnell
Associate Professor of English
Chair, Text Encoding Initiative Consortium
Director, Digital Medievalist Project
Department of English
University of Lethbridge
Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
Home Page: http://people.uleth.ca/~daniel.odonnell/
Appointment Calendar:
http://kakelbont.homelinux.net/webcalendar/week.php?user=dan
Vox: +1 403 329-2377
Fax: +1 403 382-7191
From vokey at uleth.ca Fri Nov 28 22:46:01 2008
From: vokey at uleth.ca (John Vokey)
Date: Fri Nov 28 22:46:03 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] TAN? Have our entrance grades dropped?
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Well, in that regard, I am #1 on Google, and the ``R.'' isn't even
necessary. Mind you, it does descend rather quickly into golf putter
heads, cattle stall aesthetics, and cable hook-ups shortly after that,
not to mention an apparently well-referenced set of theological
tracts. But, I am the only ``John'' in that list, and #1 as I said.
On 28-Nov-08, at 8:55 PM, Daniel O'Donnell wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
> You've discovered my immunity conch, or whatever it is called on
> Survivor. Doesn't matter what I do--except Old English or Humanities
> Computing--you can google me and I'll come up as your mamas favorite
> C&W
> singer.
>
> Actually it isn't that bad: in my fields I tend to outrank Irish
> Singer
> O'Donnell (not to mention chicago politician and the rest). I do get
> tons of emails for him asking me to send free copies of my latest
> CDs to
> dying grannies in PEI (there's a real problem with dying grannies in
> PEI, BTW); but then no doubt he gets the same thing with people asking
> for offprints for dying PhD supervisors. We should set something up on
> EBay.
>
> -dan
>
> On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 15:38 -0700, Dan Johnson wrote:
>> Plus several are even about Dan O'Donnell.
>>
>> *Daniel* or *Danny O'Donnell* may refer to
>>
>> * Daniel O'Donnell (politician)
>> > >,
>> American legislator from the state of New York.
>> * Daniel O'Donnell (singer)
>> ,
>> Irish musician.
>> * Danny O'Donnell > %27Donnell>,
>> English footballer.
>>
>>
>>
>> At least it's not "Johnson". Half of Minnesota would be there.
>>
>> I have my questionable place in Wikipedia:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> O'Donnell, Dan wrote:
>>>
>>> As the primary author of a featured article in the Wikipedia, I
>>> can't
>>> complain about it ;)
>>>
>>> -dan
>>>
>>> Daniel Paul O'Donnell, PhD
>>> Associate Professor,
>>> Department of English,
>>> University of Lethbridge
>>> Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
>>> Canada
>>>
>>> Chair, Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org/)
>>> Director, Digital Medievalist Project
>>> (http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Dan Johnson [mailto:dan.johnson@uleth.ca]
>>> Sent: Thu 2008-11-27 10:12
>>> To: O'Donnell, Dan; cafr-l, MailList
>>> Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] TAN? Have our entrance grades dropped?
>>>
>>>
>>> "...look up the reference in the Wikipedia..."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think I see the problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Daniel O'Donnell wrote:
>>>> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
>>> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the
>>> content of
>>> their messages.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --------------------
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> My father once pointed out to me that students have been getting
>>>> worse
>>>> since writing ruined Socrates, so I normally don't take much
>>>> stock in
>>>> even my own complaints about student quality. But I am dealing with
>>> some
>>>> first years this year whose skills are so poor that I wonder if
>>>> they
>>> are
>>>> coming from a different student pool than usual.
>>>>
>>>> I've not taught first year in almost three years, so it could
>>>> also just
>>>> be me or some kind of societal change (Facebook, for example, is
>>>> only 5
>>>> years old and the Wikipedia a little older). But I do know that the
>>>> entrance GPA to Education for our majors crashed last year from
>>>> somewhere in the high 3s to somewhere, I understand now, in the
>>>> mid 2s.
>>>>
>>>> Seven or eight years ago we also had a couple of bad sets of
>>>> first year
>>>> students. At that time the University had indeed lowered its
>>>> entrance
>>>> grade temporarily. Then either the students got better again or I
>>>> got
>>>> used to it. This led me to the conclusion that the line that
>>>> separated
>>>> those who were and were not ready for university must lie more or
>>>> less
>>>> exactly at our "standard" acceptance grade.
