Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 402

Try our Fantastic 5-Issue Bundle Offer! For just £18, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:
The Play-offs Issue - pictured (out 12 Sept) – Covering the climax of the Super League & Championship seasons
The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final excitement from both sides of the world plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Sharon Shoesmith


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#21 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,494 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 12:11 PM

 Why should any individual have the details of their pay/t&cs in the public domain

 

because its my money and I want to see how it is being wasted

 

because something has to be ( seen to be) done about the obscene level of rewards - salary, pensions,  holidays etc that abound at the top of the public sector...rewards that never seem to carry the penalty of poor performance that is the norm in the private sector at this level, whilst the poor bloody infantry get not much more than the minimum wage and have to work until they are 65 or older  before they get their miserable state pension

 

Again, the terms and conditions are a matter for the individual and their employer.  Whether that is the state or not is broadly irrelevant.  If you have an issue with the terms and conditions that state employees get, then lobby against it by all means.  I draw no distinction between the infantry, who sign up for their terms and conditions like any other employed person, and Ms Shoesmith.  Both have contracts of employment which by definition have been agreed.

 

£11k per month for a senior management position would not be unusual in other professions, state owned banks for instance.



#22 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,094 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 12:14 PM

That Baby P died the way he did is not open to debate though.

 

And Shoesmith didn't kill him.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#23 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,020 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 12:59 PM

true, but that is not why she was  dismissed. The balance between reward and risk at "director" level in the public sector is totally wrong and out of line with that in the private sector, as anyone with even a passing acquaintance with Private Eye  can read about every fortnight. If Shoesmith were to try, I'm sure she could join the highly rewarding senior public sector employment merry-go-round, or at least she'll now become a highly rewarded public sector consultant who will borrow your watch to tell you the time.



#24 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,094 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 01:03 PM

true, but that is not why she was  dismissed. The balance between reward and risk at "director" level in the public sector is totally wrong and out of line with that in the private sector, as anyone with even a passing acquaintance with Private Eye  can read about every fortnight. If Shoesmith were to try, I'm sure she could join the highly rewarding senior public sector employment merry-go-round, or at least she'll now become a highly rewarded public sector consultant who will borrow your watch to tell you the time.

 

I see plenty of people getting huge salaries for no reason, and with little risk, in all sectors.

 

I also see plenty of people outraged when children are removed from even the most troubled families.

 

There were, no doubt, mistakes.  Obviously there were.  But no 'overpaid public sector fatcat' killed Baby P.  Not one.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#25 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,809 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 01:08 PM

true, but that is not why she was  dismissed. The balance between reward and risk at "director" level in the public sector is totally wrong and out of line with that in the private sector, as anyone with even a passing acquaintance with Private Eye  can read about every fortnight. If Shoesmith were to try, I'm sure she could join the highly rewarding senior public sector employment merry-go-round, or at least she'll now become a highly rewarded public sector consultant who will borrow your watch to tell you the time.

The word "director" when referring to a public sector employee is a con and can't be relied upon.  It's a sop to them to get them to take a middle-manager's job with a fancy title.  Much like many US companies have really quite junior managers called "vice president" to get them to take on more for lower pay.  I know one Parish Council Clerk who has a job title of Council Services Director when she has no employees under her and works from her spare bedroom when not in council meetings, she took the enhanced job title in lieu of complaining about not getting a pay rise!


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#26 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,969 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 01:59 PM

And Shoesmith didn't kill him.

I never said she did. I am talking about her job and her brass neck for claiming compensation.

If I was negligent in my job and it led to the death of a fellow worker I would be so sick that my precious career would be the last thing I cared about.

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#27 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,020 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 02:01 PM

I see plenty of people getting huge salaries for no reason, and with little risk, in all sectors.

 

I also see plenty of people outraged when children are removed from even the most troubled families.

 

There were, no doubt, mistakes.  Obviously there were.  But no 'overpaid public sector fatcat' killed Baby P.  Not one.

 

 But no 'overpaid public sector fatcat' killed Baby P.  Not one.

 

At the risk of repeating myself: true.

At the risk of repeating myself: that is not why she was dismissed

At the risk of repeating myself. She was an overpaid, over rewarded senior public sector fat cat  who wanst to trouser my money  yet remain unaccountable and protected from the consequences of her poor performance.



#28 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,861 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 02:36 PM

Ed Balls really made a mess of this.  She was a senior manager and her ability to earn has been irreparably damaged by his actions.

 

You can't simply sack somebody in public without following due process.

 

That's the issue at the core here, not whether or not she was or wasn't at fault.

 

Exactly. Clearly she wasn't guilty of gross misconduct.



#29 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,494 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 02:57 PM

I never said she did. I am talking about her job and her brass neck for claiming compensation.

If I was negligent in my job and it led to the death of a fellow worker I would be so sick that my precious career would be the last thing I cared about.

 

She was dismissed unfairly, and she has every right to take action.  It's not brass neck, it's looking out for herself and her family given that's she's now been effectively labelled as toxic and is at significant risk of not having the same earning capacity again.



#30 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,020 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 03:10 PM

Why should she she have the same earning capacity. She failed.  Still, give her  a few months and she'l be back on the gravy train.



