Director of Roth child service paid 40k to leave.

[mart 71]

Why can`t these incompetent employees just be sacked, and then punished by the court system?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29674059

[ECCOnoob 1,041]

Why can`t these incompetent employees just be sacked, and then punished by the court system?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29674059

 

Because she was neither found personally responsible for gross misconduct under disciplinary proceedings nor personally charged or tried for criminal offences deemed punishable under the court system

 

Wrong and distasteful as it might be system wide failures across a large organisation do not stop one sole individual getting their statutory entitlement under the employment laws.

 

The public purse sewing circle or whatever they are called can bitch and whine all they want. Unless they personally want to bring disciplinary investigations and proceedings to categorically prove that Ms Thacker was directly negligent there is nothing they can do

Edited October 18, 2014 by ECCOnoob

[Fogey 10]

Someone change the thread title, I keep seeing it as 'Rothschild'.

[Anarchon 10]

Agree with ECCOnoob. Also, remember what happened when Ed Balls - the Education Secretary took the knee-jerk decision to sack Sharon Shoesmith (Director of Social Services - Haringey Council and in charge at the time of the Baby P tragedy). She promptly took the council to an employment tribunal and in the end after much legal wrangling received a 6 figure pay-off and compensation for unfair dismissal last year.

[Stan Tamudo 10]

Why can`t these incompetent employees just be sacked, and then punished by the court system?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29674059

 

 

"I really could not care less how much higher other people’s income is. Why should I care about that"?

 

---------- Post added 18-10-2014 at 22:59 ----------

 

Why can`t these incompetent employees just be sacked, and then punished by the court system?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29674059

 

You've got form on here haven't you?

Edited October 18, 2014 by Stan Tamudo

[RonJeremy 10]

Why can`t these incompetent employees just be sacked, and then punished by the court system?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29674059

 

Because we have ridiculous employment laws which favour the incompetent employee over common sense and the employer's right to choose who he or she employs. If anyone here has ever employed someone they will know what I mean.

[Happ Hazzard 10]

Anyone with a shred of decency would resign in a case like this, not pocket £40,000 for ignoring child abuse on their watch.

[RonJeremy 10]

Anyone with a shred of decency would resign in a case like this, not pocket £40,000 for ignoring child abuse on their watch.

 

She knew the law. She knew she could skank the taxpayer using the biased laws. It's not her fault just got what she was ''entitled'' to. FFS

[SqueakyPete 10]

Because we have ridiculous employment laws which favour the incompetent employee over common sense and the employer's right to choose who he or she employs. If anyone here has ever employed someone they will know what I mean.

 

Its a double edged sword though,as it also helps people when unscrupulous employers think they can do what they like with people's lives.

If anyone here has ever been shafted by an employer,they will know what I mean

[RonJeremy 10]

Its a double edged sword though,as it also helps people when unscrupulous employers think they can do what they like with people's lives.

If anyone here has ever been shafted by an employer,they will know what I mean

 

When and how were you shafted? He was the employer, why didn't he want you anymore? If you were doing your job right surely he'd have been eager to keep you?

[ECCOnoob 1,041]

Because we have ridiculous employment laws which favour the incompetent employee over common sense and the employer's right to choose who he or she employs. If anyone here has ever employed someone they will know what I mean.

 

You see you are missing the point. Who is the incompetent employee here.

 

We are talking about system wide failures over several different large organisations.

 

Unless you can establish categorically that a sole individual is responsible how can you choose who to keep or get rid of.

 

Its interesting you bring up an employers right to choose. What would happen if that circumstance existed and the situation was different.

 

What about if Rotherham CHOSE to stand by Ms Thacker and believed her NOT to be responsible for this instead sacking a layer of lower management who they felt had more direct interest in the matter.

 

Would you still be supportive of an employer's right to choose??

 

The fact is that there are potentially hundreds of staff from all levels in various organisations who are part of this scandal. Yet its only the very top of the tree (and most likely to have the least direct involvement with such a matter) who are being hounded by the press and have the public calling for their heads. They are put into a position which makes them retaining a post impossible and even if they did try to keep it, would just keep being hounded until they left.

 

Every employee big or small has a right to notice pay (except for proven gross negligence). That's life. The press and clucking hens need to get over that. They would have something to cry about if they saw the payouts for all those layers and layers of managers, social workers, police investigators, support staff, administrative staff who have also been involved in all this scandal...... they won't make headline news though.

Edited October 19, 2014 by ECCOnoob

[RonJeremy 10]

You see you are missing the point. Who is the incompetent employee here.

 

We are talking about system wide failures over several different large organisations.

 

Unless you can establish categorically that a sole individual is responsible how can you choose who to keep or get rid of.

 

Its interesting you bring up an employers right to choose. What would happen if that circumstance existed and the situation was different.

 

What about if Rotherham CHOSE to stand by Ms Thacker and believed her NOT to be responsible for this instead sacking a layer of lower management who they felt had more direct interest in the matter.

 

Would you still be supportive of an employer's right to choose??

 

The fact is that there are potentially hundreds of staff from all levels in various organisations who are part of this scandal. Yet its only the very top of the tree (and most likely to have the least direct involvement with such a matter) who are being hounded by the press and have the public calling for their heads. They are put into a position which makes them retaining a post impossible and even if they did try to keep it, would just keep being hounded until they left.

 

Every employee big or small has a right to notice pay (except for proven gross negligence). That's life. The press and clucking hens need to get over that. They would have something to cry about if they saw the payouts for all those layers and layers of managers, social workers, police investigators, support staff, administrative staff who have also been involved in all this scandal...... they won't make headline news though.

 

I don't know who was responsible but the employer thought she was they didn't want to employ her anymore because of her incompetence. And because of the ridiculous employment laws they had to give her 40k of other peoples money.

 

You say that's life? It's not life, it's employment law.