>>>>
>>>> So does anybody know if this was lowered this past recruiting
>>> season? Or
>>>> is the problem just some combination of me getting old and cranky,
>>>> society going to hell in a hand basket, the Internet, Pop Music,
>>>> and
>>> new
>>>> fangled styles of dancing?
>>>>
>>>> In other words, before I go all King Alfred and start rewriting
>>>> curricula to deal with the new reality (look up the reference in
>>>> the
>>>> Wikipedia ;)), I'd like to know if this is the result of a
>>>> temporary
>>>> circumstance!
>>>>
>>>
> --
> Daniel Paul O'Donnell
> Associate Professor of English
> Chair, Text Encoding Initiative Consortium
> Director, Digital Medievalist Project
>
> Department of English
> University of Lethbridge
> Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
>
> Home Page: http://people.uleth.ca/~daniel.odonnell/
> Appointment Calendar:
> http://kakelbont.homelinux.net/webcalendar/week.php?user=dan
> Vox: +1 403 329-2377
> Fax: +1 403 382-7191
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
--
Yep, the dyslexic atheist claims there is no dog, but that is not half
as risky as the dyslexic devil worshiper who sold his soul to Santa ;-)
Dr. John R. Vokey
vokey@uleth.ca
From byrne at uleth.ca Sat Nov 29 19:34:53 2008
From: byrne at uleth.ca (James Byrne)
Date: Sat Nov 29 19:35:05 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] an option
Message-ID:
Colleagues - this could go a long way towards addressing issues of both
global and national concern. Please consider signing and forwarding on
to others for consideration.
An on-line petition is circulating to encourage the federal NDP and
Liberal parties to form a coalition. If you're in favour of this, please
consider signing the letter at the Rideau Institute website: open online
letter
Jim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081129/a268f8dc/attachment.html
From daniel.odonnell at uleth.ca Sat Nov 29 19:44:03 2008
From: daniel.odonnell at uleth.ca (Daniel O'Donnell)
Date: Sat Nov 29 19:44:09 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] List "owner" term
Message-ID:
As I mentioned earlier, I think we should have terms for the list
"owner"--administrator is a better word, since it isn't moderated and
all the "owner" does is add new people while making sure
mailinglistsRus@spam.com can't sign up.
And to get the ball rolling, I'd like to step down as list "owner" at
the end of the year: I run too many lists as it is.
Any volunteers to take over? We can have as many as we want. And I'll
provide any necessary training.
-dan
--
Daniel Paul O'Donnell
Associate Professor of English
Chair, Text Encoding Initiative Consortium
Director, Digital Medievalist Project
Department of English
University of Lethbridge
Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
Home Page: http://people.uleth.ca/~daniel.odonnell/
Appointment Calendar:
http://kakelbont.homelinux.net/webcalendar/week.php?user=dan
Vox: +1 403 329-2377
Fax: +1 403 382-7191
From forgie at uleth.ca Sun Nov 30 14:05:02 2008
From: forgie at uleth.ca (Margaret Forgie)
Date: Sun Nov 30 14:05:10 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] on the topic of student writing
Message-ID:
Hi all. I have discovered another variable in our students' lack of
English language skills - the rise of French Immersion as the "best"
thing to do for children. Several of my third year students have
confessed that they were never involved in formal writing in English
until at least Grade 10 in high school, and then did not have much
help or opportunity to have their writing corrected. How can they be
expected to write properly at the university level when their
formative years lacked training in the English language? In two
specific cases, their parents could not speak French, and thus had no
input into their "assignments" for years of their schooling. Such
students are struggling as any other student for whom English is a
second language. Interesting. M.
_______________________
Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
Academic Assistant/Lecturer
Department of Psychology
Uhall - D850
The University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
T1K 3M4
phone: 403-329-2437
department: 403-329-2235
fax: 403-329-2555
email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081130/06285c3b/attachment-0001.html
From byrne at uleth.ca Sun Nov 30 14:49:43 2008
From: byrne at uleth.ca (James Byrne)
Date: Sun Nov 30 14:49:44 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] student skills
Message-ID:
Colleagues - there has been discussion of junior students' skills on
this list and that discussion has included a range of associated (often
negative?) opinions and views shared. No disrespect intended and with
understanding of possible frustrations; but to what constructive end is
this discussion? CAF-R is an informal group and since we likely have no
time or energy to address this issue, and it would not fall into our
(specified?) mandate. I do appreciate comments like Rick's that brought
fact book information forward and a clear statistical argument
suggesting the population has not changes significantly. I simply pose
the question - is this a discussion that will end in some meaningful
action? I suggest not and hence further suggest we do the CAF-R list
only harm by continued negative remarks about a large portion of the
student population.