#31 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 10,034 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 03:31 PM

One thing that should be remembered is that Sharon Shoesmith  was made Head of Children's  Services when she had never been a social worker. She had been a successful teacher and headteacher but got the social-responsibility post via an internal reorganisation programme at Haringey Council.

 

In those circumstances: -

 - perhaps it was no wonder that she didn't realise the full societal  risks faced by children like Baby P

 - perhaps she was not kept adequately informed of developments and fully supported by longstanding members of a Dept that she had been parachuted into. Maybe there was a degree of resentment.

 - perhaps she was a convenient scapegoat, compared to lower-profile, and unionised, social workers.

 

I don't know whether any of those factors are applicable but, let's face it, she's won her case.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#32 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,969 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 03:38 PM

She was dismissed unfairly, and she has every right to take action. It's not brass neck, it's looking out for herself and her family given that's she's now been effectively labelled as toxic and is at significant risk of not having the same earning capacity again.

It's brass neck. Why should she be entitled to earn big money when she clearly is incompetent? Can I have a job like that? I don't know what I am doing but hey, you try and sack me.. Let's not forget she wasn't overseeing the dustbin collection and some were missed. She was responsible and the buck stops with her...otherwise what is the point of paying such people?

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#33 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,809 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 03:40 PM

I don't know whether any of those factors are applicable but, let's face it, she's won her case.

As the law stands I'd have been surprised if she had to say anything at all during the court hearing.  It'd have been a very short hearing indeed.

 

Judge to council HR people:  Show me one bit of evidence that you followed the minimum legal standards for dismissing her.

Council HR people:  Well... that nice Mr Balls said it was OK.

Judge:  So, no evidence at all?

Council HR people:  Erm... no.

Judge:  Judgement for the plaintiff.

 

The law is fairly blunt when it comes to minimum standards and repercussions if you, as an employer, fail to follow them.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#34 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,969 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 03:42 PM

Why should she she have the same earning capacity. She failed. Still, give her a few months and she'l be back on the gravy train.

Exactly.

I am currently looking for a job and whatever it is I end up with, chances are it will be considerably lower than my previous job. That's tough, that's life - why on earth should bunglers like her be immune from it?

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#35 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,020 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 03:48 PM

Easy peasy; her contact of employment should have had a performance clause in ,it, a gross misconduct clause etc. Easy peasy ..instant dismissal with no notice and no payment in lieu. 

 

Why not? It happens to the poor bloody infantry. These people are more interested in feathering their own nest at the expense of the poverty-stricken minimum-wage earners.



#36 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,809 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 03:54 PM

Easy peasy; her contact of employment should have had a performance clause in ,it, a gross misconduct clause etc. Easy peasy ..instant dismissal with no notice and no payment in lieu. 

 

Why not? It happens to the poor bloody infantry. These people are more interested in feathering their own nest at the expense of the poverty-stricken minimum-wage earners.

I dismissed someone for gross misconduct when I was a councillor.  It took 5 months to do it properly once we'd exhausted all internal processes and appeals.  He left threatening to sue us for everything we had.  Beyond an initial disclosure letter from a "no win, no fee" solicitor that we complied with we heard nothing, our lawyer said it was because the documentation we provided showed there was clearly no case to answer and his solicitor wouldn't have signed off on a clearly loss-making suit.

 

That's all they needed to do against Shoesmith.  Make a case for gross misconduct and prove it.  If they couldn't then that's their problem and maybe questions would have been asked about where the real blame should lie and if it's really with just one person.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#37 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,094 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 03:57 PM

Exactly.

I am currently looking for a job and whatever it is I end up with, chances are it will be considerably lower than my previous job. That's tough, that's life - why on earth should bunglers like her be immune from it?

 

If the proper process had been followed in dismissing here she wouldn't be entitled to any compensation.  It's the political posturing and kneejerk reactions that are to blame.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#38 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,969 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 04:14 PM

If the proper process had been followed in dismissing here she wouldn't be entitled to any compensation.  It's the political posturing and kneejerk reactions that are to blame.

Call me green if you like but I wold expect anyone, anyone to be so upset and traumatised by such events happening under them that they would slink away into the background and not make a fuss about how badly they had been treated. Regardless of whether any technicalities were not followed. It's perhaps my fault for expecting people to have a conscience.


No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#39 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,020 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 04:25 PM

If the proper process had been followed in dismissing here she wouldn't be entitled to any compensation.  It's the political posturing and kneejerk reactions that are to blame.

 

No, its just one more example of how public sector employment contracts at that level are out of control compared with the real world. The technical phrases are  " they all urinate in the same pot"  and " you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." You need to keep up with Private Eye's rotten boroughs page.

 

The disgusting thing is that she will be back on the gravy train after spending her compo on a nice holiday.....at our expense, natch.


Edited by JohnM, 29 October 2013 - 04:26 PM.


#40 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,969 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 04:29 PM

Have they put in a clause, something like, if she somehow miraculously gets another job, and therefore is able to provide for herself, will she have  to give the money back as it clearly wasn't such a barrier to getting work?


No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users