Rob Callister

[buncha wankas]

14 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

That's exactly what you wouldn't expect an HR department to do.  In either private or public sector.  The purpose of HR departments is to make sure that the company is protected, not the employee.  That's why they are paid by the employer not the employees.  If you want someone to support you against the organisation, join a Union.

The clues in the name Human Resources.  People are seen as disposable, as resources always are.  At best HR departments just make soothing noises so the gullible don't all leave or strike.

Maybe in the private sector, but in Gov, it is the public who pay, and should be protected. 
HR is to protect the organisation and its reputation not the management.  This is where gov HR stuff up. 

[Catrisk]

13 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

I’ve no idea why you keep trying to change the narrative but no matter how many times you try to swing it around, your word against that of the presented evidence doesn’t make it true. 

I’m not changing any narrative at all I’m relaying what I have seen time and time again from people in government when confronted with people who don’t come from government in the workplace. The government definition of bullying is very far removed from what it is in the private sector. I strongly doubt this sort of fake HR process would have been invoked by any private sector business. Just because someone has been off sick for two weeks due to a workplace conversation doesn’t automatically mean they have been bullied anywhere else. In government it usually suggests that the person taking the time off is the bully trying to create problems for someone else. Or just fancied a few weeks off and decided to invent a reason to back it. 

[Jarndyce]

30 minutes ago, Catrisk said:

I strongly doubt this sort of fake HR process would have been invoked by any private sector business. Just because someone has been off sick for two weeks due to a workplace conversation doesn’t automatically mean they have been bullied anywhere else. In government it usually suggests that the person taking the time off is the bully trying to create problems for someone else. Or just fancied a few weeks off and decided to invent a reason to back it. 

In my (limited) experience, what you’re describing is a behaviour exhibited by a small cohort of middle management and higher.   Painting the whole Public Sector with this view is frankly insulting to hard-working frontline workers, who regularly work over their hours and do not fake something for an extra few weeks off.

Edited March 4, 2023 by Jarndyce
Grammar

[Catrisk]

25 minutes ago, Jarndyce said:

In my (limited) experience, what you’re describing is a behaviour exhibited by a small cohort of middle management and higher. 

In my (considerable) public sector experience you’re wrong. The MHKs need to start dealing with these workplace bullies not pander to them and assist them in undermining people. 

[Jarndyce]

58 minutes ago, Catrisk said:

In my (considerable) public sector experience you’re wrong.

Considerable, eh?  That’s me put firmly in my place!
 

Skin in the game, then, right enough.   Do you still work in the public sector?

Edited March 4, 2023 by Jarndyce
First line

[Jarndyce]

11 minutes ago, Catrisk said:

The MHKs need to start dealing with these workplace bullies not pander to them and assist them in undermining people. 

I actually agree with you on this - I just don’t believe the entire PS from top to bottom needs to be coloured by the actions of some.

[Boo Gay'n]

11 minutes ago, Catrisk said:

In my (considerable) public sector experience you’re wrong. The MHKs need to start dealing with these workplace bullies not pander to them and assist them in undermining people. 

Yes, the Clerk ofTynwald's office was reputed to be a toxic place during Roger the Dodger's time.

The politicians are meant to stay away from employment issues though, surely?

[Holte End]

7 minutes ago, Catrisk said:

In my (considerable) public sector experience you’re wrong. The MHKs need to start dealing with these workplace bullies not pander to them and assist them in undermining people. 

You seem to forget,  it was Mr Callister accusation of bullying that Mr Cannan had ignored while he was Minister, that has led to this investigation and report,  I sure he wouldn't have report himself for bullying, but then again he has voted for recommendations against his own motions in the past,

[HiVibes]

20 minutes ago, Jarndyce said:

Skin in the game, then, right enough.   Do you still work in the public sector?

You might try to pick off negative comments citing they have 'skin in the game'  but get real, it is a small island of 84,000 people, we all are entitled to raise concerns about the services we use and that government is properly run, it's our present and our future. (except old people obviously, they can fuck right off.)

Edited March 4, 2023 by HiVibes

[Catrisk]

22 minutes ago, Jarndyce said:

Skin in the game, then, right enough.

What does that even mean both you and Roxanne have said the same thing. What does it even mean. Skin in what game? 

[Jarndyce]

24 minutes ago, Catrisk said:

What does it even mean. Skin in what game? 

Well, since you stated that you have considerable public sector experience, I assume that your view has been formed or coloured by your own experiences within the system.   You may even have been bullied yourself which would be, of course, appalling.   Can’t speak for Rox but that’s what I meant.   But I suspect you knew that.

eta - and you’ve ignored the fact that I agreed with you about workplace bullying and not enough being done - why?   

Edited March 4, 2023 by Jarndyce
Eta

[Jarndyce]

32 minutes ago, HiVibes said:

You might try to pick off negative comments citing they have 'skin in the game'  but get real, it is a small island of 84,000 people, we all are entitled to raise concerns about the services we use and that government is properly run, it's our present and our future. (except old people obviously, they can fuck right off.)

That was almost credible - but you couldn’t resist adding that final line, could you?

[forestboy]

55 minutes ago, Jarndyce said:

That was almost credible - but you couldn’t resist adding that final line, could you?

He’ll be old one day if he is lucky and it’ll be interesting to hear his views on such people. 

[Gladys]

The problem is that if bullying or other inappropriate behaviours aren't dealt with, not only does it impact on personnel, it impacts on the service to the GMP and, potentially, how individual cases are dealt with.   In a bullying environment the priority is to protect the bullies and perpetuate the toxicity,  to hell with the recipients be they staff or the public.

People who are used to getting their own way are not actually going to behave consistently with a public service ethos.  They will also piss off staff and guess who will bear the brunt of that dissatisfaction? 

Silly example, but illustrative: so you have a department, let's say, Markwell House.  The manager is a twat to the counter staff, unsupportive,  dismissive, belittling and nit picky.  Someone comes in with an out of the ordinary query, how helpful will the counter staff be if they know if the query is referred upwards, the response will be belittling and unhelpful?  Let alone how they will behave when the end of their shift on the counter comes and there is still a queue, do they just slam up the closed sign? 

[Catrisk]

1 hour ago, Jarndyce said:

But I suspect you knew that.

I asked you a genuine question as your comment was ambiguous. So no please don’t suspect I knew anything. There’s no need to get so confrontational with someone who is just posting an opinion based on years of seeing similar things happen in similar circumstances. And I repeat in most cases I’ve seen it’s the staff who are the bullies and the private sector folk get drummed out quite quickly via similar behaviour and claims.