Jim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081130/d2777aa5/attachment.html
From forgie at uleth.ca Sun Nov 30 14:52:29 2008
From: forgie at uleth.ca (Margaret Forgie)
Date: Sun Nov 30 14:52:41 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] student skills
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
My apologies for sending my email to the list. M.
_______________________
Margaret L. Forgie, Ph.D.
Academic Assistant/Lecturer
Department of Psychology
Uhall - D850
The University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
T1K 3M4
phone: 403-329-2437
department: 403-329-2235
fax: 403-329-2555
email: forgie@uleth.ca (preferred contact)
On 30-Nov-08, at 2:49 PM, James Byrne wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an
> unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content
> of their messages.
>
> --------------------
>
>
> Colleagues - there has been discussion of junior students' skills
> on this list and that discussion has included a range of associated
> (often negative?) opinions and views shared. No disrespect
> intended and with understanding of possible frustrations; but to
> what constructive end is this discussion? CAF-R is an informal
> group and since we likely have no time or energy to address this
> issue, and it would not fall into our (specified?) mandate. I do
> appreciate comments like Rick's that brought fact book information
> forward and a clear statistical argument suggesting the population
> has not changes significantly. I simply pose the question - is
> this a discussion that will end in some meaningful action? I
> suggest not and hence further suggest we do the CAF-R list only
> harm by continued negative remarks about a large portion of the
> student population.
>
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081130/e29bf112/attachment.html
From kent.peacock at uleth.ca Sun Nov 30 15:23:00 2008
From: kent.peacock at uleth.ca (Kent Peacock)
Date: Sun Nov 30 15:23:07 2008
Subject: [CAFR-L] student skills
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Jim (and Margaret and all): --
Where this sort of discussion might conceivably do some good or make a
difference is that faculty in various ways could attempt to resist the
tendency to turn the slogan of "accessibility" into "anyone with a pulse
is admissible to university." We can't directly affect how high school
education is delivered but we can make it clear in various ways both
explicit and implicit that the buck has to stop in first and second year
university. As it is now early undergraduate education is a sort of
band pass filter that culls and streams students, often quite
ruthlessly. (Of course, it has always been this way.) Every time I
teach a first year course I have to flunk a bunch of students who are
either unable, unwilling, or unready to do university-level work. I am
not sadistic by nature, and I don't especially enjoy doing this. I
think what bothers me is not so much that we have to enforce fairly
tough standards but that many young people are, I think, given false
expectations by our current educational system, within which it is
politically almost impossible to admit that not everyone has what it
takes to be a doctor, lawyer, or engineer. Students come to university
expecting a fast track to an executive suite and flunk out ignominiously
because they were not taught basic grammar, science, history,
mathematics, or study skills in high school. Faculty could at least say
that we don't enjoy being the executioners of young people's (mistaken)
career expectations. I'm not sure of the best way to say this; another
letter to Andy Hakin will probably not do the trick. But it is
something that deserves comment by us, somehow, somewhere.
Kent
James Byrne wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
messages.
>
> --------------------
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
>
>
> Colleagues - there has been discussion of junior students' skills on
> this list and that discussion has included a range of associated
> (often negative?) opinions and views shared. No disrespect intended
> and with understanding of possible frustrations; but to what
> constructive end is this discussion? CAF-R is an informal group and
> since we likely have no time or energy to address this issue, and it
> would not fall into our (specified?) mandate. I do appreciate
> comments like Rick's that brought fact book information forward and a
> clear statistical argument suggesting the population has not changes
> significantly. I simply pose the question - is this a discussion that
> will end in some meaningful action? I suggest not and hence further
> suggest we do the CAF-R list only harm by continued negative remarks
> about a large portion of the student population.
>
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
> _______________________________________________
> cafr-l mailing list
> cafr-l@uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/cafr-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/cafr-
l/attachments/20081130/ced6da08/attachment.html